Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 17 - PA No. 2021-11 Lakeside Residental ProjectCity Council Agenda Report City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 www.lake-elsinore.org File Number: ID# 22-069 Agenda Date: 2/8/2022 Status: Approval FinalVersion: 1 File Type: Council Public Hearing In Control: City Council / Successor Agency Agenda Number: 17) Planning Application No. 2021-11 (Lakeside Residential Project) requesting to Develop 140-unit Gated Condominium Community on an approximately 34.81 Acre Site 1.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2021-02) (SCH NO. 2021110300) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-11 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021-04, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02); 2.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-11 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021-04, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP); 3.Introduce by title only and waive further reading of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021-04 ESTABLISHING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROVIDE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE UNDERLYING R-3 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APNS 379-060-005, 022 AND 027; 4.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF THE 34.81-ACRE SITE INTO NINE LOTS WITH ONE LOT FOR 140 DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS, ONE RESERVED OPEN SPACE LOT, ONE WATER QUALITY BASIN, TWO RECREATION LOTS, AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED AT APNS 379-060-005, 022 AND 027; and, 5.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02 PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGNS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR 140 CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 38116 LOCATED APNS 379-060-005, 022 AND 027. Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 2/3/2022 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Jason Simpson, City Manager Prepared by: Damaris Abraham, Acting Planning Manager Date: February 8, 2022 Subject: Planning Application No. 2021-11 (Lakeside Residential Project) requesting to develop 140-unit gated condominium community on an approximately 34.81-acre site Applicant: Shelly Jordan, Tri Pointe Homes Recommendation 1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2021-02) (SCH NO. 2021110300) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-11 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021-04, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02); 2. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-11 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021-04, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP); 3. Introduce by title only and waive further reading of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021- 04 ESTABLISHING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROVIDE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE UNDERLYING R-3 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APNS 379-060-005, 022 AND 027; 4. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF THE 34.81-ACRE SITE INTO NINE LOTS WITH ONE LOT FOR 140 DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS, ONE RESERVED OPEN SPACE LOT, ONE WATER QUALITY BASIN, TWO RECREATION LOTS, AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED AT APNS 379-060- 005, 022 AND 027; and, 5. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02 PROVIDING PA 2021-11 (Lakeside) CC: 02/08/2022 Page 2 of 7 BUILDING DESIGNS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR 140 CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 38116 LOCATED APNS 379-060-005, 022 AND 027. Planning Commission Action On January 18, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the project to the City Council with a 5-0 vote. The applicant attended the hearing. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Project Location The 34.81-acre project site is located along State Route 74 (SR-74) east of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue (APNs 379-060-005, 022, and 027). Environmental Setting EXISTING LAND USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Project Site Vacant High-Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation (R) High-Density Residential (HDR) and Recreational (R) North Mobile homes and Open Space High-Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation (R) High-Density Residential (HDR) and Recreational (R) South Single-Family Residential County of Riverside County of Riverside East Vacant High-Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation (R) High-Density Residential (HDR) and Recreational (R) West Condominiums Medium Density Residential - VLSP Village at Lakeshore Specific Plan (VLSP) Table 1: Environmental Setting Project Description The Lakeside Residential Project consists of applications for Zone Change No. 2021-04, a Tentative Tract Map No. 38116, and a Residential Design Review No. 2021-02, which collectively are being processed under Planning Application No. 2021-11. Zone Change No. 2021-04 proposes to establish a Planned Development Unit (PUD) overlay district for a portion of the subject property that is currently zoned High-Density Residential (R-3). The PUD overlay provides modified development regulations and standards for the underlying R- 3 zone to allow for flexibility to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan. Table 2 below provides proposed development standards for this PUD overlay. Development Feature R-3 Zoning Requirement Proposed PUD Modification Minimum lot area for lots over 8,400 square feet 1,815 square feet per unit 2,600 minimum Front setback 15 feet minimum 10 feet minimum Rear setbacks 10 feet 10 feet minimum Lot coverage 60% 31.4% building site coverage Building height 30 feet 28 feet Table 2: PUD Overlay Development Standards PA 2021-11 (Lakeside) CC: 02/08/2022 Page 3 of 7 The PUD also provides design guidelines for siting, building architecture, landscaping, and site maintenance. Tentative Tract Map No. 38116 is proposing to subdivide the 34.81-acre site into nine (9) lots. One (1) 10.94-acre lot for detached 140 condominium residences, one (1) 15.65 reserved open space lot, one (1) 1.39-acre water quality basin, two (2) recreation lots (0.77 acres), private streets (4.60 acres), and four (4) open space landscaping lots (0.65 acres). The project will be required to form a Home Owner’s Association (HOA) for the maintenance of common areas, private streets, and the detention basin. Table 3 below provides lot summary information: LAND USE LOT NO. ACREAGE Condominium Lots 1 (140 Units) 10.94 Preserved Open Space 2 15.65 Recreation Lots A and B 0.77 Water Quality/Detention Basin C 1.39 Open Space D, E, F and G 0.65 Streets (Private) 4.60 Grand Ave (ROW to be dedicated) 0.81 TOTAL: 34.81 Table 3: Tentative Tract Map 38116 Land Use Summary Residential Design Review No. 2021-02 proposes the design and construction of a gated condominium community with 140 detached two-story condominium units, preliminary plotting, conceptual wall and fence plan, recreation areas, and related amenities and infrastructure on the western portion of the site. The eastern 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as natural open space. Floor Plans The project proposes three (3) different detached condominium plans ranging in size from 1,793 sq. ft. to 2,288 sq. ft., as described below:  Plan 1: Two-story 1,793 square foot unit with 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, great room, dining room, kitchen, laundry, porch, entry, and a two-car garage.  Plan 2: Two-story 2,021 square foot unit with 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, loft, den (optional bedroom 4 and Bath 3), great room, dining room, kitchen, laundry, porch, entry, and a two- car garage.  Plan 3: Two-story 2,288 square foot unit with 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, loft (optional bedroom 5), optional den, great room, dining room, kitchen, laundry, porch, entry, and a two-car garage. Plan 1 will account for 47 units (33.5%), Plan 2 will account for 47 units (33.5%), and Plan 3 will account for 46 units (33%). Architecture and Treatments The proposed project would offer three architectural styles and treatments for each of the floor plans, including Spanish Colonial, Santa Barbara, and Craftsman. The following describes each of these architectural styles: PA 2021-11 (Lakeside) CC: 02/08/2022 Page 4 of 7  The Spanish Colonial Style includes concrete “S” tile roofs, decorative shutters, vertical windows with the wood window trim, and stucco siding and squared entries.  The Santa Barbara Architectural Style includes concrete “S” tile roofs, decorative shutters, vertical windows with wood trim, stucco siding and have a mixture of both squared and rounded entries.  The Craftsman Architectural Style includes concrete flat tile roofs, vertical windows with wooden trim, stucco siding, and squared entries. Spanish Colonial (Elevation A) will account for 47 units (33.5%), Santa Barbara (Elevation B) will account for 46 units (33%), and Craftsman (Elevation C) will account for 47 units (33.5%). In addition, enhanced architectural treatments will be provided on those elevations that are visible from public views along Grand Ave and on corner lots. Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan The project proposes a 6-foot-high concrete masonry wall to be constructed along the project site boundary with Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. Pedestrian and vehicular entry gates would be 6-foot-high metal rolling security gates. Residences would be separated by the rear and side yard minimum 6-foot-high vinyl fences. The project will also include an entry monument structure which is a replica of the Machado Adobe building previously located at the Project site. The monument structure will include historical information and will incorporate bricks saved from the Machado Adobe building. Landscaping Landscaping proposed as part of the project would consist of ornamental trees, vines, shrubs, and groundcovers throughout the common areas of the development, such as along roadways, common walls, water quality basin, and the recreation areas. In addition, street trees would be installed along the proposed sidewalks throughout the project site. The roadway entrance to the project site would have a landscaped median and decorative landscaping to enhance the entrance to the residential neighborhood. Recreation and Open Space The project includes the development of two recreation areas in the center of the project site. Recreation Lot A would be 0.44-acre and Recreation Lot B would be 0.33-acre. The recreation areas would include a grassy area/playfield, a tot lot, shade structure, pool, spa, restrooms, lounge chairs, BBQs, benches, and picnic benches. Each condominium unit will also have a fenced backyard that will serve as a private open space. In addition, the project includes 15.65 acres of land adjacent to the lake that would be preserved for natural open space. Site Access The project would develop two gated driveways to the project site from Grand Avenue/SR-74. A 78-foot-wide main driveway with a landscaped median would be located at Jamieson Street, at PA 2021-11 (Lakeside) CC: 02/08/2022 Page 5 of 7 the center of the site, and a secondary 26-foot-wide gated driveway would be located at the northwestern corner of the site. All proposed streets within TTM 38116 are private streets and will be maintained by the HOA. Street Improvements The project includes off-site improvements to provide half-width roadway improvements to Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. The project includes widening Riverside Drive / SR-74 to two lanes along the project frontage to meet the future roadway buildout of the General Plan and to construct a median to prohibit left-turns onto SR-74/ Riverside Drive from the project site and Jamieson Street. Left-turns to the project site and Jamieson Street would be provided from dedicated storage for eastbound and westbound left-turns. The project also includes the addition of a striped bike lane, streetlights, parkway landscaping, removal of the existing utility poles along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 fronting the project site, and undergrounding the dry utilities. Grading Construction activities include demolition of the existing structures, excavation, grading, and re- compaction of soils. Earthwork for the site is anticipated to require 25,800 cubic yards of cut, 82,000 cubic yards of fill, and 56,200 cubic yards of import. Analysis General Plan Consistency The project site has General Plan land use designations of High-Density Residential and Recreational. The High-Density Residential land use designation provides for residential densities between 19 and 24 units per net acre. The Recreation land use designation provides for public and private areas of permanent open space and allows for passive and/or active private and public recreation. The project includes 140 detached condominiums with a net density of 23 units per net acre. Thus, the project would not exceed the allowable High-Density Residential density of 24 dwelling units per acre. In addition, 15.65 acres of the project site, which is designated as Recreational would be preserved as open space adjacent to Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project is consistent with the residential and recreation General Plan land use designations for the site. Municipal Code Consistency The project site is zoned as High-Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation (R). The R-3 zoning designation allows for residential dwellings at densities of up to 24 dwellings to the net acre. The project includes 140 detached condominiums with a net density of 23 units per net acre. Thus, the project would not exceed the allowable R-3 density of up to 24 dwelling units per acre. In addition, 15.65 acres of the project site, which is zoned R would be preserved as open space adjacent to Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Municipal Code. PUD Overlay PA 2021-11 (Lakeside) CC: 02/08/2022 Page 6 of 7 The project includes the implementation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. Specifically, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.84.020.G, Permitted Uses of the R-3 zone, requires condominiums to comply with all provisions of Chapter 17.108, Planned Unit Development Overlay District. This project includes ZC 2021-04 (PUD Overlay) to establish a Planned Development Unit (PUD) overlay district for a portion of the subject property that is currently zoned High-Density Residential (R-3). The PUD overlay provides modified development regulations and standards for the underlying R-3 zone to allow for flexibility to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan. Table 2 above summarizes the proposed development standards for this PUD overlay. The PUD also provides design guidelines for siting, building architecture, landscaping, and site maintenance. The proposed project supports the findings in Section 17.108.060 of the LEMC. T he proposed project is consistent and compatible with the General Plan and provides an increase in housing opportunities within the City. The proposed Tentative Map and Residential Design Review applications are designed in compliance with the PUD Overlay. The Tentative Map also complies with Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) of the LEMC and the Subdivision Map Act. The Design Review Committee that includes staff from Planning, Building and Safety, Fire, and Engineering has reviewed the proposed project and has conditioned the project to ensure compliance with the approved specific plan and the related environmental document. The proposed plotting provides an appropriate mixture of plan and elevation types to ensure variety in the streetscape. AB 52 Tribal Consultations On June 30, 2021, the City provided written notification of the project per AB 52 to all of the Native American tribes that requested to receive such notification from the City. Staff received requests from Rincon, Pechanga, and Soboba Tribes within the 30 days, requesting to initiate a consultation. The consultation was concluded on September 9, 2021, with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians. Consultation is still ongoing with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. Mitigation measures have been added to address a concern over the potential for uncovering tribal cultural resources (TCRs) or other tribal‐affiliated resources during the construction of the project. Environmental Determination According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021- 02) was prepared for the project to assess potential environmental impacts. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH# 2021110300) was prepared and was made available for public review and comment for a 30-day review period from November 19, 2021, to December 20, 2021. The MND determined that the proposed Project would have potentially significant environmental impacts upon Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, and Geology and Soils. These impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance through compliance with the mitigation measures outlined in the MND. Notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the MND was published per the provisions of CEQA, and posted at the Office of the County Clerk of Riverside County and the State Clearinghouse on November 19, 2021, for a 30-day public comment period. PA 2021-11 (Lakeside) CC: 02/08/2022 Page 7 of 7 Five (5) comment letters regarding the MND were received during the 30-day public comment period from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (dated December 9, 2021), Riverside Transit Agency (dated December 1, 2021), Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (dated December 9, 2021), Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (dated December 16, 2021), and California Highway Patrol (dated December 22, 2021). Responses to comments were prepared and are provided in the attached Exhibit H. There were no public comments or changes to the text or analysis contained in the MND that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effects. Only clarifications were made to the MND in response to public comments. Therefore, per Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the MND is not warranted. MSHCP Consistency The project is consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project site is not located in a Criteria Cell and was not required to be processed through the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and Joint Project Review (JPR) processes. The project complies with all other applicable requirements of the MSHCP. Fiscal Impact The time and costs related to processing this application have been covered by application fees paid for by the applicant. No General Fund budgets have been allocated or used in the processing of this application. Exhibits A – CEQA Resolution A1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program B – MSHCP Resolution C – Zone Change (PUD Overlay) Resolution C1 – PUD Plan D – TTM Resolution E – RDR Resolution F – Conditions of Approval G – IS/MND H – Response to Comments I – Vicinity Map J – Aerial Map K – TTM 38116 L – Design Review Package RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2021-02) (SCH NO. 2021110300) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-11 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021-04, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02) Whereas, Shelly Jordan, Tri Pointe Homes has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2021-11 (Zone Change No. 2021- 04, Tentative Tract Map No. 38116, and Residential Design Review No. 2021-02). Zone Change (ZC) No. 2021-04 proposes to establish a Planned Development Unit (PUD) overlay district for portion of the subject property that is currently zoned High Density Residential (R-3). The PUD overlay provides modified development regulations and standards for the underlying R-3 zone to allow for flexibility in order to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38116 proposes to subdivide the 34.81-acre site into nine (9) lots. One (1) 10.94-acre lot for detached 140 condominium residences, one (1) 15.65 reserved open space lot, one (1) 1.39-acre water quality basin, two (2) recreation lots (0.77 acres), private streets (4.60 acres), and four (4) open space landscaping lots (0.65 acres). Residential Design Review (RDR) No. 2021-02 proposes the design and construction of a gated condominium community with 140 detached two-story condominium units, preliminary plotting, conceptual wall and fence plan, recreation areas, and related amenities and infrastructure on the western portion of the site. The project proposes three (3) different detached condominium plans ranging in size from 1,793 sq. ft. to 2,288 sq. ft. The eastern 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as natural open space. The project is located along State Route 74 (SR-74) east of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue (APNs 379-060-005, 022 and 027); and, Whereas, the project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: “CEQA”) and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: “CEQA Guidelines”) because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code Section 21065); and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021-02) and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project; and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, on November 19, 2021, the City duly issued a notice of intent to adopt the MND; and, Whereas, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the MND was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days beginning on November 19, 2021, and ending on December 20, 2021; and, CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 2 of 4 Whereas, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) for adopting MNDs; and, Whereas, the MND was sent to the Commission members on or about November 19, 2021 and considered by the Commission on January 18, 2022 at a duly noticed Public Hearing and, after consideration of evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties on the adequacy of the MND, and the Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Council adopt the MND for the project; and, Whereas, on February 8, 2022, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2: The Council has considered and evaluated all written and oral staff reports and comments received from persons who have reviewed the MND, the comments submitted on the MND; the responses to those comments, the public testimony, and such other matters as ar e reflected in the record of the public hearing on the project and the MND. Section 3: The Council hereby finds that the MND for the project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s procedures for implementation of CEQA. The Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND and finds that the MND represents the independent judgment of the City. Section 4: The Council further finds and determines that none of the circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation of the MND are present and that it would be appropriate to adopt the MND as proposed. Section 5: The Council hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates the following findings regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project and the analysis and conclusions set forth in the MND: 1. Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study was released for public review and mitigation measures set forth in the Initial Study would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the project, there is substantial evidence suggesting that all potential impacts to the environment resulting from the project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. All appropriate and feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the project design. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) contains an implementation program for each mitigation measure. After implementation of CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 3 of 4 the mitigation contained in the MMRP, potential environmental impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. 2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency including the initial study and any comments received, that the Project will have significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to the evidence received, including comment letters, and in the light of the whole record presented, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP. Section 6: Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the project, the Council hereby adopts the MND (ER 2021-02; SCH No. 2021110300) and the MMRP, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A1”, for Planning Application No. 2021-11 (Zone Change No. 2021-04, Tentative Tract Map No. 38116, and Residential Design Review No. 2021-02). Section 7: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 8: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 8th day of February, 2022. Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of February 8, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 4 of 4 Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 1 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist has been prepared for the Lakeside Residential Project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that applicable Plans, Programs, Policies, Conditions of Approval, and mitigation relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: (1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented, (2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure, and (3) retention of records in the Lakeside Residential project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the Program, but also allows the City of Lake Elsinore (City) flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented and generally involves the following steps:  The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate persons for verification of compliance.  Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures.  Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate.  Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures.  Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring complia nce may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review.  The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing project mitigation monitoring efforts.  Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, program redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigati on measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Air Quality PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. In construction plans and specifications Prior to issuance of a grading permit Engineering Department, Community Development Department – Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:  All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.  The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid - morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 mile s per hour or less. In construction plans and specifications Prior to issuance of a grading permit Engineering Department, Community Development Department – Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used. In construction plans and specifications Prior to issuance of a grading permit Engineering Department, Community Development Department – Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Tier 3. The project applicant, construction contractor, or their representative, shall verify, to the satisfaction of the City, that all off-road diesel construction equipment utilized during the site preparation and grading phases complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. In construction plans and specifications Prior to issuance of a grading permit Engineering Department, Community Development Department - Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Biological Resources PPP BIO-1: Tree Regulations. The trees shrubs and plants installed on public property shall conform to the regulations within Municipal Code Chapter 15.120. In construction plans and specifications Prior to issuance of permits building permits Community Development Department - Planning Division Date: ____________ PPP BIO-2: MSHCP Fees. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall pay the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) development mitigation fee in effect at the time the permits are issued. Receipt of fees paid Prior to issuance of a grading permit Community Development Department Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Least Bell’s Vireo. Construction specifications and permits shall include the following requirements to ensure that impacts to least Bell’s vireo and the associated habitat do not occur:  The project impact footprint, including any construction buffer, shall be staked and fenced (e.g., with orange snow fencing, silt fencing or a material that is clearly visible) and the boundary shall be confirmed by a qualified biological monitor prior to ground disturbance. The construction site manager shall ensure that the fencing is maintained for the duration of construction and that any required repairs are completed in a timely manner.  Equipment operators and construction crews shall be informed of the importance of the construction limits by the biological monitor prior to any ground disturbance.  Construction activities within 200-300 feet of the nearest extent of adjacent riparian habitat associated with Lake Elsinore shall be avoided from April 1st through August 31st.  For any vegetation clearing or work within 100 feet of riparian habitat associated with Lake Elsinore, a biologist shall monitor to ensure encroachment into the riparian habitat area does not occur.  Active construction areas shall be watered regularly (at least once every two hours) to control dust and thus minimize impacts on vegetation within and adjacent to Lake Elsinore.  Construction personnel shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the limits of disturbance and designated staging areas and routes of travel approved by the biological monitor. In construction plans and specifications Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit Qualified Biologist, Community Development Department – Planning Division Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed  Vegetation shall be covered while being transported, and vegetation materials removed from the site shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.  All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other toxic substances shall occur only in designated areas within the limits of disturbance and at least 200 feet from jurisdictional aquatic features. These designated areas shall be clearly marked and located in such a manner as to contain runoff and will be approved by the biological monitor.  To avoid attracting predators, the project site shall be kept clear of trash and debris. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Burrowing Owl Surveys. A pre-construction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the start of construction/ground-breaking activities, as ensured through grading permit approval. If no active burrows are detected, then no further action would be required. If an occupied burrow is detected during the burrowing owl breeding season (March 1 to August 31), a protective buffer of 500 feet shall be designated around the active burrow by a qualified biologist to avoid impacting a breeding owl. No work shall occur within 500 feet of the burrow unless a reduced buffer area is determined to be acceptable by the City of Lake Elsinore. If an occupied burrow is detected during the non-breeding season (September 1 to February 28), the burrowing owl may be passively excluded based on California Department of Fish and Wildlife-approved methods and the burrow can be excavated prior to construction. If ground -disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey will again be necessary to ensure that burrowing owls have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. Pre-construction Survey Prior to issuance of a grading permit Qualified Biologist, Community Development Department Planning Division Date: ____________ Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Jurisdictional Area. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for areas identified with jurisdictional features, the project applicant shall obtain regulatory permits from the RWQCB and CDFW. Through the permitting and subject to approval by the regulatory agencies, the ap plicant shall compensate for Project-specific impacts at a minimum 1:1 ratio subject to approval of the resource agencies, by purchase of 0.01 acre of re -establishment mitigation credits at an accredited mitigation bank located within the Santa Ana River watershed, such as the Riverpark Mitigation Bank. Prior to issuance of a grading permit Qualified Biologist, Community Development Department Planning Division Date: ____________ Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits that include vegetation and/or tree removal activities Pre-construction Survey Prior to issuance of a Qualified Biologist, Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed that will occur within the active breeding season for birds (March 1–September 15), the project applicant (or their Construction Contractor) shall retain a qualified biologist (meaning a professional biologist that is familiar with local birds and their nesting behaviors) to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The nesting survey shall include the project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could potentially be affected by project-related construction activities, such as noise, human activity, and dust, etc. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet (ft) of the designated construction area prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer around the active nests (e.g., as much as 500 ft for raptors and 300 ft for non-raptors [subject to the recommendations of the qualified biologist]), and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. grading permit Community Development Department Planning Division Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-1, Unanticipated Resources. The developer/permit holder or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed: 1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the significance of the find. 2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting. 3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. 4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a Assessment of Resources During excavation and grading Project Applicant /Developer, Construction Contractor, Project Archaeologist, Tribal Monitor, Engineering Department, Community Development Department Planning Division Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department that a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and certified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) that addresses the details of all activities that must be completed and procedures that must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this project. The CRMP document shall be created in coordination with the consulting tribe(s) and provided to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP provides direction as to how the project mitigation measures will be implemented. The CRMP requires that impacts on cultural resources will not occur without procedures in place, which would reduce any impacts to less than significant. These measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Archaeological Monitor: An adequate number of qualified monitors shall be present to ensure that all earth-moving activities are observed and shall be on-site during all grading activities for areas to be monitored including off -site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavati on, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor. Cultural Sensitivity Training: The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre -grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all Construction Personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training, and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the project site. A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report. Unanticipated Resources: In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archae ological and/or Tribal Monitoring Program Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during excavation and grading Project Applicant /Developer, Project Archaeologist, Tribal Monitor, Engineering Department, Community Development Department Planning Division Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation wi th the Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered, and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. Phase IV Report: A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department: 1. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. 2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity. Relocation shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic Disposition of Resources During excavation and grading Project Applicant /Developer, Construction Contractor, Project Archaeologist, Tribal Monitor, Engineering Department, Community Development Department Planning Division Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains, as they are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. 3. If relocation is not agreed upon by the Cons ulting Tribes then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources, ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and/or the Senate Bill (SB) 18 process (“Monit oring Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project’s approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the Monitoring Program Prior to issuance of a grading permit and excavation and grading Project Applicant /Developer, Tribal Monitor, Engineering Department, Community Development Department Planning Division Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning Department's requirements for such reports for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of any feature relocation or residue analysis required as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting. Project Records After construction Project Applicant /Developer, Project Archaeologist, Tribal Monitor, Community Development Department Planning Division Date: ____________ Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activi ties within 100 feet of the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commissions (NAHC; Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the most likely descendent (MLD) are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). Assessment, Treatment, and Disposition of Human Remains During excavation and grading Project Applicant /Developer, Construction Contractor, Project Archaeologist, Tribal Monitor, Riverside County Coroner, Community Development Department Planning Division Date: ____________ Mitigation Measure CUL-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is Non-Disclosure During and Project Applicant Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). of Resource Reburials after construction /Developer, Riverside County Coroner Energy PPP E-1. CalGreen Compliance. The project is required to comply with the CalGreen Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.32.010 to ensure efficient use of energy. CalGreen specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition of b uilding permit approval. Site design review Prior to issuance of a building permit Community Development Department Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ PPP E-2: Idling Regulations. The project is required to comply with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule 2485 (13 CCR, Chapter 10 Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel -Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Site design review Prior to issuance of a building permit Project Applicant /Developer, Community Development Department Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ Geology and Soils PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the project is required to demonstrate compliance with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Title 15 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of construction permit approval. Site design review Prior to issuance of a construction or building permit Project Applicant /Developer, Engineering Department, Community Development Department Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Measures. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the proposed project applicant/developer shall demonstrate compliance with the California Building Code in effect at the time of permitting as detailed in the recommendations of the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, the required structural setback from the Wildomar Fault, foundation Site design review Prior to issuance of a construction or building permit Project Applicant /Developer, Engineering Department, Community Development Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 11 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed specifications, and soils requirements. Department Building & Safety Division Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Paleontological Resources. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, evidence shall be provided to the City Planning Division that a qualified paleontologist has been retained. In the event that potential paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified paleontologist. Construction activities may continue in the other areas of the Project site. Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and Society for Vertebrate Paleontology professional standards. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils would be prepared and submitted to the City Planning Division. Paleontologist on-call documentation Prior to issuance of a grading permit Project Applicant /Developer, Construction Contractor, Community Development Department Planning Division Date: ____________ Hazards and Hazardous Materials PPP HAZ-1: Fire Code. The project shall conform to the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56, Fire Code. Specifically, Section 503 of the California Fire Code provides regulations related to emergency access. Site design review Prior to issuance of a building permit Project Applicant /Developer, Community Development Department Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ Hydrology and Water Quality PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall provide the City Building and Safety Department evidence of compliance with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. The project applicant/proponent shall comply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and Site design review Prior to issuance of a grading or demolition permit Project Applicant /Developer, Engineering Department Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed reporting plan for the construction site. PPP WQ-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to and approved by the City Building and Safety Department. The WQMP shall identify all Post -Construction, Site Design. Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters. Site design review Prior to issuance of a Building Permit Project Applicant /Developer, Engineering Department Date: ____________ Noise PPP N-1: Construction Hours. The project shall comply with Municipal Code Section 17.176.080, that prohibits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on weekend or on holidays. In construction plans and specifications, site inspection During all construction activities Project Applicant /Developer, Construction Contractor, Engineering Department, Community Development Department Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ Public Services and Recreation PPP PS-1: Schools Development Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of building permit, the project shall pay applicable development fees levied by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.407). Receipt of fee payment Prior to issuance of building permit Project Applicant /Developer, Community Development Department Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ PPP PS-2: Park Fees. As a condition of the approval of a tentative map, the project shall pay applicable park related fees pursuant to Municipal Code 19.12.170. Receipt of fee payment Condition of approval of the tentative map Project Applicant /Developer, Community Development Department Building & Safety Division Date: ____________ Transportation COA T-1: Prior to certificate of occupancies are granted, the project applicant shall Receipt of fee Prior to Project Applicant Date: ____________ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 13 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed provide a 24% fair share contribution toward implementation of traffic signal timing improvements along SR-74 to adjust cycle lengths along the project study area corridor (SR-74 between Jamieson Street and Lakeshore Drive) to improve the function of the roadway system with implementation of the proposed project. payment certificate of occupancies are granted /Developer, Engineering Department MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Lakeside Residential Project October 2021 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 This page intentionally left blank RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021- 11 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021-04, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, Shelly Jordan, Tri Pointe Homes has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2021-11 (Zone Change No. 2021- 04, Tentative Tract Map No. 38116, and Residential Design Review No. 2021-02). Zone Change (ZC) No. 2021-04 proposes to establish a Planned Development Unit (PUD) overlay district for portion of the subject property that is currently zoned High Density Residential (R-3). The PUD overlay provides modified development regulations and standards for the underlying R-3 zone to allow for flexibility in order to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38116 proposes to subdivide the 34.81-acre site into nine (9) lots. One (1) 10.94-acre lot for detached 140 condominium residences, one (1) 15.65 reserved open space lot, one (1) 1.39-acre water quality basin, two (2) recreation lots (0.77 acres), private streets (4.60 acres), and four (4) open space landscaping lots (0.65 acres). Residential Design Review (RDR) No. 2021-02 proposes the design and construction of a gated condominium community with 140 detached two-story condominium units, preliminary plotting, conceptual wall and fence plan, recreation areas, and related amenities and infrastructure on the western portion of the site. The project proposes three (3) different detached condominium plans ranging in size from 1,793 sq. ft. to 2,288 sq. ft. The eastern 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as natural open space. The project is located along State Route 74 (SR-74) east of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue (APNs 379-060-005, 022 and 027); and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the Joint Project Review (JPR) to analyze the scope of the proposed development and establish a building envelope that is consistent with the MSHCP criteria; and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP further requires that the City adopt consistency findings demonstrating that the proposed discretionary entitlement complies with the MSHCP Criteria Cell, and the MSHCP goals and objectives; and, Whereas, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.040 (Zoning Amendments), Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review), Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map), Section 17.410.070 (Approving Authority), and Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications) the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to zoning amendments, tentative maps, and design review applications; and, Whereas, on January 18, 2022, 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 by resolution recommended that the Council adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP; and, CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 2 of 5 Whereas, on February 8, 2022, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2: The Council has considered the project and the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. Section 3: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Council makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: 1. The Project is a project under the City’s MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. The project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell. Pursuant to the City’s MSHCP Resolution, the project is required to be reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with other “Plan Wide Requirements.” These include the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, § 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, § 6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, § 4). 2. The Project is subject to the City’s LEAP and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority’s (RCA) Joint Project Review (JPR) processes. As stated above, the project is not located within a Criteria Cell and therefore was not required to go through the LEAP and JPR processes. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP describes the process to protect species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. As defined in the MSHCP, riparian/riverine areas are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or depend on a nearby freshwater source or areas that contain a freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. These areas may support one or more species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depressions, typically have wetland indicators that represent all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology), and are defined based on vernal pool indicator plant species during the wetter portion of the growing CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 3 of 5 season but normally lack wetland indicators associated with vegetation and/or hydrology during the drier portion of the growing season. The Biological Technical Report, prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. dated October 27, 2021, describes that implementation of the project would result in a permanent impact to 0.01- acre and approximately ten linear feet of MSHCP riverine streambed along a concrete portion of the Hill Street Channel from construction of two outlet structures into the cement lined drainage channel. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to require purchase of 0.01 acre of re-establishment mitigation credits at an accredited mitigation bank located within the Santa Ana River watershed. As the project is avoiding all but 0.01 acre of MSHCP riverine resources (greater than 99 percent avoidance) and all riparian resources, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the project would be consistent with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2 regarding riparian/riverine areas. The Biological Technical Report details that the project would not impact habitat with the potential to support riparian birds or other species requiring additional surveys and procedures under MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2; however, due to the proximity of the project footprint to riparian habitat associated with Lake Elsinore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to provide protection for least Bell’s vireo. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed project would be consistent with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2 for riparian/riverine-associated species. The project site does not contain, and therefore will not impact, any MSHCP vernal pools. As such, the project is consistent with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2 as it pertains to vernal pools. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The project site is not located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas as shown on Figure 6-1 of the MSHCP. The project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in certain locations. Pursuant to MSHCP Figure 6-2 (Criteria Area Species Survey Area), Figure 6-3 (Amphibian Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6-5 (Mammal Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area), burrowing owl surveys are required for the subject property prior to approval of a development proposal. The property is not within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA), and CASSA surveys are not required. The property is not located within survey areas for amphibian species (MSHCP Figure 6-3), or mammal species (MSHCP Figure 6-5) and surveys for those species are not required. Although surveys completed for the Biological Technical Report did not identify burrowing owl, the species has a low to moderate potential to occur. As a mitigation measure for the proposed project, the City will require a pre-construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owl to be conducted within 30 days of the commencement of project-related grading or other land disturbance activities to ensure that the species has not moved onto the site since completion CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 4 of 5 of the surveys. The pre-construction survey should occur within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity. Owls located as a result of survey efforts will be relocated. If burrowing owl have colonized the project site or the offsite improvements area prior to the initiation of construction, the project proponent should immediately inform the City, RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, and coordinate on the potential need for preparation, review and approval of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to any ground disturbance. Therefore, the subject project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP. 6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. According to section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The project site is not near a conservation area. Therefore, the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are not applicable. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. There are no resources located on the project sites requiring mapping as set forth in MSHCP Section 6.3.1. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The MSHCP acknowledges that brush management to reduce fuel loads and protect urban uses and public health/safety shall occur where development is adjacent to conservation areas. The project is not located within or adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas. Since the project site is not immediately adjacent to a MSHCP Conservancy Area, the proposed project does not pose a risk of causing direct or indirect effects to MSHCP Conservancy Areas. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. The project will incorporate the BMPs outlined in Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP as part of the development. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. 9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. As a condition of approval, the project will be required to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits. 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 applicable MSHCP requirements. Section 4: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, the Council hereby finds that the project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 5 of 5 Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 8th day of February, 2022. Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of February 8, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 2022-__ AN ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021-04 ESTABLISHING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROVIDE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE UNDERLYING R-3 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APNS 379-060-005, 022 AND 027 Whereas, Shelly Jordan, Tri Pointe Homes has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2021-11 (Zone Change No. 2021- 04, Tentative Tract Map No. 38116, and Residential Design Review No. 2021-02). Zone Change (ZC) No. 2021-04 proposes to establish a Planned Development Unit (PUD) overlay district for portion of the subject property that is currently zoned High Density Residential (R-3). The PUD overlay provides modified development regulations and standards for the underlying R-3 zone to allow for flexibility in order to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38116 proposes to subdivide the 34.81-acre site into nine (9) lots. One (1) 10.94-acre lot for detached 140 condominium residences, one (1) 15.65 reserved open space lot, one (1) 1.39-acre water quality basin, two (2) recreation lots (0.77 acres), private streets (4.60 acres), and four (4) open space landscaping lots (0.65 acres). Residential Design Review (RDR) No. 2021-02 proposes the design and construction of a gated condominium community with 140 detached two-story condominium units, preliminary plotting, conceptual wall and fence plan, recreation areas, and related amenities and infrastructure on the western portion of the site. The project proposes three (3) different detached condominium plans ranging in size from 1,793 sq. ft. to 2,288 sq. ft. The eastern 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as natural open space. The project is located along State Route 74 (SR-74) east of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue (APNs 379-060-005, 022 and 027); and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021- 02), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the MND was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days beginning on November 19, 2021, and ending on December 20, 2021; and Whereas, on February 8, 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council (Council) by resolution adopted the MND (SCH No. 2021110300) for the Project and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, Whereas, ZC No. 2021-04 proposes to establish a Planned Development Unit (PUD) overlay district for portion of the subject property that is currently zoned High Density Residential (R-3); and, Whereas, Section 17.108.050.A of the (LEMC) requires PUD overlay district applications to be processed in the same manner as zoning amendments; and, Ord. No. 2022-___ Page 2 of 4 Whereas, Section 17.415.040 (Zoning Amendments) and Section 17.108.050 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) requires the Planning Commission (Commission) to review the proposed PUD plan identified in “Exhibit C1” and after examining the proposed PUD plan to make recommendations of its findings to the Council; and, Whereas, on January 18, 2022, 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 adopted a resolution recommending that the Council approve ZC No. 2021-04; and, Whereas, on February 8, 2022 at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2: The Council has reviewed and analyzed proposed ZC No. 2021-04, pursuant to the California Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code Sec 65000 et. seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP) and the LEMC and finds that ZC No. 2021-04 is consistent with the requirements of California Planning and Zoning Law and with the goals and policies of the GP and the LEMC. Section 3: That in accordance with LEMC Section 17.415.040.F. Findings, the Council makes the following findings regarding findings regarding ZC No. 2021-04: 1. The proposed amendment will not be (a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, (b) injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City a. The proposed Zone Change for the PUD Overlay has been analyzed relative to its potential to have detrimental effects and conditions have been imposed on the subject Project to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of surrounding residents will be protected. b. The development standards for PUD are generally the same as for the underlying High Density Residential (R-3) base zoning district. The modifications proposed with this PUD plan will allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan, such as providing an increase in housing opportunities for the community 2. The proposed amendment will be consistent with the latest General Plan. The project site is zoned as High Density Residential (R-3). The R-3 zone allows a density up to 24 dwelling units per net acre, which is consistent with the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation. The PUD overlay district is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in the development regulations and design standards of the underlying base district. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the General Plan and provides an increase in housing opportunities within the City. Ord. No. 2022-___ Page 3 of 4 Section 4: That in accordance with LEMC Section 17.108.060 Findings, the Council makes the following findings regarding ZC No. 2021-04: a. The proposed PUD plan can be substantially completed within four years. b. The proposed development is capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability, or adequate assurance will be provided that such objective will be attained. c. The proposed uses will not be substantially detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but will have a beneficial effect. d. The streets and thoroughfares serving the development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and the development will not generate traffic that will overload the adjacent street network. e. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. f. The PUD plan is in conformance with the General Plan. g. The mix of uses provides an increase in housing opportunities for the community and implements the objectives of the Housing Element of the General Plan. h. Any exception from the standards and requirements of this title is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated into the PUD plan. i. Existing and proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed uses. j. The PUD plan has complied with all applicable City requirements Section 5: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, the Council hereby approves Zone Change No. 2021-04 to establish a Planned Development Unit (PUD) overlay district attached hereto as Exhibit “C1”. Section 6: Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, sections, or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end each phrase, section, sentence, or word is declared to be severable. Section 7: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after the date of adoption. Section 8: Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause a synopsis of the same to be published according to law. Passed and Adopted on this _____day of __________, 2022. Ord. No. 2022-___ Page 4 of 4 ____________________________ Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2022-_____ was introduced at the Regular meeting of February 8, 2022, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore at its Regular meeting of ________, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I further certify that said Synopsis was published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Lake Elsinore, California on the _____day of __________, 2022, and on the ______day of _________, 2022. ____________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk LAKESIDE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) City of Lake Elsinore California Applicant/Architect: Tri Pointe Homes 1250 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 600 Corona, CA 92879 Phone: (951) 428-4400 Prepared by: Bassenian | Lagoni Architects 2031Orchard Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 553-9100 Contact: Hans Anderle FILE NUMBER: 023-21423 Landscape Architect: David Neault Associates, Inc. 41877 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 140 Temecula, CA 92590 (951)296-3430 Contact: Bryan Love Engineer/Planner: MDS Consulting 17320 Redhill Avenue, Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92614 (949)251-8821 Contact: Edward J. Lenth Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Table of Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1-1 1.1. Project Description .................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. Report Organization ................................................................................... 1-1 1.3. Scope .......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4. Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 1-2 1.4.1. Topography ................................................................................................. 1-2 1.4.2. Water and Sewer......................................................................................... 1-2 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN ......................................................................... 2-1 2.1. Land Use Plan ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1. Specific Design Intent .................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2. Land Use Plan ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2.1. Residential .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2.2. Open Space – Recreation ................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2.3. Open Space – Facilities ...................................................................... 2-1 2.2. Permitted Uses ........................................................................................... 2-3 2.3. Conditional Permitted Uses ...................................................................... 2-3 2.4. Accessory Uses ......................................................................................... 2-4 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ............................................................... 3-1 3.1. Regulations ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2. Circulation .................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3. Public Facilities .......................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1. Conceptual Water........................................................................................ 3-5 3.3.2. Conceptual Sewer ....................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.3. Conceptual Drainage ................................................................................... 3-5 3.4. Parking Requirements ............................................................................... 3-6 3.5. Signs ........................................................................................................... 3-6 3.6. Design Review ............................................................................................ 3-6 3.7. Acoustical Analysis ................................................................................... 3-6 3.8. Projections into required yards ................................................................ 3-7 3.9. Fences and Walls ....................................................................................... 3-7 3.9.1. Height. ......................................................................................................... 3-7 3.9.2. Materials. .................................................................................................... 3-7 Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Table of Contents ii 3.9.3. All walls ....................................................................................................... 3-7 3.9.4. Fencing Additional Requirements ................................................................ 3-8 3.10. Rear Treatment ........................................................................................... 3-8 3.11. Distances Between Structures .................................................................. 3-8 3.12. Mailboxes .................................................................................................... 3-8 3.13. Trash Storage Areas .................................................................................. 3-8 4. DESIGN STANDARDS ......................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1. Siting ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2. Architecture. ................................................................................................ 4-1 5. ARCHITECTURE GUIDELINES .............................................................. 5-1 6. LANDSCAPE DESIGN.......................................................................... 6-1 6.1. Landscaping. .............................................................................................. 6-1 6.2. Landscape Regulations ............................................................................. 6-1 7. SUBDIVISION DESIGN ......................................................................... 7-1 7.1. Maintenance ............................................................................................... 7-2 Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Table of Contents iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 – Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2.1 – Land Use Plan ................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 3.1 – Cross Sections ............................................................................................... 3-33 Figure 3.2 – Cross Sections ................................................................................................. 3-3 Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Table of Contents iv LIST OF TABLES Table 3—1 – Development Standards Table ....................................................................... 3-1 Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Table of Contents v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Db Decibels Du/ac Dwelling Units per Acre EVMWD Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District LEMC Lake Elsinore Municipal Code PUD Planned Unit Development SF Square Feet Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Introduction 1-1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Lakeside Planned Unit Development intent is to accommodate detached condominium residences in single-family structures. This land use area will be developed as a private residential community with one access point along Riverside Drive/Highway 74 and one access point along the eastern side of the project which connects to Grand Avenue/Highway 74. The private community will include internal streets and common open space with recreational amenities. This development, including the recreational facilities, will be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association. The Planned Unit Development will serve as a “blueprint” for development establishing the land use and the criteria for development of the land use as set forth herein. The Planned Unit Development establishes the development requirements and guidelines to be applied to each phase of development within the Planned Unit Development Area. 1.2. REPORT ORGANIZATION The PUD overlay district will be outlined according to the following chapters: 1. Introduction 2. Development Plan 3. Development Standards 4. Design Standards 5. Architectural Guidelines 6. Landscape Design 7. Subdivision Design The aforementioned chapters have associated subsections contained within that will be used to complete the PUD overlay district. The PUD will include the graphics intended to assist in demonstrating the refinement of planning detail: • Vicinity Map • Land Use Plan Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Introduction 1-2 1.3. SCOPE The Lakeside PUD shall be prepared under the authority granted to the City of Lake Elsinore as adopted by ordinance and amendments named The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). The LEMC 17.108 Planned Unit Development Overlay District shall govern the proceedings for the PUD overlay district and be followed and shown throughout this PUD. The application for PUD shall be accompanied by a zoning amendment request along with a PUD plan as per LEMC 17.108.050. Under the same guidelines, the PUD overlay district application and PUD plan shall be filed concurrently and will contain at least the specifics contained in LEMC 17.108.040 under Section B. The PUD shall be approved and adopted by ordinance through the City Council in conjunction with recommendations from the Planning Commission. Once the PUD overlay is completed, the designation shall appear on the official zoning map of the city shown with the PUD prefix. 1.4. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.4.1. Topography The site generally slopes northeasterly at approximately 2 percent through the proposed development. The elevation ranges from 1295 to 1265. The remainder of the site below elevation 1265 is considered jurisdictional and will remain open space sloping northeaster at 1 to 2 percent toward Lake Elsinore. The site is bounded along the southwesterly perimeter by Highway 74 and is bounded along the southeasterly perimeter by a Riverside County Flood Control Channel. A portion of the northeasterly perimeter is bounded by an existing mobile home development. 1.4.2. Water and Sewer The site is currently vacant and does not contain any water or sewer improvements. EVMWD maintained water and sewer does exist within Highway 74 along the site southwesterly perimeter. However, the water system adjacent the site is located within the District’s 1434 pressure zone which is insufficient to serve the site. Therefore, the project proposes water connection to existing 1601 pressure facilities located at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive. The project will also construct 1601 pressure facilities along the project frontage within Highway 74. Onsite facilities within the site will join frontage construction at the main project entrance at Jamieson Street and at the project secondary access at the northerly end of the site. The project also proposes sewer connection through the secondary access. However, due to the grade differential between lower onsite improvements and higher existing sewer, it will be necessary to construct approximately 800 feet of offsite sewer northeasterly to join existing. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Introduction 1-3 Figure 1.1 – Vicinity Map Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development 2-1 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2.1. LAND USE PLAN The project is currently vacant undeveloped land with an existing zoning of R-3 High Density Residential. The proposed zoning shall remain R-3 High Density Residential. The existing land use is high density residential. The proposed land is high density residential with a PUD overlay. The land use and the surrounding designations are shown on Figure 2.1 – Land Use Plan. The project is bounded by streets to the west being Riverside Drive and to the south being Grand Avenue. The project abuts preserved natural open space to the north, a flood control channel and vacant land to the east, commercial to the south, and existing single-family homes to the west. 2.1.1. Specific Design Intent The PUD overlay is for single family residential housing with neighborhood amenities. The overall intent of the community is to have smaller lot sizes with larger houses in order to decrease the maintenance factor of homeownership. The overall site has one primary means of gated ingress/egress at Grand Avenue and Jamieson Street. There is also a secondary emergency access at the northerly end of the site connecting to Riverside Drive. The proposed development presents a series of centrally located open space amenities that are visible from the primary entrance. The site circulation network consists of looping blocks that run the length of the site and a series of clustered lots along the north edge. A sidewalk network throughout connects all of the homes with the amenity spaces. 2.1.2. Land Use Plan 2.1.2.1. Residential The PUD overlay district shall incorporate detached single-family homes within the shown boundaries. The lot sizes shall be slightly smaller than the neighboring communities, but the dwelling sizes shall be consistent with the surrounding locales. There are 140 homes with a net project density of approximately 23.33 DU/ac. 2.1.2.2. Open Space – Recreation A discerning feature for the PUD overlay will be the recreational areas within the community such as the swimming pool and spa, BBQ area, open play area, and a tot lot with a prefabricated shade structure. These secluded private areas would be for the benefit of the residents within the gated community. All of the services shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the Home Owner’s Association within the CC&Rs and as part of the maintenance of the PUD within section 7.1 Maintenance. 2.1.2.3. Open Space – Facilities The PUD shall contain areas for WQMP which will utilize grassland or other planting mechanism to cover the bioretention basins. These basins will control the vast flow of water and maintain the quality of the water before being conveyed into the storm water infrastructure. The facilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the Home Owner’s Association within the CC&Rs and as part of the maintenance of the PUD within section 7.1 Maintenance. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development 2-2 Figure 2.1 – Land Use Plan Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development 2-3 2.2. PERMITTED USES Permittable uses within the gated community shall be in line with those allowable by LEMC 17.84 for R-3 residential except for those stricken and noted to be unpermitted. Those permittable uses per LEMC 17.84.020 include: A. Multiple-family dwellings. B. Accessory uses and structures pursuant to LEMC 17.84.040. C. Government buildings and service facilities. D. Public parks and/or playgrounds. E. Public utility distribution and transmission facilities excluding private radio, television, and paging antennas and towers. F. Large and small family day care and residential care facilities pursuant to LEMC 17.415.130. G. Condominiums subject to compliance with all provisions of Chapter 17.108 LEMC. H. Single-family uses when they comply with all requirements of Chapter 17.76 LEMC. I. Community centers and recreation buildings located on a site at least one acre in size. J. Preschools, elementary, middle, junior high and high schools located on a site at least one acre in size. K. Places of religious assembly or institution located on a site at least one acre in size. L. Supportive housing. M. Transitional housing. [Ord. 1415 § 3; (Exh. F §§ 35 – 37); Ord. 1309 § 4 (Exh. A), 2013; Ord. 1259 § 9, 2009; Ord. 1086 § 13, 2002; Ord. 772 § 17.28.020, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.28.020]. 2.3. CONDITIONAL PERMITTED USES The conditional uses within Lakeside shall be in line with those allowable by LEMC 17.84 for R- 3 residential except for those stricken and noted to be unpermitted. Those conditionally permittable uses as per LEMC 17.84.030 include: A. Churches located on a site less than one acre in size. B. Commercial child day care centers. C. Reserved. D. Convalescent homes, retirement homes, rest homes, sanitariums, and similar congregate care facilities. E. Horticultural uses, including growing of fruit, nuts, vegetables, and ornamental plants for commercial purposes. F. Reserved. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development 2-4 G. Keeping of exotic animals on the same lot as a permitted dwelling for pets only and not for commercial purposes. The Planning Commission shall impose adequate limitations to assure that the residential character of the property and neighborhood is maintained. H. Private, noncommercial clubs and lodges. I. Permitted primary structures which exceed the height limitation specified in LEMC 17.84.100. J. Tennis clubs and swimming clubs. [Ord. 1415 § 3 (Exh. F §§ 38 – 40), 2019; Ord. 1086 § 14, 2002; Ord. 772 § 17.28.030, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.28.030]. 2.4. ACCESSORY USES The accessory uses within Lakeside shall be in line with those allowable by LEMC 17.76 for R-1 residential except for those stricken and noted to be unpermitted. Those conditionally permittable uses as per LEMC 17.76.030 include: A. Uses. 1. Home occupations; subject to the completion and approval of an application for a home occupation issued by the Planning Department and compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.48 LEMC. 2. Noncommercial hobbies. 3. Keeping of household pets (when no commercial activity is involved). For the purpose of this chapter, a household pet is an animal clearly considered customary to a residential use, e.g., dogs, cats, birds, and fish. Said pets shall be limited to a maximum of three weaned dogs and/or cats. The maximum number of birds and fish shall be as specified by the City’s adopted animal control ordinance. B. Structures 1. Antennas, satellite dishes, and similar devices utilized for noncommercial purpose, unless preempted by State or Federal law. 2. Carports and garages. 3. Community recreation buildings and facilities for use by the residents of a permitted development. 4. Equipment storage structures not exceeding 400 square feet. 5. Lattice patio covers, and gazebos. 6. Rental offices and management offices; only when they serve the project on which property they are located. 7. Special use rooms such as laundry rooms and pool dressing rooms. 8. Swimming pools, Jacuzzis, spas, and associated equipment (provided said equipment is enclosed to reduce noise impacts). Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Development Standards 3-1 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Quality residential subdivisions function as compact neighborhoods, encourage local social interaction, promote walking and healthful activities, and incorporate Best Management Practices in sustainable development planning. This section provides development standards for the planning and design of homes to accomplish these goals and provide for a visually appealing, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood environment. 3.1. REGULATIONS The development criteria are provided in the table, “Development Standards Table,” which addresses building unit areas, setbacks, lot coverage, building height and minimum dwelling unit size, and the placement of residential building area within the community. Table 3-1 – Development Standards Table Lot Area 2,600 s.f. unit area Lot Width 40 feet min. unit width Setbacks Front 10 feet minimum Side – Internal 4 feet minimum Side - External 10 feet Rear 10 feet Rear – Acc. Str. n/a Lot Coverage 60% Building Height 28 feet maximum Minimum Dwelling Unit Size 1,793 s.f. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Development Standards 3-2 3.2. CIRCULATION The main transportation corridor to the project is Highway 74 located along the project southwesterly perimeter. The project proposes widening the project frontage to accommodate a future 6-lane divided major arterial highway. The project will provide two through lanes and a bike lane adjacent the site until such time as the ultimate widening is completed. The main entry to the site will be located at Jamieson Street. A gated and divided entry is proposed at this location. This entry is proposed right in and a right out with U-turn proposed at Highway 74 and Grand Avenue to facilitate south bound traffic. Secondary emergency access is proposed at the northerly end of the site connecting to Riverside Drive. . Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Development Standards 3-3 Figure 3.1 – Cross Sections Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Development Standards 3-4 Figure 3.2 – Cross Sections Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Development Standards 3-5 3.3. PUBLIC FACILITIES Public facilities are serviced and maintained by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). EVMWD maintained facilities include water, sewer and recycled water. However, recycled water is not available to the site and is not included within this PUD. 3.3.1. Conceptual Water The applicant has met with EVMWD and has received service requirement to construct an 8” water line fronting the site along Highway 74 and joining the 1601 pressure zone at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive. An 8” water line will be constructed onsite which will join frontage construction at the main project entrance at Jamieson Street and at the project secondary access at the northerly end of the site. The water system will be designed and constructed per EVMWD standards. As part of the PUD, a detailed water system study shall accompany the Tentative Tract Map. This study shall be submitted separately and shall be approved by EVMWD and the City of Lake Elsinore. 3.3.2. Conceptual Sewer The applicant has met with EVMWD and has received direction that a gravity sewer in Highway 74 is preferred over a sewer lift station which was initially proposed for the site. As such the project proposes 8” sewer line onsite discharging to an existing EVMWD 10” sewer line in Highway 74. Due to the grade differential between lower onsite improvements and higher existing sewer, it will be necessary to construct approximately 800 feet of offsite sewer northeasterly to join existing. The sewer system will be designed and constructed per EVMWD standards. As part of the PUD, a detailed sewer system study shall accompany the Tentative Tract Map. This study shall be submitted separately and shall be approved by EVMWD and the City of Lake Elsinore. 3.3.3. Conceptual Drainage The proposed drainage system will honor historic drainage patterns and convey runoff in a northeasterly direction toward Lake Elsinore. The onsite drainage system will consist of surface flows within street sections as well as catch basin inlets storm drain pipes and a water quality / detention basin. Flows tributary to the basin will be treated and detained for the 2-year 24 hour storm in conformance with Regional Water Quality Control Board and requirements and City of Lake Elsinore Water Quality Ordinance Municipal Code. Flows discharging from the basin will be conveyed by storm drain pipe to an existing Riverside County Flood Control Channel which then discharges to Lake Elsinore. All drainage facilities will be designed for the 100 year storm event in conformance with City of Lake Elsinore and Riverside County Flood Control standards. As part of the PUD, a preliminary Hydrology /Hydraulic study and WQMP shall accompany the Tentative Tract Map. These studies shall be submitted separately and shall be approved by the City of Lake Elsinore to ensure that onsite systems have been adequately sized and that systems comply with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and requirements and City of Lake Elsinore Water Quality Ordinance Municipal Code. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Development Standards 3-6 3.4. PARKING REQUIREMENTS The provisions within Chapter 17.148 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code shall be used to determine the required parking for development in the Lakeside project. The project proposes two garage spaces and two driveway spaces per unit plus additional on-street parking provided by the proposed 36’-wide curb-to-curb dimension. 3.5. SIGNS The provisions of LEMC Chapter 17.196 shall be used to determine permitted signs in the HDR and Recreational districts. 3.6. DESIGN REVIEW No building permits shall be issued for the construction of any building or structure in the R-3 district until the applicant has obtained design review approval pursuant to the provisions of LEMC 17.415.050 and 17.415.060. The following exemptions shall apply: 1. Additions or alterations to an existing structure which do not change the use from one permitted in the district and which do not increase the floor area by more than 50 percent. 2. Groups I, II, and IV accessory structures. 3. Fences and walls. Although the above exempted structures do not need formal design review approval, their proposed location and design must be approved by the Director of Community Development or his designee prior to construction or installation. 3.7. ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS Acoustical Analysis shown as per LEMC 17.44.050. Within all residential structures, noise levels from exterior sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed an interior CNEL level of 45 dBA with windows closed. To ensure that this standard is complied with, the following requirements shall apply: 1. For projects consisting of four or more single-family dwellings or any number of multiple-family dwellings, proposed to be located in an area where the noise level from any source has the potential to exceed a CNEL of 65 dBA, an acoustical analysis, including on-site monitoring prior to building final, shall be performed by an engineer specializing in acoustics Based on the Lakeside Neighborhood Noise Impact Analysis (NIA), prepared by Urban Crossroads, October 7, 2021, the future exterior noise levels at the lots adjacent to riverside Drive and Grand Avenue will range from 52.5 to 69.6 dBA CNEL. The NIA shows that future noise levels will comply with the normally acceptable standard of 70 dBA CNEL for residential land uses. 2. For projects consisting of four or more single-family dwellings or any number of multiple-family dwellings, proposed to be located in an area where the noise level from any source has the potential to exceed a CNEL of between 55 and 65 dBA, the developer shall provide verification on the structural drawings for building permit, by Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Development Standards 3-7 an engineer specializing in acoustics, that the buildings will comply with the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level requirement. Based on the NIA, future unmitigated noise levels at the first-floor building façade are expected to range from 59.9 to 62.2 dBA CNEL. The first-floor interior noise level analysis shows that the 45 dBA CNEL with windows-closed interior noise standards can be satisfied using windows with a minimum STC rating of 27 for units adjacent to Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue, based on the minimum interior noise reduction for standard construction. Furthermore, the future unmitigated noise levels at the second-floor building façade are expected to range from 58.7 to 69.3 dBA CNEL. The second-floor interior noise level analysis shows that the 45 dBA CNEL with windows closed interior noise standards can be satisfied using standard windows with a minimum STC rating of 27 for units adjacent to Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue. 3. For any project where residents may be subjected to an intermittent single event noise source which, through irregular in occurrence, may cause an interior noise level of greater than 45 dBA and therefore prove to be a nuisance, the Planning Commission, pursuant to design review approval, may require the mitigation measures contained in either subsection (A) or (B) of this section. Based on the noise survey conducted as part of the NIA, no intermittent single event noise source was detected. 3.8. PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED YARDS Projections into required yards as per LEMC 17.44.070. 3.9. FENCES AND WALLS Fences and walls shown as per LEMC 17.44.080. 3.9.1. Height. The required height of all side and rear property line fences or walls shall be a minimum of six feet. However, along a major arterial the Planning Commission, pursuant to design review approval, may require a minimum fence or wall height of eight feet. 3.9.2. Materials. All tract perimeter walls and/or any wall adjacent to any principal street identified in the General Plan Circulation Element shall be constructed of decorative masonry block unless otherwise approved by the Design Review Board. However, nothing contained within this section is intended to preclude the Planning Commission from requiring similar walls under other circumstances. 3.9.3. All walls All walls in excess of eight feet in total height shall require specific approval of the Planning Commission. [Ord. 853 § 1, 1989; Ord. 772 § 17.14.080, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.14.080]. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Development Standards 3-8 3.9.4. Fencing Additional Requirements The following is a partial list of fencing requirements shown within LEMC 17.44.130 (items not shown have been stricken from the PUD) while others have been mandated by the City of Lake Elsinore: 1. Tubular Steel fencing or combination block and tubular steel fencing may be utilized in place of the fences required above to preserve views or provide greater openness. 2. Provide decorative perimeter fencing (i.e., masonry) at tract edges and adjacent to streets. Tubular Steel fencing may be used where ad jacent to Open Space Zoning or where views are preserved. 3. Decorative masonry fencing adjacent to the public right-of-way should incorporate a decorative pilaster at every corner and wall terminus. 4. Retaining walls exposed to public view to be decorative m asonry. 5. Wood fencing shall not be allowed. 6. Vinyl Fencing shall be used between lots at side and rear yards, when not in direct view of public. Vinyl Fence color shall be white or beige. 7. Side Yard Gates shall be Vinyl, to match vinyl fence in rear yards. 8. Slope fencing alongside property lines may be tubular steel or combination tubular steel and masonry to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 9. Provide minimum 3-foot setback between fencing on corner side yards and sidewalk. 3.10. REAR TREATMENT Rear treatment shown as per LEMC 17.44.090. All elevations that face a right of way have been enhanced with the use of window trim, window breakups, and shutters all appropriate to each style designed. 3.11. DISTANCES BETWEEN STRUCTURES Distances between structures shown as per LEMC 17.44.100. There are no additional structures designed on the site, only one home per lot. 3.12. MAILBOXES Mailboxes shown as per LEMC 17.44.110. Homeowner mailboxes shall be provided in a clustered manner. The area for the mailboxes should be of sufficient size to enable residents to pick up or deposit mail without having to encroach upon landscaping, walks, or parking. 3.13. TRASH STORAGE AREAS Trash storage areas shown as per LEMC 17.44.120. The City of Lake Elsinore stipulates single family dwellings shall provide a concrete pad area (3’-0” x 7’-0”) adjacent to dwelling and screened form public view for the storage of city trash barrels. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Design Standards 4-1 4. DESIGN STANDARDS The purpose of the design standards is to outline the essential techniques needed for the PUD overlay district. The area within the PUD overlay district shall assimilate sound site planning methods, justly described architecture, and utilize striking landscape architecture throughout the community. The design standards shown are part of the LEMC 17.44.130 for single-family detached. 4.1.1. Siting Detached single-family dwellings should be designed and sited to conform to the natural terrain as much as possible and to take advantage of views. Houses should be located on their lots so as to create interest and varying vistas as a person moves along the street. Where applicable, care should be exercised that no house is located in such a manner to create an objectionable overview which invades the privacy of an adjoining unit. 4.1.2. Architecture. Style. The architectural themes include appropriate variations honoring the local region with specific styles. Spanish Colonial, Santa Barbara, and Craftsman provide variety but are within an acceptable range of styles to work harmoniously as one community. Colors and Materials. There are changes in color and material indicative of each architectural style and they all complement each other so it does not detract from the character of the street as a whole (see style above). Roofing. The roofing material used are different for each style and are a minimum Class “A” fire rating, all resulting in a consistent character for the street. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Architecture Guidelines 5-1 5. ARCHITECTURE GUIDELINES The architecture guidelines will create visually appealing aesthetics and character to the neighborhood. These guidelines will help in fashioning different compatible and unique styles. The intent is to produce visually attractive dwellings with character and charisma. Avoid excessive repetition of single-family homes with near identical floorplans and elevations. Vary floorplans and elevations as follows: 1. Three unique floor plans combined with three distinct elevation styles ensures variety, and the theme of each style is reflected on all sides of the home. Additionally, homes visible to the public have appropriate detailing enhancements added to that side of the home. The styles represented in this community are Spanish Colonial, Santa Barbara, and Craftsman. 2. Architectural treatment consistent with each architectural style is reflected on all sides of the home. For example, specific window and sill trim and color on the front of one style is designed on the sides visible to the public. Consider compatibility with surrounding architectural character, including harmonious building style, form, height, size, color, material, and roof line. 3. The expression of each home is evident in the corresponding material, roof line, roof material, window detailing, and colors that define the style, ensuring a consistent level of design quality. Furthermore, the roof massing is consistent with each style represented; for example, one story massing and a hipped roof is expressed on two of the three homes providing a softer roof silhouette. 4. For architectural enhancements visible to public view, specific window and sill trim, color, and shutters per style are provided. 5. Roofs of rear elevations vary per plan to provide a varied streetscape on perimeter streets. 6. The design of each exterior of each home is designed to ensure the same level of design quality with detailing appropriate to each style. 7. All windows on side and rear elevations that are visible from the public right of way are designed with window trim, color, breakups, and shutters specific to each architectural style. 8. The architectural styles designed are compatible with each other to ensure a cohesive and well-balanced community. 9. The colors chosen for each home are appropriate and timeless and are consistent with each style designed. 10. Only 2 car garages are designed on this project. The lot size does not permit a 3-car garage. 11. One story massing is provided on two of the three entries and can be plotted on corner lots as often as possible as determined by the builder. 12. Roof overhangs and single-story elements are designed as appropriate to each architectural style. 13. Elevation and color plotting will ensure that there will be no repeating schemes. 14. Roof lines are designed appropriate to the mass to provide consistent composition. 15. The site is relatively flat and does not have topography. 16. Stone is not designed on the homes in this community. 17. Chimney stacks are not designed on the homes in this community. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Landscape Design 6-1 6. LANDSCAPE DESIGN The PUD overlay district Landscape Design shall compliment the architecture of the area and beautify the visual façade of the dwellings and roadways. These written guidelines shall establish landscape criteria for ingresses, plant palette, and lighting to establish a coalescing look for the neighborhood. The landscape features will also be employed throughout the community. The landscaping shall thoroughly enhance the recreational expanses, the adjoining the ingresses/egresses of the gated community, as well as the parkways within the neighborhood. 6.1. LANDSCAPING. Landscaping as part of the LEMC 17.44.060. All common areas, open space areas, open space facilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by a Home owner’s associated (including maintenance herein as 7.1 Maintenance) as part of the CC&Rs agreements set forth with approval and recordation with the City of Lake Elsinore. 6.2. LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS 1. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and irrigated with an automatic irrigation system. 2. Landscaping display renderings for future projects (Landscaping Concept Plans) should illustrate a five (5) year growth. 3. All slopes in excess of 3 feet in height within the subject tract and in private lots shall have permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation. 4. Select plant materials for their suitability to the environment and compatibility with water conservation. Landscaping shall meet Local and State water use requirements. 5. Selected plant material must be found within the County of Riverside California Friendly Plant List 6. Select plants of appropriate size at maturity for their intended use to minimize maintenance or replacement when the plant outgrows available space. 7. Avoid plants that have messy fruit/seed/flower drop or brittle branches near paving as they are a potential safety hazard and a long-term maintenance liability. 8. Locate plant materials in response to architectural design and site planning. Plants can be used to keynote entries, contrast with, or reinforce building lines and volumes, and soften the hard lines or blank wall expanses of architecture. 9. Group plants according to their watering needs per State and Local water conservation requirements. 10. Simple plant palettes are preferred over complex schemes. 11. Maintain adequate sight lines for motorists at intersections and driveways. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Landscape Design 6-2 12. Trees should be planted to achieve a continuity of form. General guidelines for the use of landscaping to achieve this continuity include: i. Using the same tree form (i.e., columnar or round headed) along streets of the same type to reinforce the hierarchy of street types. ii. Planting trees in similar patterns on streets of the same type. iii. Using the same species for the entire length of a street or throughout an entire area. iv. Use low maintenance plant materials on corner side yards that will be privately maintained. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Subdivision Design 7-1 7. SUBDIVISION DESIGN 1. The Lakeside project proposes a primary ingress and egress from Grand Avenue (State Highway 74) and an emergency secondary ingress and egress from Grand Avenue (State Highway 74). 2. To promote vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, each proposed street connects, eliminating dead-end cul-de-sacs. 3. Where possible, the Lakeside project proposes curvilinear street design to reduce the grid pattern design. 4. The Lakeside project proposes all straight-street design sections to be less than 800’ in length. 5. The Lakeside local street section shall be 45’, with a 36’ pavement/travel width and 4.5’ curb adjacent sidewalks. All proposed street cente rline radii, other than at knuckles, shall be a minimum of 300’. The minimum street intersection spacing shall be 150’. 6. All proposed corner lots shall be an additional 5’ in width, with a 10’ total side yard setback. 7. Where possible, the Lakeside project designed street pattern reflects the adjacent residential street design. 8. No flag, key, or lots that side on to the rear of other lots are proposed within the Lakeside project. 9. The Lakeside project is proposing a detached condo unit, thus eliminating the rear and side yard lot lines. Lot lines located on the tract boundary adjacent to the residential units are located at the top of slope. 10. Where street intersections are located on the inside of curves, adequate sight distance is provided based on the City Design Standard No. 125. 11. Where possible, side lot lines shall be at approximately right angle to the adjoining street right-of-way. 12. The Lakeside project shall not have double-frontage lots. 13. All proposed in-tract streets are residential local; no collector or larger streets are proposed. 14. All proposed in-tract street intersections shall be designed at “T” intersections to discourage excessive speeds. 15. The Lakeside project shall not have any dead-end streets. 16. Where possible, street intersections and knuckles shall b e designed perpendicular and radial on curves. 17. The proposed maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 600’. 18. The minimum street intersection offset spacing shall be 150’. 19. The proposed primary entrance street is aligned with an existing intersecting street on Grand Avenue (State Highway 74). 20. All proposed residential blocks shall not be less than 250’ except for alley load units. Lakeside Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Subdivision Design 7-2 7.1. MAINTENANCE The efficacious operation of maintenance and upkeep of the PUD neighborhood will be a vital role in the long-term success of the development. Maintenance of private/pseudo-public open space and recreational facilities, private infrastructures, shared landscape areas will be the obligation of the residential associations established within the PUD area. Maintenance and upkeep of the amenities and open space areas must comply with the Master Association Code, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that oversee the site. The associations shall be accountable for the private roadways, open space areas, signing, landscape, irrigation, common spaces, storm drains, retention basins and other responsibilities as specified. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF THE 34.81-ACRE SITE INTO NINE LOTS WITH ONE LOT FOR 140 DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS, ONE RESERVED OPEN SPACE LOT, ONE WATER QUALITY BASIN, TWO RECREATION LOTS, AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED AT APNS 379-060-005, 022 AND 027 Whereas, Shelly Jordan, Tri Pointe Homes has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2021-11 (Zone Change No. 2021- 04, Tentative Tract Map No. 38116, and Residential Design Review No. 2021-02). Zone Change (ZC) No. 2021-04 proposes to establish a Planned Development Unit (PUD) overlay district for portion of the subject property that is currently zoned High Density Residential (R-3). The PUD overlay provides modified development regulations and standards for the underlying R-3 zone to allow for flexibility in order to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38116 proposes to subdivide the 34.81-acre site into nine (9) lots. One (1) 10.94-acre lot for detached 140 condominium residences, one (1) 15.65 reserved open space lot, one (1) 1.39-acre water quality basin, two (2) recreation lots (0.77 acres), private streets (4.60 acres), and four (4) open space landscaping lots (0.65 acres). Residential Design Review (RDR) No. 2021-02 proposes the design and construction of a gated condominium community with 140 detached two-story condominium units, preliminary plotting, conceptual wall and fence plan, recreation areas, and related amenities and infrastructure on the western portion of the site. The project proposes three (3) different detached condominium plans ranging in size from 1,793 sq. ft. to 2,288 sq. ft. The eastern 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as natural open space. The project is located along State Route 74 (SR-74) east of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue (APNs 379-060-005, 022 and 027); and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021- 02), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the MND was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days beginning on November 19, 2021, and ending on December 20, 2021; and Whereas, on February 8, 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council (Council) by resolution adopted the MND (SCH No. 2021110300) for the Project and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the Council pertaining to tentative maps; and, Whereas, on January 18, 2022, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 2 of 4 parties with respect to this item, and adopted a resolution recommending that the Council Approve TTM No. 38116; and, Whereas, on February 8, 2022 at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2: The Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed project pursuant to the appropriate Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code Sec 65000 et. seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP), and Chapter 16 (Subdivisions) of the LEMC. Section 3: That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the LEMC, the Commission makes the following findings for approval of TTM No. 38116: 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan (Government Code Section 66473.5). a. The project site has General Plan land use designations of High Density Residential and Recreational. The High Density Residential land use designation provides for residential densities between 19 and 24 units per net acre. The Recreation land use designation provides for public and private areas of permanent open space and allows for passive and/or active private and public recreation. The project includes 140 detached condominiums with a net density of 23 unit per net acre. Thus, the project would not exceed the allowable High Density Residential density of 24 dwelling units per acre. In addition, 15.65 acres of the project site, which is designated Recreational would be preserved as open space adjacent to Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project is consistent with the residential and recreation General Plan land use designations for the site. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. b. All offsite mitigation measures have been identified in a manner consistent with the General Plan. 2. The site of the proposed subdivision of land is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in accordance with the General Plan. a. The project site has a density of 23 Dwelling Units per net Acre. The overall density of and design is consistent and compatible with the adjacent communities. 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. CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 3 of 4 a. TTM 38116 is consistent with the High Density Residential land use plan, development and design standards, and programs, and all other appropriate requirements contained in the General Plan. The proposed PUD overlay district will provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in the development regulations and design standards of the underlying High Density Residential (R-3) base district. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the General Plan and provides an increase in housing opportunities within the City. TTM 38116 is consistent with Housing Element Policy 3.1 to “Use the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, other land use and development plans, and the development process to provide housing sites that meet the identified local need.” 4. The proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to result in any significant environmental impacts. a. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (ER 2021-02) (SCH# 2021110300) was prepared for TTM 38116. The Initial Study identified potentially significant environmental effects but these impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance through compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in the MND. TTM 38116 has been conditioned to comply with these mitigation measures. 5. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. a. TTM 38116 has been designed in a manner consistent with the General Plan and does not divide previously established communities. 6. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed division of land. a. All known easements or request for access have been incorporated into the design of TTM 38116. b. The map has been circulated to City departments and outside agencies, and appropriate Conditions of Approval have been applied to the project. Section 4: Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the project, the Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 38116. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 8th day of February, 2022. CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 4 of 4 Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of February 8, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02 PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGNS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR 140 CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 38116 LOCATED APNS 379- 060-005, 022 AND 027 Whereas, Shelly Jordan, Tri Pointe Homes has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2021-11 (Zone Change No. 2021- 04, Tentative Tract Map No. 38116, and Residential Design Review No. 2021-02). Zone Change (ZC) No. 2021-04 proposes to establish a Planned Development Unit (PUD) overlay district for portion of the subject property that is currently zoned High Density Residential (R-3). The PUD overlay provides modified development regulations and standards for the underlying R-3 zone to allow for flexibility in order to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38116 proposes to subdivide the 34.81-acre site into nine (9) lots. One (1) 10.94-acre lot for detached 140 condominium residences, one (1) 15.65 reserved open space lot, one (1) 1.39-acre water quality basin, two (2) recreation lots (0.77 acres), private streets (4.60 acres), and four (4) open space landscaping lots (0.65 acres). Residential Design Review (RDR) No. 2021-02 proposes the design and construction of a gated condominium community with 140 detached two-story condominium units, preliminary plotting, conceptual wall and fence plan, recreation areas, and related amenities and infrastructure on the western portion of the site. The project proposes three (3) different detached condominium plans ranging in size from 1,793 sq. ft. to 2,288 sq. ft. The eastern 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as natural open space The project is located along State Route 74 (SR-74) east of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue (APNs 379-060-005, 022 and 027); and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021- 02), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the MND was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days beginning on November 19, 2021, and ending on December 20, 2021; and Whereas, on February 8, 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council (Council) by resolution adopted the MND (SCH No. 2021110300) for the Project and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review), Section 17.410.070 (Approving Authority), and Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the Council pertaining to design review applications; and, Whereas, on January 18, 2022 at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 2 of 4 parties with respect to this item, and adopted a resolution recommending that the Council Approve RDR No. 2021-02; and, Whereas, on February 8, 2022 at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2: The Council has 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) 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 and the LEMC. Section 3: That in accordance with Section 17.415.050.G of the LEMC, the Council makes the following findings regarding RDR No. 2021-02: 1. The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the zoning district in which the project is located. The project site has General Plan land use designations of High Density Residential and Recreational. The High Density Residential land use designation provides for residential densities between 19 and 24 units per net acre. The Recreation land use designation provides for public and private areas of permanent open space and allows for passive and/or active private and public recreation. The project includes 140 detached condominiums with a net density of 23 unit per net acre. Thus, the project would not exceed the allowable High Density Residential density of 24 dwelling units per acre. In addition, 15.65 acres of the project site, which is designated Recreational would be preserved as open space adjacent to Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project is consistent with the residential and recreation General Plan land use designations for the site. The project site is zoned as High Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation (R). The R-3 zoning designation allows for residential dwellings at densities of up to 24 dwellings to the net acre. The project includes 140 detached condominiums with a net density of 23 unit per net acre. Thus, the project would not exceed the allowable R-3 density of up to 24 dwelling units per acre. In addition, 15.65 acres of the project site, which is zoned R would be preserved as open space adjacent to Lake Elsinore. In addition, the project complies with the proposed Planned Development Unit (ZC 2021-04; PUD) overlay district for the portion of the subject property that is currently zoned High Density Residential (R-3). The proposed project complies with the minimum standards of the PUD Overlay district, for lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, building height, minimum dwelling unit size, and parking. The proposed project is consistent with all other applicable provisions of the PUD Overlay district. 2. The Project complies with the design directives contained in the Canyon Hills Specific Plan and all applicable provisions of the LEMC. CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 3 of 4 The project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments. The three (3) architectural styles proposed will create a distinctive street scene within the project site. 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 Section 17.415.050.G.3 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 Section 17.415.050. Pursuant to Section 17.415.050.E of the LEMC, the project was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on January 18, 2022, and subsequently by the City Council at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on February 8, 2022. The project, as reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City divisions, departments and agencies, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4: Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the project, the Council hereby approves Residential Design Review No. 2021-02. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 8th day of February, 2022. Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of February 8, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 4 of 4 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 1 of 20 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PROJECT: PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04 (PUD Overlay)/TTM 38116 (TTM 2021-01)/RDR 2021-02 PROJECT NAME: Lakeside Residential Project PROJECT LOCATION: APNs: 379-060-005, 022 and 027 APPROVAL DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Zone Change (ZC) No. 2021-04 proposes to establish a Planned Development Unit (PUD) overlay district for portion of the subject property that is currently zoned High Density Residential (R-3). The PUD overlay provides modified development regulations and standards for the underlying R-3 zone to allow for flexibility in order to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38116 proposes to subdivide the 34.81-acre site into nine (9) lots. One (1) 10.94-acre lot for detached 140 condominium residences, one (1) 15.65 reserved open space lot, one (1) 1.39-acre water quality basin, two (2) recreation lots (0.77 acres), private streets (4.60 acres), and four (4) open space landscaping lots (0.65 acres). Residential Design Review (RDR) No. 2021-02 proposes the design and construction of a gated condominium community with 140 detached two-story condominium units, preliminary plotting, conceptual wall and fence plan, recreation areas, and related amenities and infrastructure on the western portion of the site. The project proposes three (3) different detached condominium plans ranging in size from 1,793 sq. ft. to 2,288 sq. ft. The eastern 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as natural open space. The project is located along State Route 74 (SR-74) east of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue (APNs 379-060-005, 022 and 027). 2. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, Agents, and its Consultants (Indemnitees) from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning approval, implementation and construction of ZC 2021-04, TTM 38116, and RDR 2021-02, which action is bought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Sections 65009 and/or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code Section 21167, including the approval, extension or modification of ZC 2021-04, TTM 38116, and RDR 2021-02 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 Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys' fees, penalties and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees 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. PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 2 of 20 4. The applicant shall submit a check for $2,598 made payable to the County of Riverside for the filing of a Notice of Determination. The check shall be submitted to the Planning Division for processing within 48 hours of the project’s approval. PLANNING DIVISION 5. Zone Change (PUD Overlay) No. 2021-04 shall expire four years from the date it was approved by the City Council. Pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.108.070.B, the four-year term for a PUD plan may be extended in one-year increments, not to exceed three extensions; provided, that the applicant submits a written extension request to the Community Development Department at least 30 days before the expiration of the PUD plan, or any extension thereof. Extension requests shall explain the reasons why the extension is necessary. Upon receipt of the extension request, the Community Development Director or designee shall refer the extension request to the Planning Commission and City Council for public hearing. It shall be in the City Council’s discretion whether or not to grant extension requests. 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 38116 will expire two years from the 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 (LEMC). 7. Tentative Tract Map No. 38116 shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and applicable requirements set forth in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), unless modified by approved Conditions of Approval. 8. Residential Design Review No. 2021-02 shall lapse and become void two years following the date on which the design review became effective, unless one of the following: (1) prior to the expiration of two years, a building permit related to the design review is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion; or (2) prior to the expiration of two years, the applicant has applied for and has been granted an extension of the design review approval pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.050.I.1. Notwithstanding conditions to the contrary, a design review granted pursuant to LEMC Section 17.415.050.I.2 shall run with the land for this two- year period, subject to any approved extensions, and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site, which was the subject of the design review application 9. The applicant shall provide all project-related on-site and off-site improvements as required by these Conditions of Approval. 10. 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. 11. 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; PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 3 of 20 institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. Prior to Recordation of Final Tract Map(s) 12. All residential lots shall comply with minimum standards set forth in the PUD Overlay district for the underlying High Density Residential (R) zoning designation of the LEMC (per ZC 2021-04). 13. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided per the LEMC. 14. Street names within the subdivision shall be approved by the Community Development Director or Designee. 15. All of the improvements shall be designed by the applicant's Civil Engineer to the specifications of the City of Lake Elsinore. 16. The applicant shall meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). 17. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the applicant shall initiate and complete the formation of a Homeowner’s Association (HOA), which shall be approved by the City, recorded, and in place. All Association documents shall be submitted for review and approval by City Planning, Engineering and the City Attorney and upon City approval shall be recorded. Such documents shall include the Articles of Incorporation for the Association and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). a. At a minimum, all recreation and park areas (except public parks), all natural slopes and open space, all graded slopes abutting public street rights-of-way which are not part of residential lots, up slopes from public rights-of-way within private lots and all private streets, and all drainage basins shall be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits/Building Permits 18. The following architectural details shall be provided: a. All front fence returns will be decorative masonry walls. Vinyl or steel (tubular steel) gates are allowed in order to allow access to rear yards. b. The applicant shall provide four-sided articulation. Architectural enhancements and treatments shall be provided all residential elevations (front, rear and side) visible from streets and other public views. 19. 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. 20. The applicant shall pay school fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District prior to issuance of each building permit. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including but not limited to Development Impact Fees (DIF) and MSHCP Fees per LEMC PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 4 of 20 Section 16.85, at the rate in effect at the time of payment. 22. The project shall connect to water and sewer and meet all requirements of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). The applicant shall submit water and sewer plans to the EVMWD and shall incorporate all district conditions and standards. 23. Provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance (LEMC Chapter 17.176) shall be satisfied during all site preparation and construction activity. 24. Prior to the commencing of grading activities, the applicant shall place a weatherproof 3’ X 3’ sign at the entrance to the project site identifying the approved days and hours of construction activity. Site preparation activity and construction shall not commence before 7:00 AM and shall cease no later than 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Only finish work and similar interior construction may be conducted on Saturdays and may commence no earlier than 8:00 am and shall cease no later than 4:00 p.m. Construction activity shall not take place on Sunday, or any Legal Holidays. The sign shall identify the name and phone number of the development manager to address any complaints. 25. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Final Wall and Fence Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee showing the following: a. The location of all vinyl or steel (tubular steel) gates placed within the front return walls. b. That sidewalls for corner lots shall be decorative masonry block walls with pilasters. c. That those materials provided along the front elevations (i.e. brick, stone, etc.) will wrap around the side elevation and be flush with the front return walls. d. Decorative masonry fencing at tract edges and adjacent to the public right-of-way with a decorative pilaster. e. Entry monument structure (replica adobe with historical information) incorporating bricks from the Machado Adobe building. 26. Prior to issuance of a model home permit, building plans for the Model Home Complex shall comply with all American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, including provision of a handicapped-accessible bathroom. 27. A Construction Phasing shall be prepared for this project that avoids construction traffic from entering occupied neighborhoods within the tract. The Phasing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. 28. A cash bond in the amount of $1,000 shall be required for the Model Home Complex. This bond is to guarantee removal of the temporary fencing material, parking lot, etc. that have been placed onsite for the Model Home Complex. The bond will be released after removal of the materials and the site is adequately restored, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. 29. A cash bond in the amount of $1,000 shall be required for any garage conversion of the model(s). Bonds will be released after removal of all temporary materials and the site is adequately restored, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. 30. A cash bond in the amount of $1,000 shall be required for any construction trailers used PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 5 of 20 during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. 31. 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. 32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Final Landscaping / Irrigation Detail Plans shall be submitted along with appropriate fees for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee. All front yards and side yards on corner lots shall be properly landscaped with automatic (manual or electric) irrigation systems to provide 100 percent planting coverage using a combination of drip and conventional irrigation methods. a. 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. b. Perimeter walls shall be protected by shrubs and other plantings that discourage graffiti. c. 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. d. 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. e. No front-yard shall be landscaped with grass turf. f. 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. g. 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. h. 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: PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 6 of 20 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. i. The Final landscape plan shall be consistent with any approved site and/or plot plan. j. The Final landscape plan shall include planting and irrigation details and shall include one (1) street tree per lot. k. 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. l. 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. 33. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. BUILDING DIVISION General Conditions 34. 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. 35. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2019 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes: 2019 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2019 California Energy Codes, 2019 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 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. It takes 10 days to issue address and notify other agencies. Please contact Sonia Salazar at PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 7 of 20 ssalazar@lake-elsinore.org or 951-674-3124 X 277. 37. Clearance from LEUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Lake Elsinore School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department evidencing 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. 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 Section 5.507 of the 2019 edition of the California Building Code. c. 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. Provide C.D. of approved plans to the Building Division. Prior to Beginning of Construction 46. Pre-Construction Meeting. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 8 of 20 prior to the start of the building construction. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT General 47. All new submittals for plan check or permit shall be made using the City’s online Citizen Service Portal (CSSP). 48. All plans (Street, Storm Drain, Improvement, Grading) shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer using the City’s standard title block. 49. All required soils, geology, hydrology and hydraulic and seismic reports shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. 50. All slopes and landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be maintained by the property owner, owner’s association, firms contracted by the property owner’s association, or another maintenance entity approved by the City Council. 51. All open space and slopes except for public parks and schools and flood control district facilities, outside the public right-of-way shall be owned and maintained by the property owner or property owner’s association. 52. Any portion of a drainage system that conveys runoff from open space shall be stalled within a drainage easement. 53. Water quality facilities that are constructed across lots shall be installed within a dedicated drainage easement. 54. Any grading that affects “waters of the United States”, wetlands or jurisdictional streambeds, shall require approval and necessary permits from respective Federal and/or State Agencies. 55. In accordance with the City’s Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R, Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated both during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction and during occupancy. 56. An encroachment permit shall be obtained prior to any work on City, County, and/or State right-of-way. 57. Applicant shall submit a detailed hydrology and hydraulic study for review for the sufficient containment and conveyance of the storm water to a safe and adequate point as approved by the City Engineer. 58. The site will accommodate all construction activity, building activity, vehicles, etc. No staging on public streets, or private property belonging to others shall be conducted without the written permission of the property owner. 59. Minimum good housekeeping and erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as identified by the City shall be implemented. PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 9 of 20 60. Applicant shall install permanent benchmarks to Riverside County Standards and at locations to be determined by the City Engineer. FEES 61. Applicant shall pay all applicable permit application and Engineering assessed fees, including without limitation plan check and construction inspection fees, at the prevalent rate at time of payment in full. 62. Applicant shall pay all applicable Mitigation and Development Impact Fees at the preva lent rate at time of payment in full. Fees are subject to change. Mitigation and Development Impact Fees include without limitation:  Master Plan of Drainage Fee – Due prior to Final Map approval or Grading Permit issuance  Traffic Infrastructure Fee (TIF) – Due prior to Building Permit issuance  Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) – Due prior to Occupancy 63. Applicant shall pay fair share fees as determined by the approved Lakeside Homes Transportation Impact Analysis by Fehr & Peers dated December 22, 2021. The project is responsible for a 26% fair share contribution toward implementation of the timing improvement along State Route 74 to adjust cycle lengths along the roadway corridor and a 17% fair share contribution toward the implementation of timing improvements at the State Route 74 and Lakeshore Drive intersection. Fair share costs are due prior to issuance of first occupancy. FINAL TRACT MAP 64. Applicant shall submit for plan check review and approval for final Tract Map. 65. Applicant shall make an offer of dedication for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the Tentative Map. All land so offered shall be granted to the City, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. 66. Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way along Grand Avenue adjacent to the property frontage for a total right-of-way of 60 feet from centerline to the project property line. Grand Avenue is classified as an Urban Arterial Highway in the City’s General Plan, where full-width is 120 feet and curb-to-curb width is 96 feet. 67. Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way along Riverside Drive (SR-74) adjacent to the property frontage for a total right-of-way of 60 feet from centerline to the project property line. Riverside Drive is classified as an Urban Arterial Highway in the City’s General Plan, where full-width is 120 feet and curb-to-curb is 96 feet. 68. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.52.030 in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and consistent with the City’s agreement with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 69. Prior to scheduling City Council approval of the final Tract Map, the applicant shall, in accordance with Government Code, have constructed all improvements or have improvement plans submitted and approved, agreements executed, and securities posted. Securities posted include but are not limited to the off-site improvements. PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 10 of 20 70. Monumentation shall be in accordance with LEMC Section 16.32 and Subdivision Map Act. 71. Security and inspection fee for monumentation shall be paid and two contiguous monuments shall be inspected prior to scheduling City Council approval of final map. 72. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to the City for review approval. Recordation shall be with final Tract Map. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT / POLLUTION PREVENTION / NPDES Design 73. The project is responsible for complying with the Santa Ana Region National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits as warranted based on the nature of development and/or activity. These Permits include:  General Permit – Construction  De Minimis Discharges  MS4 74. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) – Preliminary and Final – shall be prepared using the Santa Ana Region 8 approved template and guidance and submitted for review and approval to the City.  The Preliminary WQMP shall be approved prior to Planning Commission hearing.  The Final WQMP shall be approved by the City prior to scheduling City Council for final map approval, or rough or precise grading plan approval and issuance of any permit for construction, whichever is first. 75. The Preliminary WQMP shall be submitted during the project entitlement stage. The level of detail in a preliminary Project-Specific WQMP will depend upon the level of detail known about the overall project design at the time project approval was sought. At a minimum, the preliminary Project-Specific WQMP shall identify the type, size, location, and final ownership of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) adequate to serve new roadways and any common areas, and to also manage runoff from an expected reasonable estimate of the square footage of future roofs, and driveways, and other impervious surfaces on each individual lot. 76. The Final WQMP shall document 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.  Treatment Control BMPs.  Site design and drainage plan (BMP Exhibit).  Documentation of how vector issues are addressed in the BMP design, operation and maintenance.  GIS Decimal Minute Longitude and Latitude coordinates for all LID and Treatment Control BMP locations.  HCOC – demonstrate that discharge flow rates, velocities, duration and volume for the post construction condition from a 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event will not cause PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 11 of 20 adverse impacts on downstream erosion and receiving waters, or measures are implemented to mitigate significant adverse impacts downstream public facilities and water bodies. Evaluation documentation shall include pre- and post- development hydrograph volumes, time of concentration and peak discharge velocities, construction of sediment budgets, and a sediment transport analysis. (Note the facilities may need to be larger due to flood mitigation for the 10-year, 6- and 24-hour rain events).  Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement (using City approved form and/or CC&Rs) as well as documentation of formation of funding district for long term maintenance costs. 77. The 2010 SAR MS4 Permit requires evaluation of the site for implementation of LID Principles and LID Site Design, where feasible, to treat the pollutants of concern identified for the project, the following manner (from highest to lowest priority):  Evaluate site for highest and best use applicability (Exemption for projects that discharge to Lake Elsinore).  Preventative measures (these are mostly non-structural measures, e.g. minimizing impervious areas, conserving natural areas, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, etc.)  The Project shall in the order presented: infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire and/or bio-treat the Design Capture Volume (DCV).  The Project shall consider a properly engineered and maintained bio-treatment system only if infiltration, harvesting and use and evapotranspiration cannot be feasibly implemented at the project site.  Any portion of the DCV that is not infiltrated, harvested and used, evapotranspired, and/or bio-treated shall be treated and discharged in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section XII.G. 78. Parking lot landscaping areas shall be designed to provide for treatment, retention or infiltration of runoff. 79. Project hardscape areas shall be designed and constructed to provide for drainage into adjacent landscape. 80. Project trash enclosure shall be covered, bermed, and designed to divert drainage from adjoining paved areas and regularly maintained. 81. 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 and channels; and minimize significant impacts from urban runoff. 82. 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 Department. 83. All storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked “Only Rain in the Storm Drain” using the City authorized marker. 84. The project shall use either volume-based and/or flow-based criteria for sizing BMPs in PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 12 of 20 accordance with NPDES Permit Provision XII.D.4. 85. The project site shall implement full trash capture methods/devices approved by the Region Water Quality Control Board. Construction 86. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit) and compliance with the Green Building Code for sediment and erosion control are required for this project. 87. Prior to grading or building permit for construction or demolition and/or weed abatement activity, projects subject to coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit shall demonstrate that compliance with the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at the project site, updated, and be available for review upon request. 88. Erosion & Sediment Control – Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for construction or demolition, 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 and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. A copy of the plan shall be incorporated into the SWPPP, kept updated as needed to address changing circumstances of the project site, be kept at the project site, and available for review upon request. 89. The project shall implement LID practices that treat the 85th percentile storm in the priority order as follows:  Highest and best use – treat all pollutants of concern to a medium to high level and discharge (applicable to projects discharging to Lake Elsinore)  Infiltrate  Harvest and use  Evapotranspire and/or bio-treat 90. Chemical Management – Prior to issuance of building permits for any tank or pipeline, the uses of said tank or pipeline shall be identified and the developer shall submit a Chemical Management Plan in addition to a WQMP with all appropriate measures for chemical management (including, but not limited to, storage, emergency response, employee training, spill contingencies and disposal) in a manner meeting the satisfaction of the Manager, Permit Intake, in consultation with the Riverside County Fire Department and wastewater agencies, as appropriate, to ensure implementation of each agency’s respective requirements. A copy of the approved “Chemical Management Plans” shall be furnished to the Fire Marshall, prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy. Post-Construction 91. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and/or occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable NPDES permits for construction, industrial/commercial, MS4, etc. to include: PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 13 of 20  Demonstrate that the project has compiled with all non-structural BMPs described in the project’s WQMP.  Provide signed, notarized certification from the Engineer of Work that the structural BMPs identified in the project’s WQMP are installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications and operational.  Submit a copy of the fully executed, recorded City approved Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement for all structural BMPs or a copy of the recorded City approved CC&R.  The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement and/or CC&R’s shall: (1) describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for BMPs identified in the BMP Exhibit; (2) identify the entity that will be responsible for long- term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; (3) describe the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; and (4) provide for annual certification for water quality facilities by a Registered Civil Engineer. The City format shall be used.  Provide documentation of annexation into a CFD for funding facilities to be maintained by the City.  Demonstrate that copies of the project’s approved WQMP (with recorded O&M Plan or CC&R’s attached) are available for each of the initial occupants.  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 the Certificate of Occupancy will be considered in lieu of a Special Investigation by the City.  Provide the City with a digital .pdf copy of the Final WQMP. UTILITIES 92. All arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway shall be the responsibility of the applicant, property owner, and/or his agent. Overhead utilities (34.5 kV or lower) shall be undergrounded (LEMC Section 16.64). 93. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of LEMC Section 16.52.030, and consistent with the City’s agreement with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Dedication shall be made on final Tract Map. 94. Applicant shall apply for, obtain and submit to the City Engineering Department a letter from Southern California Edison (SCE) indicating that the construction activity will not interfere with existing SCE facilities. Non-Interference Letter (NIL) shall be provided prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 95. Submit a “Will Serve” letter to the City Engineering Department 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, volume, etc. Will Serve letters shall be provided prior to issuance of Grading Permit. IMPROVEMENTS 96. Applicant shall implement traffic mitigation measures as specified in the Lakeside Homes PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 14 of 20 Transportation Impact Analysis by Fehr & Peers dated December 22, 2021, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Improvements include but are not limited to:  Construction of ultimate half-width street improvements along the property frontage on Grand Avenue (120-foot right-of-way) and Riverside Drive (120-foot right-of-way). Improvements include but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, roadway widening, and raised medians on Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive. Project shall be responsible for signal modification due to the widening of the road.  Construction of median to prohibit left-turn onto State Route 74 the project site and Jamieson Street. Configuration of the media shall provide left-turns to the project site and Jamieson Street with sufficient dedicated storage for eastbound and westbound left-turns as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 97. Project shall install crosswalks at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive to provide connectivity for pedestrians. 98. Sight distance into and out and throughout the project location shall comply with City or Caltrans standards. Project shall ensure facilities are installed outside the line of sight of drivers. 99. 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. 100. All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. 101. A drainage study shall be provided. The study shall identify the following: identify storm water runoff from and upstream of the site; show existing and proposed off-site and on-site drainage facilities; and include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of the facilities. The onsite drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff from a 10-year storm of 6 hours and 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 102. 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. 103. Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs should drain to a landscaped area. 104. The site shall be planned and developed to keep surface water from entering buildings (California Green Building Standards Code 4.106.3). 105. All existing storm drain inlet facilities adjacent to the subject properties shall be retrofitted with a storm drain filter; all new storm drain inlet facilities constructed by this project shall include a storm drain filter. 106. A California Registered Civil Engineer shall prepare the improvement, signing and striping and traffic signal plans required for this project. Improvements (including internal private streets) shall be designed and constructed to City Standards and Codes (LEMC 12.04 and PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 15 of 20 16.34). Any deviation from City Standards shall be approved by the City Engineer. 107. If existing improvements are to be modified, the existing improvement plans on file shall be revised accordingly and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 108. Project will be responsible to design and install streetlights along the property’s frontage. Streetlight system shall be designed as LS-2B system. Streetlight plans shall include but not limited to details such as location, pole and luminaire type, and pull box design. Streetlight plans may be included as part of the Street Improvement Plans. Permitting/Construction 109. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to any work on City right-of-way. The developer shall submit the permit application, required fees, and executed agreements, security and other required documentation prior to issuance. 110. An Encroachment Permit from Caltrans shall be obtained prior to any work on Caltrans right- of -way (State Route 74 / Grand Avenue / Riverside Drive). Permit shall be provided at the time of applying for the City Encroachment Permit. 111. An Encroachment Permit from Riverside County shall be obtained prior to any work within Riverside County right-of-way or connections to Riverside County Flood Control facilities. Permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of City permits. 112. All compaction reports, grade certification, monument certification (with tie notes delineated on 8 ½ X 11” Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Department before final inspection of public works improvements will be scheduled and approved. PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT 113. 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 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. 114. All grading plan contours shall extend to minimum of 50 feet beyond property lines to indicate existing drainage pattern. 115. The grading plan shall show that no structures, landscaping, or equipment are located near the project entrances that could reduce sight distance. 116. 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 in compliance with Federal, State and Local law and be approved by the City Engineer. 117. A seismic study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults, liquefaction and/or subsidence zones present on-site. A certified letter from a registered geologist or geotechnical engineer shall be submitted confirming the absence of this hazard PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 16 of 20 prior to grading permit. The location of faults, active or inactive shall be shown on the plan sets. 118. The applicant 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. 119. Applicant shall mitigate to prevent any flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by development of the site and/or diversion of drainage. 120. All natural drainage traversing the site (historic flow) shall be conveyed through the site in a manner consistent with the historic flow or to one or a combination of the following: to a public facility; accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance; or conveyed to a drainage easement as approved by the City Engineer. 121. Applicant shall execute and submit grading and erosion control agreement, post grading security and pay permit fees as a condition of grading permit issuance. 122. Any grading that affects “waters of the United States”, wetlands or jurisdictional streambeds require approval and necessary permits from respective Federal and/or State Agencies. 123. No grading shall be performed without first having obtained a Grading Permit. A grading permit does not include the construction of retaining walls or other structures for which a Building Permit is required. 124. A preconstruction meeting with the City Engineering Inspector (Engineering Department) is required prior to commencement of any grading activity. 125. Prior to commencement of grading operations, Applicant shall provide to the City 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 cubic yards shall be approved by the City Council (LEMC Section 15.72.065). All required documents shall be submitted and approved prior to scheduling for City Council. 126. Export sites located within the Lake Elsinore City limits must have an active grading permit. 127. 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, the 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 approval of the City Engineer. 128. 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 cont rol and approved by the City. 129. Review and approval of the project sediment and erosion control plan shall be completed. As warranted, a copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for review upon request. 130. Approval of the project Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post construction shall be received prior to issuance of a grading permit. PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 17 of 20 131. Applicant shall obtain and submit applicable environmental clearance document to the Engineering Department. This approval shall specify that the project is in compliance with any and all required environmental mitigation triggered by the proposed grading activity. 132. Applicant shall submit a “Will Serve” letter to the Engineering Department from the applicable water agency. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 133. Provide soils, geology and seismic report, including recommendations for parameters for seismic design of buildings, and walls prior to building permit. 134. All street improvement plans, traffic signal plans, signing and striping plans shall be completed and approved by the City Engineer per Traffic Analysis dated June 22, 2021, as specified. 135. 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 Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 136. Dedications, vacations and easement agreement(s) not processed on the final map for ingress and egress through adjacent property(ies) shall be recorded with the recorded copy provided to the City prior to issuance of the Building Permit 137. The Final Tract Map shall be recorded. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY / FINAL APPROVAL / PROJECT CLOSEOUT 138. 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 prior to issuance of first occupancy. 139. Proof of acceptance of maintenance responsibility of slopes, open spaces, landscape areas, and drainage facilities shall be provided. 140. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be recorded prior to first occupancy if not recorded with the final map. A digital copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Engineering Department. 141. As-built plans for all approved plan sets shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. The developer/owner is responsible for revising the original mylar plans. 142. In the event of the damage to City roads from hauling or other construction related activity, applicant shall pay full cost of restoring public roads to the baseline condition. 143. All final studies and reports, final soil report showing compliance with recommendations, compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certification (with tie notes delineated on 8 ½ X 11” Mylar) shall be submitted in .tif format on a USB flash drive or electronically to the Engineering Department before final inspection will be scheduled. 144. All required public right-of-way dedications, easements, vacations and easement PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 18 of 20 agreement(s) shall be recorded with a recorded copy provided to the City prior to first occupancy. 145. Applicant shall pay all outstanding applicable processing and development fees prior to occupancy and/or final approval. 146. Applicant shall submit documentation pursuant to City’s Security Release handout. 147. Applicant shall submit as-built all Engineering Department approved project plan sets. After City approval of paper copy, the developer/owner is responsible for revising the original mylar plans. Once the original mylars have been approved, the developer shall provide the City with a digital copy of the “as-built” plans in .tif format. 148. Applicant shall provide AutoCAD and GIS Shape files of all Street and Storm Drain plans. All data must be in projected coordinate system: NAD 83 State Plane California Zone VI U.S. Fleet. All parts and elements of the designed system shall be represented discretely. Include in the attribute table basic data for each feature, such as diameter and length, as applicable, and for pipes include material (PVC, RCP, etc.) and slope. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FIRE MARSHAL 149. The applicant/operator shall comply with all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department Lake Elsinore Office of the Fire Marshal. Questions should be directed to the Riverside County Fire Department, Lake Elsinore Office of the Fire Marshal at 130 S. Main St., Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. Phone: (951) 671-3124 Ext. 225. 150. The applicant must provide a fire hydrant system capable of delivering fire flow as required by the California Fire Code and Fire Department standards. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance with the California Fire Code. Submit plans to the water district for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 151. Prior to building permit issuance, install the approved water system, approved access roads, and contact the Fire Department for a verification inspection. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Annex into CFD 2015-1 (Safety) Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services CFD 152. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Residential Design Review, Commercial 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 or current Community Facilities District in place at the time of annexation 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 non-refundable deposit of $15,000, or at the current rate in place at the time of annexation toward the cost of annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. Annex into the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 19 of 20 153. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Residential Design Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit or building permit (as applicable), the applicant shall annex into the Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) or current Community Facilities District in place at the time of annexation to fund the on-going operation and maintenance of the public right-of-way landscaped areas and neighborhood parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right-of-way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison, including parkways, street maintenance, 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 non-refundable deposit of $15,000, or at the current rate in place at the time of annexation toward the cost of annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 154. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Review No. 2021-02; SCH # 2021110300) prepared for the Project. PA 2021-11/ZC 2021-04/TTM 38116/RDR 2021-02 PC: January 18, 2022 Conditions of Approval CC: February 8, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 20 of 20 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 Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on _________ . I also acknowledge that all Conditions shall be met as indicated. Date: Applicant’s Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number: Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1 of 122 LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-11 ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021-04 (PUD OVERLAY) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2021-02 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared By: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Applicant: TRIPOINTE HOMES 1250 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 600 Corona, CA 92879 Environmental Consultant: 2 Park Plaza, Suite 1120 Irvine, CA 92614 November 2021 Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 of 122 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Lakeside Residential Project. For purposes of this document, this application will be called the “proposed project”. B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT As defined by Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur: • The project has the potential to: substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. • The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. • The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. • The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration can be adopted if it can be determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted if it is determined that although the Initial Study identifies that the project may have potentially significant effects on the environment, revisions in the project plans and/or mitigation measures, which would avoid or mitigate the effects to below the level of significance, have been made or agreed to by the applicant. This Initial Study has determined that the proposed project may result in potentially significant environmental effects but that said effects can be reduced to below the level of significance through the implementation of mitigation measures and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary environmental evaluations and clearance. This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3 of 122 Environmental Quality Act of 1970 , as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.); the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA Guidelines”), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.); applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or agency with jurisdiction by law. The City of Lake Elsinore is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment. C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents which are intended to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021). The City of Lake Elsinore City Council, as Lead Agency, has determined that environmental clearance for the proposed project can be provided with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study and Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments received on the document will be considered by the Lead Agency before it acts on the proposed project. D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed project. I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of Lake Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental procedures, and incorporation by reference documents. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of discretionary approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City’s Environmental Checklist Form. The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those areas that would have either a potentially significant impact, a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, a less than significant impact, or no impact. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS provides the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures are also set forth, as appropriate, that would reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to levels of less than significance. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 4 of 122 V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form for the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 21083(b) of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those individuals consulted and involved in the preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document. E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. All responses will take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including: 1. No Impact: A “No Impact” response is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project. A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels of thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. 3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 4. Potentially Significant Impact: There is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have impacts that are considered potentially significant and an EIR is required. F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on the incorporation by reference of tiered documentation and technical studies that have been prepared for the proposed project which are discussed in the following section. 1. Tiered Documents As permitted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a)the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. Tiering is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15385 as follows: Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 5 of 122 “Tiering” refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site-specific EIRs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the EIR subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of EIRs is: (a) From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIR of lesser scope or to a site-specific EIR; (b) From an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the Lead Agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which discourages repetitive analyses, as follows: “Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration.” Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states: “Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which: (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions or other means.” For this document, the “City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report” certified December 13, 2011 (SCH #2005121019) serves as the broader document, since it analyzes the entire City area, which includes the proposed project site. However, as discussed, site-specific impacts, which the broader document (City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report) cannot adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This document, therefore, evaluates each environmental issue alone and will rely upon the analysis contained within the Lake Elsinore General Plan Final EIR with respect to remaining issue areas. 2. Incorporation by Reference An EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]) Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs/MND and is most appropriate Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6 of 122 for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly-drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as follows: • Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, such other document shall be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building. The EIR or Negative Declaration shall state where the incorporated documents will be available for inspection. At a minimum, the incorporated document shall be made available to the public in an office of the Lead Agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b]) • The incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]) • This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]). 3. Documents Incorporated by Reference/Technical Studies a. The following document(s) is/are incorporated by reference: • City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (“General Plan EIR”) (SCH #2005121019), certified December 13, 2011. The General Plan EIR, from which this document is tiered, addresses the entire City of Lake Elsinore and provides background and inventory information and data which apply to the project site. Incorporated information and/or data will be cited in the appropriate sections. b. Various technical reports have been prepared to assess specific issues that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. As relevant, information from these technical reports has been incorporated into the Initial Study. The following technical reports are included as appendices to this Initial Study: (List Technical Studies used in the preparation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.) Appendix A: Air Quality Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2021. Appendix B: Biological Technical Report, prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc., 2021. Appendix C: Cultural Resources Study, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., 2021. Appendix D: Energy Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2021. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 7 of 122 Appendix E: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2020. Appendix F: Paleontological Assessment, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., 2021. Appendix G: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2021. Appendix H: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2020. Appendix I: Preliminary Hydrology Report, prepared by MDS Consulting, 2021. Appendix J: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by MDS Consulting, 2021. Appendix K: Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2021. Appendix L: Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Fehr and Peers, 2021. Appendix M: VMT Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Fehr and Peers, 2021. c. The above-listed documents and technical studies are available for review at: City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Hours: Mon-Thurs: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Friday: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. Closed Holidays Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 8 of 122 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING Project Location The 34.81-acre project site is located along State Route 74 (SR-74) east of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue in the southwest portion of the City of Lake Elsinore. The project site is located to the west of Interstate 15 (I-15). Local access to the site is provided by Grand Avenue/ SR-74. The site is bound by Grand Avenue / Riverside Drive / SR-74 to the west, a mobile home park to the north, Lake Elsinore to the east, and Grand Avenue/ SR-74 to the south followed by single-family residences and commercial businesses. The project site consists of three parcels with the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 379-060- 022, 379-060-005 and 379-060-027. The Site is located in Sections 10 and 11 of Township 6 South, Range 5 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The site is located within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Alberhill, Quadrangle (2012). Existing Project Site The elevation of the site is approximately 1,268 feet above mean sea level and generally flat. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped with the exception of remnants of a single-family residence located near the central portion of the site and a cinderblock retaining wall that is approximately 100 feet long on the east central portion of the site. The western portion of the site consists of non-native grasslands grasses while the eastern portion has areas of grasslands and a large area of trees and native habitat. Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Residential and Recreational and a zoning designation of High Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation (R). The General Plan Land Use Element describes that the High Density Residential land use designation provides for single-family attached homes, multi-family residential units, group quarters, public and quasi- public uses, and similar and compatible uses. Residential densities shall be between 19 and 24 units per net acre. The General Plan Land Use Element describes that the Recreation land use designation provides for public and private areas of permanent open space and allows for passive and/or active private and public recreation. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 17.84 describes that the High Density Residential (R- 3) district is intended for multiple-family residential projects at densities of up to 24 dwellings to the net acre, in compliance with the City’s General Plan designation of High Density Residential. The Municipal Code Chapter 17.104 describes that the Recreation (R) district is for a variety of open space, active and passive recreation uses. Surrounding Land Uses, General Plan and Zoning Designations The project site is located within a partially developed and urbanizing area. The project site is bound Grand Avenue / SR-74, residential development, open space wetland areas adjacent to Lake Elsinore, and the Hill Street Channel, which is a cement lined flood control channel: North: Area to the north of the project site includes a residential mobile home development and open space areas adjacent to Lake Elsinore. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 9 of 122 West: Area to the west of the project site includes Grand Avenue / SR-74 followed by residential and commercial uses. South: Area to the south of the project site includes the Hill Street Channel, Grand Avenue / SR-74, residential, and commercial uses. East: Area to the east of the project site includes the Hill Street Channel, followed by open space wetlands and a partially developed residential area. The land uses surrounding the project site are described in Table 1 along with the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations. Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation North Mobile Home Residential and Open Space High Density Residential & Recreational (R3) High Density Residential & (R) Recreation West Single-Family Residential and Commercial Low-Medium Residential Residential South Single-Family Residential and Commercial High Density Residential, Recreational, Low-Medium Residential (R3) High Density Residential and (R) Recreation East Undeveloped Open Space Recreational (R) Recreation Figure 1 Regional Location Lakeside Residential Project Figure 2 Aerial of the Project Site and Vicinity Lakeside Residential Project 74 74 Figure 3 Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations Lakeside Residential Project Existing General Plan Existing Zoning General Plan Designations Zoning Designations Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 13 of 122 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Development Summary The project includes a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to divide the project site into 9 lots. One lot for detached condominium residences, one reserved open space lot, one water quality basin, two recreation lots, and four open space landscaping lots. The proposed project would develop the project site with 140 two-story condominium residences, recreation areas, and the associated amenities and infrastructure on the western portion of the site, and the eastern 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as natural open space. The project also includes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay to provide modified development regulations and design standards for the underlying R-3 zoning district. The proposed site plan provided as Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan. The residences would range in size from approximately 1,793 square feet (SF) to approximately 2,288 SF and include three different two-story floor plan options. The project would develop 47 Plan 1 and Plan 2 units and 46 Plan 3 units as detailed below in Table 2. Minor adjustments may occur as the project is processed through the City. Table 2: Proposed Residence Plan Options Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 1,793 SF 3 Bedrooms 2.5 Bathrooms 2 Car Garage 2,021 SF 3-4 Bedrooms 2.5-3 Bathrooms 2 Car Garage 2,288 SF 4-5 Bedrooms 2.5-3 Bathrooms 2 Car Garage 47 Plan 1 Units 47 Plan 2 Units 46 Plan 3 Units Architectural Design The proposed two-story residences would encompass 10.94-acres of the site and would be designed with Spanish Colonial, Santa Barbara, and Craftsman architectural elements, multi-level rooflines, and an earth tone color scheme. The residences would incorporate stucco finishes, tiled roofs, front porches, and decorative windows and doors in the exterior design. The tallest roofline of the two-story residences would be approximately 24-feet 3-inches in height. Figure 5, Exterior Elevations, illustrated the proposed exterior elevations. Ambient Noise Abatement Features Due to the vehicular noise generated by Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74, which is adjacent to the site, the project includes development of a 6-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the project site frontage of Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 and the following noise abatement design features on Lots 1 through 32: • Windows & Glass Doors: Windows and glass doors would be well-fitted, well-weather-stripped assemblies and would have minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 27. • Exterior Doors: All exterior doors facing Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive would be well-fitted, well- weather stripped, and have minimum STC ratings of 27. • Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits would be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. All exterior wall assemblies facing Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 shall have a minimum STC rating of 46. • Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the attic space. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 14 of 122 • Ceilings: Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or constructed of well-sealed gypsum board of at least one-half inch thick. • Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system (e.g., air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g., fresh air supply) shall be provided which satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Solar Panels Consistent with the CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6), the project would include photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the rooftop of each residence to offset its energy demand. Walls and Fences The project proposes to 6-foot-high concrete masonry wall to be constructed along the project site boundary with Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. Pedestrian and vehicular entry gates would be 6-foot-high metal rolling security gates. Residences would be separated by rear and side yard 5-foot-6-inch-high vinyl fences. Circulation As depicted in Figure 6, Conceptual Site Plan, the project would develop two gated driveways to the project site from Grand Avenue/SR-74. A 78-foot-wide main driveway with a landscaped median would be located at Jamieson Street, at the center of the site, and a secondary 26-foot-wide gated driveway would be located at the northwestern corner of the site. The proposed onsite roadway system would include sidewalks throughout the project site. Parking The proposed project would provide garage, driveway, and on-street parking. Each residence would have a two-car garage and a minimum of two driveway parking spaces. The project would also provide 167 on- street parking spaces for residences and visitors. Table 3 shows the parking to be provided by the project. Table 3: Proposed Parking Type of Parking Quantity Percentage Garage Parking Spots 280 38.5% Driveway 280 38.5% On-Street 167 23% Total Parking Spots Provided 727 100% Parking to Unit Ratio 5.2 / Dwelling Unit Recreation and Open Space The project includes development of two recreation areas in the center of the project site. Recreation Lot A would be 0.44-acre and Recreation Lot B would be 0.33-acre. The recreation areas would include a grassy area/playfield, a tot lot, shade structure, pool, spa, restrooms, lounge chairs, BBQs, benches and picnic benches. Figure 6, Recreation and Landscape Plan, illustrates the recreation area landscaping and amenities. In addition, the project includes 15.65 acres of land adjacent to the lake that would be preserved natural open space. Landscaping Landscaping proposed as part of the project would consist of ornamental trees, vines, shrubs, and groundcovers throughout the common areas of the development, such as along roadways, common walls, water quality basin, and the recreation areas. In addition, street trees would be installed along the proposed Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 15 of 122 sidewalks throughout the project site. The roadway entrance to the project site would have a landscaped median and decorative landscaping to enhance the entrance to the residential neighborhood. Figure 6, Recreation and Landscape Plan, illustrates the proposed landscaping. The landscape plan would be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 19.08). Lighting Outdoor lighting included as part of future development on the project site would be typical of residential uses and would consist of wall-mounted lighting as well as pole-mounted lights along the proposed internal roadways. Nighttime lighting would be used as accent/security lighting in the recreation areas. All of the project’s outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize off-site spill. The location of all exterior lighting would comply with lighting standards established in the City’s Municipal Code. Infrastructure Improvements Roadway The project includes off-site improvements to provide half-width roadway improvements to Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. The project includes widening Riverside Drive / SR-74 to two lanes along the project frontage to meet the future roadway buildout of the Lake Elsinore General Plan and to construct a median to prohibit left-turns onto SR-74/ Riverside Drive from the project site and Jamieson Street. Left- turns to the project site and Jamieson Street would be provided from dedicated storage for eastbound and westbound left-turns. Left-turns to Riverside Drive / SR-74 would make a U-turn at the intersection of Riverside Drive / SR-74 and Grand Avenue. The project also includes addition of a striped bike lane, streetlights, parkway landscaping, removal of the existing utility poles along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 fronting the project site and undergrounding the dry utilities. Water and Sewer The proposed project would install onsite 8-inch water lines that would be located within each of the residential streets and serve each of the proposed residences. The project would also install a new 8-inch water line within the Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 right-of-way along the project frontage and within Grand Avenue that would connect to the existing 32-inch water line at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue and to the existing 14-inch water line within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR- 74, as shown in Figure 7, Utility Infrastructure. The project would install an 8-inch sewer line that would be located within each of the residential streets and serve each of the proposed residences. The new 8-inch sewer line would extend approximately 700 feet offsite from the northern portion of the project site to connect with the existing offsite 10-inch sewer line within the within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 right-of-way, as shown in Figure 7. Drainage The project includes development of a 1.33-acre water quality basin to be located along the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the preserved natural open space area. The water quality basin would be vegetated, as shown on Figure 6, Recreation and Landscape Plan. The proposed project would install an onsite drainage system that could convey runoff to the water quality basin. From the water quality basin, runoff would flow to the South Riverside Channel that is maintained by Riverside County Flood Control, and then to Lake Elsinore. CONSTRUCTION Construction activities include demolition of the existing structures, excavation, grading, and re- compaction of soils; utility and infrastructure installation; building construction; roadway pavement; and architectural coatings. Excavation and grading would occur to a minimum depth of 5 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the base of the foundations, whichever is deeper. Also, grading is expected to require Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 16 of 122 the import of approximately 56,200 cubic yards (cy) of fill. Construction activities are anticipated to last 40 months and would occur within the hours allowable by the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.176.080, which prohibits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on weekends or on holidays. Table 4: Construction Schedule Construction Phase Working Days Site Preparation 30 Grading 75 Building Construction 771 Trenching 111 Paving 346 Architectural Coating 651 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS The following discretionary approvals and permits are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed project: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE • Tentative Tract Map • Zone Change (PUD Overlay) • Design Review Approval • Grading Permits • Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Storm Water Storm Water Pollutant and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Lakeside Residential Project Figure 4 Tentative Tract Map Lakeside Residential Project Figure 5 Conceptual Site Plan Lakeside Residential Project Figure 6a Plan 1 Exterior Elevations Lakeside Residential Project Figure 6b Plan 2 Exterior Elevations Lakeside Residential Project Figure 6c Plan 3 Exterior Elevations Lakeside Residential Project Recreation and Landscape Plan Figur e 7 Lakeside Residential Project Wall and Fence Plan Figure 8 Off Site Water and Sewer Line Improvements Figur e 9Lakeside Residential Project Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 25 of 122 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Lakeside Residential Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner, (951) 674-3124, ext. 913 4. Project Location: See project location and setting in Section II.A, Project Location and Setting, above. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Chris Willis, TriPointe Homes, 1250 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 600, Corona, CA 92879 6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential and Recreational 7. Zoning: (R-3) High Density Residential and Recreation 8. Description of Project: See project description in Section II.B, Project Description, above. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See project location and setting in Section II.A, Project Location and Setting, above. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction of Land Disturbance Activities (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CA2000002), in addition to related City requirements for storm water and erosion control; South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Permit to Operate; Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project Review. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?: In accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City sent notification to 6 Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area on June 30, 2021, 2021. Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested formal government-to-government consultation under AB 52. Consultation meetings were held on September 1, 2021 with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, on September 16, 2021 with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and on August 16, 2021 with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. The City concluded consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on September 9, 2021. The City has not yet concluded consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. It is anticipated that consultation will conclude upon review of this Initial Study and preparation of a Final Initial Study. Mitigation measures have been added to address a concern over the potential for uncovering tribal cultural resources (TCRs) or other tribal- affiliated resources during construction of the project. Please see Section XVIII of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist for more detail. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 26 of 122 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.  Aesthetics  Agricultural and Forestry Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy  Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology/Water Quality  Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population/Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. (Damaris Abraham, City of Lake Elsinore, Senior Planner) Date November 15, 2021 Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 27 of 122 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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 forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the 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 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 uses? 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? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 28 of 122 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact applicable air quality plan? b) 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? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (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? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. ENERGY. Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 29 of 122 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause 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 direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 30 of 122 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 materials 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) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) 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; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 31 of 122 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 32 of 122 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public services/facilities? XVI. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. 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: 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 Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 33 of 122 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) 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? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of 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 Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 34 of 122 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 35 of 122 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. A complete list of the reference sources applicable to the following source abbreviations is contained in Section VII, References, of this document. I. AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less than Significant Impact.) Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a particular view or visual setting. A scenic vista can be impacted in 2 ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or “vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether the proposed project would block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors. The most notable aesthetic resource in the City of Lake Elsinore is Lake Elsinore itself, a 3,000-acre natural lake. The City’s aesthetic setting is characterized by urbanized development of various densities occurring within varied topographical features and interspersed with undeveloped natural areas around the lake. Scenic vistas within and surrounding the City include the lake and Cleveland National Forest mountains and ridgelines. The project includes development of the site with residences that would be two-stories (a maximum of 24- feet 3-inches) in height and is consistent with zoning and other regulations related to size and location of structures (as detailed in response I.c, below). Development of vacant land around the lake was evaluated in the City’s General Plan EIR (page 3.3-27), where it is described that “the addition of the residential development surrounding the lake would significantly alter visual character as the viewer looks toward the lake and sees residential development where undeveloped land once existed”. In addition, the City’s General Plan EIR (page 3.3-34), describes that with buildout of the City’s General Plan (which includes the project site) views of the lake would not be obstructed but would include an increased amount of development surrounding the lake on all sides; and that development would be an extension of existing land uses. Consistent with the General Plan EIR discussion, the proposed project is on a site that is planned for residential land uses and is adjacent to existing residences. The project would provide for an extension of the existing residential land uses, which would change scenic views of the lake that include the site. However, the proposed residences would be located on the western portion of the site, adjacent to Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 and the existing development. The eastern 15.65 acres of the site would remain in the existing natural open space condition. Thus, views of the site adjacent to the lake would be preserved, and impacts related to a scenic vista would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan Resource Protection and Preservation Chapter, Aesthetics Section, policies protect views and specify design requirements for new development (such as incorporation of views of the lake into new development) to that reduce impacts to scenic vistas to a less than significant level. The project’s consistency with the project related policies is detailed in Table AES- 1. As shown, the project would be consistent with these, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 36 of 122 Table AES-1: Project Consistency with General Plan Scenic Policies General Plan Policy Project Consistency Policy 11.1 For new developments and redevelopment, encourage the maintenance and incorporation of existing mature trees and other substantial vegetation on the site, whether naturally-occurring or planted, into the landscape design. Consistent. The proposed project includes preservation of over 15 acres of land that includes mature trees. In addition, the project includes installation of new ornamental trees and other landscaping throughout the project site, as shown in Figure 6, Landscape and Recreation Plan. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy 11.1. Policy 11.2 Maintain and improve the quality of existing landscaping in parkways, parks, civic facilities, rights-of-ways, and other public open areas. Consistent. The proposed project includes installation of new landscaping throughout the project site and along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 as shown in Figures 6, Recreation and Landscape Plan and Figure 8, Proposed Walls and Fencing. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy 11.2. Policy 11.3 Where appropriate, encourage new planting of native and/or non-invasive ornamental plants to enhance the scenic setting of public and private lands. Consistent. The proposed project includes installation of non-invasive ornamental plants to enhance the scenic setting of public and private lands as shown in Figures 6, Recreation and Landscape Plan and Figure 8, Proposed Walls and Fencing. In addition, the project preserves 15.65 acres of open space area that contains mature native vegetation. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy 11.3. Policy 12.1 Encourage development designs and concepts that provide public views of Lake Elsinore and local ridgelines through proper siting, building design, and landscape design. Consistent. The proposed project preserves 15.65 acres of open space area adjacent to the lake, which would preserve existing views of Lake Elsinore. In addition, development of two-story residences on the project site would not hinder existing public background views of local ridgelines. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy 12.1. Policy 12.3 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate views of Lake Elsinore from roadways and other public spaces that provide residents and tourists with scenic vistas to the water, marinas, and lakeshore activities. Consistent. As detailed previously, the proposed project preserves 15.65 acres of open space area adjacent to the lake, which would preserve existing views of Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy 12.3. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and General Plan EIR, Section 3.3, Aesthetics, 2011) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less than Significant Impact.) The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either currently designated or eligible for designation as scenic highways. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) identifies SR- 74 as eligible for listing as state scenic highways, but it is not officially designated. The project site is located adjacent to SR-74. The development portion of the project site includes grasslands and remnants of previous development on the site and does not include any scenic resources. The project includes Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 37 of 122 landscaping and decorative wall treatments along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 to improve views of the site from SR-74 and includes preservation of 15.65 acres of scenic open space land that is adjacent to the lake to preserve scenic views of the lake. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and General Plan EIR, Section 3.3, Aesthetics, 2011; California State Scenic Highway System Map, Accessed: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aaca a) c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less than Significant Impact.) The project site is located within an urbanized area that is adjacent to roadways, residential, and recreational uses. The development area of the project site is generally undeveloped, except for remnants of a previous residence and related infrastructure, such as a retaining wall. The existing character of the development portion of the site is neither unique nor of special aesthetic value or quality. The project would develop this area to provide 140 new residences with recreation areas and open space areas, which would be consistent with the residential uses that are adjacent to the site, and across Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 from the site. The 15.65 acre-open space preservation portion of the site that is located toward and along Lake Elsinore includes trees and vegetation that is part of the lakeside natural environment and would be preserved as part of the project. Preservation of the western portion of the project site would preserve the existing visual character and quality of public views of the site from the lake and across the lake. General Plan. As shown on Figure 3, Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations, the western portion of the project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential that provides for residential uses at a density of between 19 and 24 dwelling units per acre and the eastern portion is designated Recreation. The proposed project includes residential units in the High Density Residential designated that would not exceed the allowable density. The area that is designated Recreation would be preserved as open space. In addition, the project would be consistent with the General Plan policies related to scenic quality, as shown in Table AES-1. Therefore, conflicts with General Plan regulations governing scenic quality would not occur. Zoning. The project site is zoned as High Density Residential (R-3), which provides for residential dwellings at densities of up to 24 dwellings to the net acre. Specifically, Municipal Code Section 17.84.020, Permitted Uses, includes condominiums (such as the project) subject to compliance with all provisions of Chapter 17.108, Planned Unit Development Overlay District, which states that the PUD overlay district is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in the development regulations and design standards of the underlying base district. In addition, Municipal Code Section 17.080.050(B)(2) states that the development standards for PUDs are generally the same as for the underlying base zoning district. However, modifications to those standards may be approved as part of the PUD plan in order to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan, such as providing an increase in housing opportunities for the community. As shown Table AES-2, the proposed project meets the zoning development standards of the R-3 zone, except for the front setback, which provides a minimum setback of 10 feet, which is 5 feet less than the 15- foot front setback requirement. However, implementation of the PUD Overlay allows for this slight modification. Therefore, a conflict with the zoning development standards would not occur. Overall, the Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 38 of 122 project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the proposed project would not degrade the visual character of the project site and surrounding area; and impacts would be less than significant. Table AES-2: Consistency with Zoning Development Standards Development Feature R-3 Zoning Requirement Proposed Project Minimum lot area for lots over 8,400 square feet 1,815 square feet per unit 2,600 minimum Front setback 15 feet minimum 10 feet minimum Rear setbacks 10 feet 10 feet minimum Lot coverage 60% 60% Building height 30 feet 28-feet (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and Municipal Code) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less than Significant Impact.) The project site is vacant and generally undeveloped, and light is not generated on the site. However, the project site is located along Grand Avenue, Riverside Drive/SR-74, adjacent to residential uses, and located across the street from, residential and commercial uses. Existing sources of light in the vicinity of the project site includes: security lighting, landscape lighting, and roadway lighting, and lighting from building interiors that pass-through windows. The proposed project would include the provision of nighttime lighting for security purposes around all of the residences and at the project driveway entrance at Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74, which would contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. However, all outdoor lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses. The lighting increase in light that would be generated by the project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Overall, lighting impacts would be less than significant. Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have a higher visible light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. The proposed project would not use highly reflective surfaces, or glass sided buildings. Although the residences would contain windows, the windows would be separated by stucco and architectural elements, which would limit the potential of glare. In addition, as described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the potential on onsite lighting to generate glare. Therefore, the project would not generate substantial sources of glare, and impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code) Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No Impact.) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 39 of 122 The California Department of Conservation Important Farmland mapping identifies the project site and surrounding areas as Other land. No areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is located on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, impacts related to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would not occur. (Sources: California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Mapping, Accessed: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact.) The project site is zoned High Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation and surrounded by areas zoned for residential and recreation uses. No agricultural zoning is located in the vicinity of the project site and no parcels in the project vicinity have Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Thus, no impact would occur. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603; California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Mapping, Accessed: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/) c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (No Impact.) The project site is developed and located in an area that is void of forest land or timberland. In addition, the project site is zoned High Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation and surrounded by areas zoned for residential and recreational uses. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing forest land, timberland, or zoning for forest or timberland uses. Thus, no impact would occur. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? (No Impact.) As described in the previous response, the project area is void of any forest land and is not zoned for forest uses. Thus, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No impact would occur (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603) 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? (No Impact.) As described in the previous responses, the project area does not include and is not near any land zoned for farmland or forest land. The project would redevelop the vacant site for residential uses. As the project site is not used for agriculture and is within an area developed with and planned for urban uses, the development of the site with residences would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Thus, no impacts would occur. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 40 of 122 (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603; California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Mapping, Accessed: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/) III. AIR QUALITY This section is based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Urban Crossroads (Appendix A). The project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The results and conclusions of the report and calculations relative to pollutant emissions are summarized herein. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than Significant Impact.) The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The AQMP is a series of plans adopted for the purpose of reaching short- and long-term goals for those pollutants the SCAB is designated as a ‘nonattainment’ area because the SCAQMD does not meet federal and/or state Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for certain pollutants. The land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP are based on the regional growth forecasts included in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is a long-range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends over a 20-year period to identify regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. Both the RTP/SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans. The two principal criteria for conformance to the AQMP are (1) whether a project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards; and (2) whether a project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The project site has General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential that provides for residential densities up to 24 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project includes 140 residences within a 10.94 gross acre portion of the site. According to the General Plan, standards of building intensity for residential uses are stated as the allowable range of dwelling units per net acre. On a net acre basis, the 140 residences would be developed on 6.00 net acres, which would result in 23.33 units per net acre. Thus, the project would not exceed the allowable density of the land use. As a result, the development density of the proposed project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans. Also, as further described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the 140 new residences would result in a 0.7 percent increase in residential units within the City. This limited level of growth would not exceed growth projections and would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP. In addition, emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed thresholds. As described in the analysis below, the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with the AQMP from the proposed project would be less than significant. (Sources: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 41 of 122 b) 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? (Less Than Significant Impact.) The SCAB has a non-attainment status for not meeting federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide standards, and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. The methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are listed in Table AQ-1. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook methodology describes that any project that results in daily emissions that exceed any of these thresholds would have both an individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant air quality impact. If estimated emissions are less than the thresholds or reduced to below the thresholds with implementation of mitigation, impacts would be considered less than significant. Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds0F1 Pollutant Construction (lbs/day) Operations (lbs/day) NOx 100 55 VOC 75 55 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 SOx 150 150 CO 550 550 Lead 3 3 Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) grading and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment; (5) building construction and application of architectural coatings; and paving. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring. It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to: applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling for the project. As shown in Table AQ-2, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, emissions from construction activities would be less than significant. 1 Regional thresholds are from the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 42 of 122 Table AQ-2: Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Summary (lbs/day) Year Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Summer 2022 4.44 53.75 41.14 0.12 24.27 12.49 2023 7.35 33.31 52.68 0.14 9.12 3.33 2024 7.39 34.71 58.71 0.15 9.29 3.40 2025 7.07 32.36 57.23 0.15 9.13 3.24 Maximum Daily Summer Emissions 7.39 53.75 58.71 0.15 24.27 12.49 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Winter 2022 4.44 54.27 39.45 0.12 24.27 12.49 2023 7.44 33.76 50.78 0.14 9.12 3.33 2024 7.49 35.16 56.92 0.15 9.29 3.40 2025 7.17 32.79 55.57 0.14 9.13 3.24 Maximum Daily Winter Emissions 7.49 54.27 56.92 0.15 24.27 12.49 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A Operation Operation of the 140 residences would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the operational emissions from the project. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, the proposed project would result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and operational impacts would be less than significant. Table AQ-3: Maximum Daily Operational Emissions(lbs/day) Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Summer Area Source 6.14 2.22 12.44 0.01 0.23 0.23 Energy Source 0.12 1.00 0.43 0.01 0.08 0.08 Mobile Source Passenger Cars 4.08 4.46 41.99 0.09 9.68 2.62 Maximum Daily Summer Emissions 10.34 7.68 54.86 0.11 10.00 2.94 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Winter Area Source 6.14 2.22 12.44 0.01 0.23 0.23 Energy Source 0.12 1.00 0.43 0.01 0.08 0.08 Mobile Source Passenger Cars 4.08 4.46 41.99 0.09 9.68 2.62 Maximum Daily Winter Emissions 10.34 7.68 54.86 0.11 10.00 2.94 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A (Sources: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 43 of 122 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) The SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008) recommends the evaluation of localized NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis. According to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, “off- site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs” (SCAQMD 2008). SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The project site is located in SRA 25, Lake Elsinore. Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors are existing residences located adjacent to the project site. The distance between the project site boundary and the closest existing residential structure is approximately 36-feet (10.97 meters). As such, the Air Quality Analysis utilizes a sensitive receptor distance of 25 meters, which is the closest distance provided by SCAQMD LST guidance. Construction The localized thresholds from the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final LST methodology document, were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to 5-acres in size or have a disturbance of less than or equal to 5 acres daily. The site preparation and grading area is 10.94 acres and would occur over a 105-day period, and the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix A) determined that the proposed project could conservatively disturb a maximum of 3.5 acres per day. The two closest receptors to the project site include the residences approximately 36-feet to the north of the site and the retail business across Grand Avenue/SR-74 approximately 75-feet to the south of the site. Table AQ-4 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest air quality sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the project site. Without mitigation, localized maximum day construction emissions could exceed the SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. Table AQ-4: Localized Significance Summary of Construction Without Mitigation On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 42.0 36.3 24.1 12.4 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 303 1,533 10 6 Threshold Exceeded? No No Yes Yes Source: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A As a result, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 has been included to require that the construction contractor ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment used during site preparation or grading complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. As shown on Table AQ-5, impacts related to LSTs would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 44 of 122 Table AQ-5: Localized Significance Summary of Construction With Mitigation On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 34.1 36.3 9.4 5.0 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 303 1,533 10 6 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A Toxic Air Pollutants. The construction equipment would emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is a carcinogen, However, the DPM emissions would be short-term in nature and occur intermittently throughout the 40-month construction process. Determination of risk from DPM is considered over a 70- year exposure time. As such, considering the short 40-month time frame for construction, exposure to DPM during construction would be less than significant. CO Hotspots. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. With the turnover of older vehicles and introduction of cleaner fuels, electric vehicles, and vehicles with stop-start systems (where the engine shuts down when the vehicle is stopped and restarts when the break petal is released), as well as implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin and the state have steadily declined. The analysis of CO hotspots compares the volume of traffic that has the potential to generate a CO hotspot (exceedance the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm) and the volume of traffic with implementation of the proposed project. In 2003, the SCAQMD estimated that a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to exceed state standards and generate a CO hot spot. As detailed in Section XVII, Transportation, shown on Table T-2, the proposed project would generate 104 new vehicle trips (26 inbound trips and 78 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the project would generate 139 vehicle trips (88 inbound trips and 51 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the project is forecast to generate approximately 1,322 daily trips. Thus, the proposed project would not result in an increase in traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour— or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix and would not generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, impacts related to CO hotspots from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. (Sources: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A) d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (No Impact.) No Impact. The proposed project would not emit other emissions, such as those generating objectionable odors, that would affect a substantial number of people. The threshold for odor is identified by SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 45 of 122 contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. The type of facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed project would implement residential development that does not involve the types of uses that would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, odors generated by non-residential land uses are required to be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, which would prevent nuisance odors. During construction, emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and would not affect a substantial number of people. The noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. Also, the short-term construction-related odors would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Therefore, impacts associated with other emissions, such as odors, would not adversely affect a substantial number of people. (Sources: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A) Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies The following existing requirements would reduce pollutant air quality emissions from the proposed project: PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following: • All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 46 of 122 “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Tier 3. The project applicant, construction contractor, or their representative, shall verify, to the satisfaction of the City, that all off-road diesel construction equipment utilized during the site preparation and grading phases complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section is based on the Biological Technical Report prepared for the proposed project by Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (Appendix B). 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? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) Special-Status Plants. As detailed in the Biological Technical Report and shown in Figure B-1, Vegetation Impacts, the project site consists of disturbed areas, non-native grassland areas, and Southern Willow Cottonwood Riparian Forest areas associated with Lake Elsinore. The Southern Willow Cottonwood Riparian Forest is a special-status vegetation type and is located within the area to be preserved as natural open space. In addition, smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens subsp. laevis) was identified in the open space preserve area in the northeastern portion of the site. The smooth tarplant is designated as a CNPS List 1B.1 species and is covered under the MSHCP, with surveys being required within criteria areas. Because these plants are located in the open space preserve area, no impacts to these species would occur. In addition, the following additional special status plant species were not detected, but have a low potential to occur within the southern willow cottonwood riparian forest / open space preserve area: • California satintail (Imperata brevifolia) • Campbell’s liverwort (Geothallus tuberosus) • Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata subsp. coulteri) • Lemon Lily (Lilium parryi) • Mud nama (Nama stenocarpa) • Parish’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes alba subsp. parishii) • Prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) • San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) • San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) • San Diego button celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) • San Miguel savory (Clinopodium chandleri) • Santa Lucia dwarf rush (Juncus luciensis) • Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. australis) • White rabbit tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum) Because these plants only have the potential to be located in the open space preserve area, no impacts to these plant species would occur. The Biological Technical Report details that no special-status plants were detected within the project disturbance area. Therefore, impacts related to special status plants would not occur from implementation of the project. Vegetation Impacts Figure B-1Lakeside Residential Project Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 48 of 122 Special-Status Animals. One special status animal species, the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), was detected on the project site. The least Bell’s vireo is designated as a federally and state endangered species. Least Bell's vireo primarily occupies riparian habitats that typically feature dense cover within 1- 2 meters of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy. It inhabits low, dense riparian growth along water or along dry parts of intermittent streams. At the project site, this species is associated with the Southern Willow Cottonwood Riparian Forest areas that would not be disturbed by the project. However, least Bell’s vireo can be indirectly impacted by nearby activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to ensure the nesting/breeding activities of this species are not disrupted and no impact to the least Bell’s vireo habitat to be preserved by the project would occur. The following additional special status animal species were not detected, but have the potential to occur within the southern willow cottonwood riparian forest / open space preserve area: Amphibians/Reptiles • Coast Range Newt (Taricha torosa torosa) – low potential to occur • Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) – low potential to occur Birds • Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) – low to moderate potential to occur • Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) – low potential to occur • Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) - moderate potential to occur • Long-Eared Owl (Asio otus) - moderate potential to occur • Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) - moderate potential to occur • Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) – moderate potential to occur • Yellow-Breasted Chat (Icteria virens) - moderate to high potential to occur Mammals • American Badger (Taxidea taxus) – low potential to occur • Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) – low potential to occur • Western Red Bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) - moderate potential to occur • Western Yellow Bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) - moderate potential to occur Burrowing owl is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. Its habitat includes coastal prairie, coastal scrub, Great Basin grassland, Great Basin scrub, Mojavean desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub, and valley and foothill grassland. Although surveys completed for the Biological Technical Report did not identify burrowing owl, the species has a low to moderate potential to occur. Therefore, a preconstruction burrowing owl survey is required by Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP and is included as Mitigation Measure BIO-2. The Biological Technical Report determined that the project would not result in potentially significant impacts to any of the other special status species that have the potential to occur on the project site due to the low potential to occur or type of species that would avoid potential impact. Thus, impacts related to a candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. (Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant Impact.) The Biological Technical Report (Appendix B) describes that implementation of the project would impact 0.72-acre of disturbed Southern Willow Cottonwood Riparian Forest and 14.67 acres of non-native grassland on the site and would impact 0.48-acre of off-site non-native grassland, which is shown on Figure B-1, Vegetation Impacts. The Biological Technical Report determined that these impacts would be less than significant due to the limited size and disturbed nature of the habitat. The Biological Technical Report describes that the disturbed southern willow cottonwood riparian forest area that would be impacted by the Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 49 of 122 project consists of individual, maintained willow and/or cottonwood trees, and giant wild rye individuals totaling 0.72-acre, which, in the context of the project site do not constitute riparian resources as they are consistently and historically maintained. The area does not have the density or a stratified canopy needed to support riparian associated species such as least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow-billed cuckoo. The disturbed and maintained areas are isolated, and individually are a component of the assemblage of the surrounding non-riparian vegetation communities, including non-native grasslands and disturbed areas. Therefore, the Biological Technical Report determined that the impacts to the 0.72- acre area of disturbed Southern Willow Cottonwood Riparian Forest would be less than significant. (Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) The Biological Technical Report (Appendix B) describes that implementation of the project would result in a permanent impact to 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of Corps and Regional Board Waters of the United States and 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of CDFW non-riparian streambed along a concrete portion of the Hill Street Channel from construction of two outlet structures into the cement lined channel. As a result, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to require purchase of 0.01 acre of re- establishment mitigation credits at an accredited mitigation bank located within the Santa Ana River watershed. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B) 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? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) Habitat linkages are areas which provide a communication between two or more other habitat areas which are often larger or superior in quality to the linkage. Corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for individual animals to disperse or migrate between areas, generally extensive but otherwise partially or wholly separated regions. Adequate cover and tolerably low levels of disturbance are common requirements for corridors. The site is surrounded by roadways, residential development, the lake, and a cement lined drainage. The Biological Technical Report determined that no wildlife corridors exist within the project site. Thus, impacts related to wildlife corridors would not occur from implementation of the project. Wildlife nurseries are sites where wildlife concentrate for hatching and/or raising young, such as rookeries, spawning areas, and bat colonies. No wildlife nurseries or maternity roosts for colonial bat species exist within the project site. However, the Project site contains trees, shrubs, and ground cover that provide suitable habitat for nesting native birds. The riparian/wetland habitat on the site provides a dense canopy of riparian vegetation and trees that can be utilized by the LBV as well as larger raptors such as Cooper’s hawk or red-tailed hawk. These areas may also provide nesting habitat for additional raptor and songbird species. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 is included to require nesting bird surveys and implementation of measures to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds from implementation of the project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 impacts would be less than significant (Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 50 of 122 preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact.) The Biological Technical Report (Appendix B) determined that the project site does not contain any trees or other biological resources protected by City of Lake Elsinore policies or ordinances. Public trees in Lake Elsinore are protected under Chapter 15.120, Tree Preservation, of the Municipal Code (PPP BIO-1), which regulates street trees or trees located in other public locations in the City; including the location and species of any trees to be installed along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. The proposed project would be required to comply with the Municipal Code requirements as part of the City permitting process would ensure that the project does not conflict with local policies or ordinances related to public trees. As a result, no impact would occur. (Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B) 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? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) The Project site is located within the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP and is not located within MSHCP criteria cells, cell groups, or public/quasi-public (PQP) lands [Exhibit 5 – MSHCP Map]. The Project site is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA), the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA), Mammal Survey Areas, Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Survey Area, Amphibian Survey Area, or Core and Linkage areas. The Biological Technical Report (Appendix B) describes that implementation of the project would result in a permanent impact to 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of MSHCP riverine streambed along a concrete portion of the Hill Street Channel from construction of two outlet structures into the cement lined drainage channel. As described previously, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to require purchase of 0.01 acre of re-establishment mitigation credits at an accredited mitigation bank located within the Santa Ana River watershed. As the project is avoiding all but 0.01 acre of MSHCP riverine resources (greater than 99 percent avoidance) and all riparian resources, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the project would be consistent with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2 regarding riparian/riverine areas, and impacts would be less than significant. The Biological Technical Report details that the project would not impact habitat with the potential to support riparian birds or other species requiring additional surveys and procedures under MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2; however, due to the proximity of the project footprint to riparian habitat associated with Lake Elsinore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to provide protection for least Bell’s vireo. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed project would be consistent with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2 for riparian/riverine-associated species. The project site does not contain, and therefore will not impact, any MSHCP vernal pools. As such, the project is consistent with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2 as it pertains to vernal pools. Additionally, Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA), site-specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plants Species are required. The project site is not located within this designated survey areas and does not require these surveys. As such, the project would be consistent with Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. Overall, the proposed project is consistent with the biological requirements of the MSHCP, which will be implemented through Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4. Further, because the site is within the MSHCP, the project applicant/proponent is required to pay MSHCP Mitigation Fees as outlined in PPP- BIO-2. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 51 of 122 (Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B) Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies The following existing requirements would reduce potential biology related impacts from the proposed project: PPP BIO-1: Tree Regulations. The trees shrubs and plants installed on public property shall conform to the regulations within Municipal Code Chapter 15.120. PPP BIO-2: MSHCP Fees. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall pay the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) development mitigation fee in effect at the time the permits are issued. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Least Bell’s Vireo. Construction specifications and permits shall include the following requirements to ensure that impacts to least Bell’s vireo and the associated habitat do not occur: • The project impact footprint, including any construction buffer, shall be staked and fenced (e.g., with orange snow fencing, silt fencing or a material that is clearly visible) and the boundary shall be confirmed by a qualified biological monitor prior to ground disturbance. The construction site manager shall ensure that the fencing is maintained for the duration of construction and that any required repairs are completed in a timely manner. • Equipment operators and construction crews shall be informed of the importance of the construction limits by the biological monitor prior to any ground disturbance. • Construction activities within 200-300 feet of the nearest extent of adjacent riparian habitat associated with Lake Elsinore shall be avoided from April 1st through August 31st. • For any vegetation clearing or work within 100 feet of riparian habitat associated with Lake Elsinore, a biologist shall monitor to ensure encroachment into the riparian habitat area does not occur. • Active construction areas shall be watered regularly (at least once every two hours) to control dust and thus minimize impacts on vegetation within and adjacent to Lake Elsinore. • Construction personnel shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the limits of disturbance and designated staging areas and routes of travel approved by the biological monitor. • Vegetation shall be covered while being transported, and vegetation materials removed from the site shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. • All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other toxic substances shall occur only in designated areas within the limits of disturbance and at least 200 feet from jurisdictional aquatic features. These designated areas shall be clearly marked and located in such a manner as to contain runoff and will be approved by the biological monitor. • To avoid attracting predators, the project site shall be kept clear of trash and debris. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Burrowing Owl. A pre-construction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the start of construction/ground-breaking activities, as ensured through grading permit approval. If no active burrows are detected, then no further action would be required. If an occupied burrow is detected during the burrowing owl breeding season (March 1 to August 31), a protective buffer of 500 feet shall be designated around the active burrow by a Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 52 of 122 qualified biologist to avoid impacting a breeding owl. No work shall occur within 500 feet of the burrow unless a reduced buffer area is determined to be acceptable by the City of Lake Elsinore. If an occupied burrow is detected during the non-breeding season (September 1 to February 28), the burrowing owl may be passively excluded based on California Department of Fish and Wildlife-approved methods and the burrow can be excavated prior to construction. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey will again be necessary to ensure that burrowing owls have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Jurisdictional Area. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for areas identified with jurisdictional features, the project applicant shall obtain regulatory permits from the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW. Through the permitting and subject to approval by the regulatory agencies, the applicant shall compensate for Project-specific impacts at a minimum 1:1 ratio subject to approval of the resource agencies, by purchase of 0.01 acre of re-establishment mitigation credits at an accredited mitigation bank located within the Santa Ana River watershed, such as the Riverpark Mitigation Bank. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits that include vegetation and/or tree removal activities that will occur within the active breeding season for birds (March 1–September 15), the project applicant (or their Construction Contractor) shall retain a qualified biologist (meaning a professional biologist that is familiar with local birds and their nesting behaviors) to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The nesting survey shall include the project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could potentially be affected by project-related construction activities, such as noise, human activity, and dust, etc. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet (ft) of the designated construction area prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer around the active nests (e.g., as much as 500 ft for raptors and 300 ft for non-raptors [subject to the recommendations of the qualified biologist]), and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES This section is based on the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (Appendix C). The Cultural Resources Study includes a records search, Sacred Land File search, historic archival research, and a field survey. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (Less Than Significant Impact.) According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is defined as something that meets one or more of the following criteria: 1) Listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; 2) Listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); 3) Identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) Determined to be a historical resource by the project’s Lead Agency. PRC Section 5024.1 directs evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing on the CRHR. The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 53 of 122 previously established criteria developed for listing on the NRHP, enumerated above, and require similar protection to what NHPA Section 106 mandates for historic properties. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1-4), a resource is considered historically significant if it meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. At the time the Cultural Resources Study was prepared for the proposed project, the project site included the ruins of the circa 1858 Machado Adobe (Site P-33-007230) that has since been removed through a City approved demolition permit. No other historic or cultural resources were identified within the property boundaries. The Machado Adobe building and project site are known for their association with the Machado family (1858 to 1884). Portions of the Machado Adobe building were previously incorporated into an expansive residence which burned in a fire on September 2, 2017. At the time the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project, only damaged remnants of the original adobe building remained, which consisted of two rooms comprised of structurally unsound adobe brick and mud mortar walls, which were vandalized, crumbling and collapsing. Due to the past changes to the structure, including additions, modifications, modernization, fire, vandalism, and neglect, the building retained a very low level of integrity. Prior to the fire that destroyed most of the structure, the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) had listed the structure as a “Community-Recognized Significant Historical Resource” (City of Lake Elsinore 2011) because is significant for its association with historic individuals and events. However, it no longer retained the level of integrity needed to convey this significance. The Machado Adobe qualified for the CRHR under Criteria 1 and 2 for its association with events and persons important to the history of Lake Elsinore. However, the existing structure ruins had no integrity or research value, and, as such, the site is not a significant historical resource. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to a historic resource. (Sources: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) An archaeological records search for the project identified archaeological resources within 0.25-mile of the project site that include prehistoric habitation sites. In addition, the site’s location next to the lake provides potential for the site to contain archaeologic resources. Although, historic aerial photographs show that the development portion of the site has been modified and cleared multiple times from past construction and agricultural production, the Cultural Resources Study for the project recommends archaeological monitoring during grading/excavation/trenching activities to ensure that impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 are included to ensure that any potential disturbance to buried archaeological resources during the grading and/or construction phases of the project is reduced to a less than significant level. (Sources: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 54 of 122 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) The Cultural Resources Study describes that the project site has been previously used for one residence and for agricultural activities. The project site has not been previously used as a cemetery. Thus, human remains are not anticipated to be uncovered during project construction. However, due to the prehistoric occupation of the region Mitigation Measures CUL-6 and CUL-7 have been included to ensure that should human remains be uncovered during implementation of the project, measures are implemented to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate a process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of death, and made recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Mitigation Measures CUL-6 and CUL-7 and compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to human remains would be less than significant. (Sources: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C) Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Unanticipated Resources. The developer/permit holder or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed: 1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the significance of the find. 2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting. 3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed, and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. 4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Archaeologist/ Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department that a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified, and certified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) that addresses the details of all activities that must be completed and procedures that must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this project. The CRMP document shall be provided to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP provides procedures to be followed and are to ensure that impacts on cultural resources Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 55 of 122 will not occur without procedures that would reduce the impacts to less than significant. These measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Archaeological Monitor - An adequate number of qualified monitors shall be present to ensure that all earth- moving activities are observed and shall be on-site during all grading activities for areas to be monitored including off-site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor. Cultural Sensitivity Training - The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all Construction Personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training, and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the project site. A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report. Unanticipated Resources - In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered, and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. Phase IV Report - A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department: 1. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. 2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity. Relocation shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 56 of 122 Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. 3. If relocation is not agreed upon by the Consulting Tribes then the resources shall be curated at a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the AB 52 process (“Monitoring Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project’s approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project Archaeologist. Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning Department's requirements for such reports for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of any feature relocation or residue analysis required as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting. Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, Project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply, and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 57 of 122 human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). Mitigation Measure CUL-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). VI. ENERGY This section is based on the Energy Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Urban Crossroads (Appendix D). The project’s construction and operational energy usage was calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. The energy calculations are summarized herein. a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less Than Significant Impact.) The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to the project vicinity and gas lines are currently located within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74, adjacent to the site. Southern California Edison currently provides electricity services to the project area. The proposed project would install onsite electrical and natural gas infrastructure that would connect to the existing offsite lines. In addition, the project would remove the existing utility poles and underground the existing dry utilities (including electric lines) on Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 along the project frontage. Construction During construction of the proposed project, energy would be consumed in three general forms: 1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, as well as delivery truck trips; 2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and 3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Based on these uses of energy during construction activities, the proposed buildings and the associated infrastructure would not be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. Construction does not involve any unusual or increased need for energy and would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. In addition, the extent of construction activities that would occur is limited to a 40-month period, and the demand for construction- related electricity and fuels would be limited to that time frame. Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy- duty diesel on- and off-road equipment as part of the City’s construction permitting process. Compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions, which is included as PPP E-2, would reduce fuel combustion and 2 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroadzone/pdfs/offroad_booklet.pdf Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 58 of 122 energy consumption. The energy modeling shows that project construction equipment usage over the 40- month construction period is estimated to use 329,564 gallons of diesel fuel, as shown in Table E-1. Table E-1: Estimated Construction Equipment Diesel Fuel Consumption Activity Duration (Days) Equipment HP Rating Quantity Load Factor HP- hrs/day Total Fuel Consumption (gal. diesel fuel) Demolition 84 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 2 0.73 946 4,296 Excavators 158 5 0.38 2,402 10,905 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 3 0.40 2,371 10,767 Site Preparation 125 Crawler Tractors 97 4 0.37 1,148 7,760 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 3 0.40 2,371 16,022 Grading 130 Crawler Tractors 97 2 0.37 574 4,035 Excavators 158 3 0.38 1,441 10,126 Graders 187 1 0.41 613 4,310 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 1 0.40 790 5,554 Building Construction 865 Scrapers 367 2 0.48 2,819 131,787 Cranes 231 1 0.29 536 25,058 Forklifts 89 3 0.20 427 19,974 Generator Sets 84 1 0.74 497 23,251 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 3 0.37 861 40,274 Paving 125 Welders 46 1 0.45 166 1,119 Pavers 130 2 0.42 874 5,903 Paving Equipment 132 2 0.36 760 5,137 Architectural Coating 125 Rollers 80 2 0.38 486 3,286 Total Construction Fuel Demand 329,564 Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D Table E-2 shows that construction activities are anticipated to require approximately 1,121,911 kWh of electricity. Table E-2: Estimated Construction Electricity Consumption Construction Size (1,000 SF) Electricity Usage (kWh) Residential 252.000 217,178 Park 849.420 732,046 Other Asphalt Surfaces 200.376 172,688 Total Construction Electricity Usage (kWh) 1,121,911 Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D Table E-3 shows that construction worker vehicular trips in light-duty-autos (LDA) to and from the project site are anticipated to require approximately 128,705 gallons of gasoline. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 59 of 122 Table E-3: Estimated Construction Worker Fuel Consumption from Light-Duty-Automobiles Construction Activity Duration (Days) Worker LDA Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Site Preparation 30 13 14.7 5,733 32.77 175 Grading 75 15 14.7 16,538 32.77 505 Building Construction 771 349 14.7 3,955,461 32.77 120,707 Paving 346 4 14.7 20,345 32.77 621 Trenching 111 70 14.7 114,219 32.77 3,486 Architectural Coating 651 11 14.7 105,267 32.77 3,212 Total Construction Worker (LDA) Fuel Consumption 128,705 Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D Table E-4 shows that construction worker trips in light-duty-trucks (LDT1) to and from the project site are anticipated to require approximately 16,306 gallons of gasoline. Table E-4: Estimated Construction Worker Fuel Consumption from Light-Duty-Trucks Construction Activity Duration (Days) Worker LDT1 Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Site Preparation 30 2 14.7 1,764 27.55 64 Grading 75 2 14.7 2,205 27.55 80 Building Construction 771 36 14.7 408,013 27.55 14,809 Paving 346 1 14.7 5,086 27.55 185 Trenching 111 8 14.7 13,054 27.55 474 Architectural Coating 651 2 14.7 19,139 27.55 695 Total Construction Worker (LDT1) Fuel Consumption 16,306 Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D Table E-5 shows that construction worker trips in medium-duty-trucks (LDT2) to and from the project site are anticipated to require approximately 50,543 gallons of gasoline. Table E-5: Estimated Construction Worker Fuel Consumption from Medium-Duty-Trucks Construction Activity Duration (Days) Worker LDT2 Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Site Preparation 30 4 14.7 1,764 26.03 68 Grading 75 5 14.7 5,513 26.03 212 Building Construction 771 108 14.7 1,224,040 26.03 47,023 Paving 346 2 14.7 10,172 26.03 391 Trenching 111 22 14.7 35,897 26.03 1,379 Architectural Coating 651 4 14.7 38,279 26.03 1,471 Total Construction Worker (LDT2) Fuel Consumption 50,543 Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D In addition to construction workers, vendors that deliver materials and equipment to the site would utilize fuel. Table E-6 shows that vendor trips in medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT) are anticipated to require Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 60 of 122 approximately 43,601 gallons of gasoline. Table E-6: Estimated Vendor Fuel Consumption from Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks Construction Activity Duration (Days) Vendor Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Building Construction 771 85 6.9 452,192 10.37 43,601 Total Construction Vendor (MHDT) Fuel Consumption 43,601 Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D Table E-7 shows that vendor trips in heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT) to and from the project site are anticipated to require approximately 77,590 gallons of gasoline. Table E-7: Estimated Vendor Fuel Consumption from Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks Construction Activity Duration (Days) Vendor Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Building Construction 771 103 6.9 547,950 7.06 77,590 Total Construction Vendor (HHDT) Fuel Consumption 77,590 Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D The project includes import of approximately 56,200 cy of fill soils. Table E-8 shows that haul trips related to grading activity in heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT) is anticipated to require approximately 16,142 gallons of gasoline. Table E-8: Estimated Hauling Fuel Consumption from Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks Construction Activity Duration (Days) Hauling Trips / Day Trip Length (miles) Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Fuel Consumption (gallons) Grading 75 76 20 114,000 7.06 16,142 Total Hauling (HHDT) Fuel Consumption 16,142 Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D Operation Once operational, the project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for motor vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the residences, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the residences where they would be consumed. This use of energy is typical for residential development, no additional energy infrastructure would be required to be built to operate the project, and no operational activities would occur that would result in extraordinary energy consumption. The proposed project would be required to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards, which is included as PPP E-1. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials; solar panels; energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. Thus, operation of the project would not use large amounts Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 61 of 122 of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and no operational energy impacts would occur. As detailed in Table E-9, the vehicular trips related to the new residences are anticipated to result in 4,462,113 annual VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 165,281gallons of fuel. Table E-9: Project Annual Vehicle Fuel Consumption from Operation Vehicle Type Annual Miles Traveled Average Vehicle Fuel Economy (mpg) Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons) LDA 2,423,550 33.8 71,732 LDT1 271,069 28.4 9,551 LDT2 824,421 27.0 30,511 MDV 581,226 21.5 27,091 LHD1 106,332 14.6 7,293 LHD2 28,348 15.3 1,858 MHD 52,287 10.8 4,853 HHD 40,770 7.4 5,483 OBUS 3,623 6.7 538 UBUS 2,271 6.2 365 MCY 107,952 37.9 2,849 SBUS 3,347 8.1 415 MH 16,916 6.2 2,742 Total (All Vehicles) 4,462,113 -- 165,281 Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D As detailed in Table E-10, operation of the proposed project is estimated to result in the annual use of approximately 3,960,170 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas and approximately 1,115,050 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. Table E-10: Project Operational Electricity and Natural Gas Usage Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year 140 Residences 3,960,170 Electricity Demand kWh/year 140 Residences 1,115,050 Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D kBTU – kilo-British Thermal Units kWh – Kilo Watt Hours (Sources: Energy Analysis, Appendix D) b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (No Impact.) The proposed project would be required to meet the CalGreen energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of the project, as included as PPP E-1. The City’s administration of the requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the project would not conflict with or obstruct opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy. As discussed, the project proposes to use photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on each of the residences to offset their energy demand in accordance with Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 62 of 122 the existing Title 24 requirements (included as PPP E-1). As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and less than significant impacts would occur. Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies: The following existing requirements would reduce energy consumption from the proposed project: PPP E-1. CalGreen Compliance. The project is required to comply with the CalGreen Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.32.010 to ensure efficient use of energy. CalGreen specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition of building permit approval. PPP E-2: Idling Regulations. The project is required to comply with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule 2485 (13 CCR, Chapter 10 Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel- Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. This section is based on the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2020 (Appendix E); the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by MDS Consulting, 2021 (Appendix K); and the Paleontological Assessment, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., 2021 (Appendix F). a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) The Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that the project site is not within a Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone based on published geologic hazard maps; however, the northeastern-most (lake margin) part of the site is located within an established Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone for the Wildomar Fault. The fault evaluation prepared for the project identified subsurface anomalies that may be indicative of faulting. Thus, a fault setback for habitable structures is included in the project design, pursuant to the California Building Code (CBC), and would be ensured by Mitigation Measure GEO-1 that requires compliance with the Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation recommendations. With implementation of the required setback, as ensured through the mitigation, impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant. (Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact.) The project site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California. The Wildomar Fault is located to the north and east of the project site and the Willard Fault is located to the west and south of the site. Thus, moderate to strong ground shaking can be expected at the site. The amount of motion can vary depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 63 of 122 earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter, that consists of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude. Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), included in the Municipal Code as Title 15. In addition, PPP GEO-1 has been included to provide provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probable strength of the ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. Because the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with the CBC, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking. (Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils layers, located within approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine- grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface. Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. According to the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, the site is mapped by Riverside County as having potential for liquefaction. The groundwater encountered on the site during onsite borings ranged between 2 to 14 feet below the ground surface. In addition, the site is underlain by loose, silty to clayey sand and sandy to silty clay. Therefore, the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation includes engineering and design recommendations that are included in the proposed project to reduce the potential for liquefaction to a less than significant level. The recommendations include excavation and recompaction of the upper 5 feet of existing soils and to extend at least 3 feet in depth below proposed pad grade within the building foundation areas, subgrade stabilization within over excavation areas; and post-tension foundation systems with perimeter foundations embedment of at least 18-inches. Implementation of these recommendations would be ensured by Mitigation Measure GEO-1. In addition, as described previously, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC, as included in the City’s Municipal Code as Title 15 (and herein as PPP GEO-1), which implements specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, and building construction. Compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1 would reduce hazards related to liquefaction to a less than significant level. (Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 64 of 122 iv) Landslides? (No Impact.) Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquakes induced landslides are steep slopes underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits. As described above, the project site is located in a seismically active region subject to strong ground shaking. However, the project site is generally flat and does not contain any hills or any other areas that could be subject to landslides, and no substantial slopes are located adjacent to the site. The Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that the project site is relatively flat and varies from a low of approximately 1,267 msl in the eastern portion of site to a high of 1,295 msl near the intersection of Grand Avenue/SR-74. Therefore, the project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects related to slope instability or seismically induced landslides. (Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Construction of the project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Grading and excavation activities that would be required for the proposed project would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water. However, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 14.08 implements the requirements of the NDPES Storm Water Permit and all projects in the City are required to conform to the permit requirements. This includes installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the NPDES permit, which establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls that are required to be implemented for the proposed project. To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer). The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities. The SWPPP is required to identify potential sources of erosion and sedimentation loss of topsoil during construction, identify erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil, such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding. With compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and the BMPs in the SWPPP that is required to be prepared to implement the project included as PPP WQ-1, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed project includes installation of landscaping, such that during operation of the project large areas of loose topsoil that could erode would not exist. In addition, as described in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, the onsite drainage features that would be installed by the project have been designed to slow, filter, and infiltrate stormwater, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil during project operations. Furthermore, implementation of the project requires City approval of a site specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), included as PPP WQ-2, which would ensure that the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. (Sources: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix E) 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? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) Landslide. As described above, the project site is generally flat, and does not contain nor is adjacent to any Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 65 of 122 slope or hillside area. The project would not create slopes. Thus, on or off-site landslides would not occur from implementation of the project. Liquefaction. As described previously, the site is mapped by Riverside County as having potential for liquefaction, groundwater ranges between 2 to 14 feet below the ground surface. Therefore, the Due- Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation includes engineering and design recommendations to reduce the potential for liquefaction to a less than significant level, which are included as Mitigation Measure GEO-1. In addition, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC, as included in the City’s Municipal Code as Title 15 (and herein as PPP GEO-1), which would reduce hazards related to liquefaction to a less than significant level. Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading, a phenomenon associated with seismically induced soil liquefaction, is a display of lateral displacement of soils due to inertial motion and lack of lateral support during or post liquefaction. It is typically exemplified by the formation of vertical cracks on the surface of liquefied soils, and usually takes place on gently sloping ground or level ground with nearby free surface such as drainage or stream channel. The Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that due to the clayey and interbedded nature of the near surface soils, lateral spread is expected to be minimal or not expected to exceed 6 inches, which would occur to the most easterly portion of the site. As described previously, liquefaction and lateral spreading impacts would be reduced to a less than significant impact by implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and PPP GEO-1. Subsidence and Collapse. The Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that undocumented fill, surficial topsoil, and the upper 3 to 5 feet of alluvial deposits on the project site are potentially collapsible in their present state and may settle under the surcharge of fills or foundation loading. As described previously, the project includes excavation and recompaction of the upper 5 feet of existing soils and to extend at least 3 feet in depth below proposed pad grade within the building foundation areas, subgrade stabilization within over excavation areas; and post-tension foundation systems with perimeter foundations embedment of at least 18-inches. These measures would reduce the potential for soils collapse to a less than significant level. Thus, implementation of these measures would be ensured by PPP GEO-1 and Mitigation Measure GEO-1. (Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or well as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experiences, such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture. The Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that the site is underlain by alluvial soils, that consist of silty to clayey sand and sandy to silty clay. The testing of the onsite soils identified a low to very low expansion potential. As described previously, compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1 would ensure that foundation designs are consistent with the CBC regulations, included as PPP GEO-1. Thus, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. (Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E) 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? (No Impact.) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 66 of 122 The project would not use septic tanks or alternative methods for disposal of wastewater into subsurface soils. Furthermore, the proposed project would connect to existing public wastewater infrastructure within Grand Avenue/SR-74. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal methods (Sources: Project Plans and Figure 8, Proposed Water and Sewer Lines) f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) Paleontological resources are the remains of prehistoric life that have been preserved in geologic strata. These remains are called fossils and include bones, shells, teeth, and plant remains (including their impressions, casts, and molds) in the sedimentary matrix, as well as trace fossils such as footprints and burrows. Fossils are considered older than 5,000 years of age (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010), but may include younger remains (subfossils), for example, when viewed in the context of local extinction of the organism or habitat. A Paleontological Resource Assessment (Appendix F) was completed for the project, which describes that the geologic units mapped as underlying the western portion of the project site are Holocene and late Pleistocene-aged, young, sandy, alluvial-valley deposits (Qyva). These sedimentary deposits are almost entirely of Holocene age, consisting of unconsolidated silt, sand, and clay-bearing alluvium. The eastern portion of the project site is mapped as Holocene lacustrine deposits (Ql)” and mostly consist of fine-grained sediments. The Paleontological Resource Assessment describes that Holocene alluvium is generally considered to be geologically too young to contain significant fossils. The Paleontological Resource Assessment includes a records search of the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum (LACM), the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM), the University of California at Riverside (UCR), and primary literature, which determined that no fossil localities have been previously identified within the project boundaries. The closest known fossil localities are approximately five and eight miles east of the project. In addition, the City’s General Plan Figure 4.6, “Paleontological Resources,” identifies the project site as having a “Low” sensitivity for potential paleontological resources. The Paleontological Resource Assessment determined that based on the low paleontological sensitivity of the Holocene-aged sediments underlying the project site, and the lack of known fossil localities near the site, impacts related to paleontological resources are not anticipated. However, Mitigation Measure PAL-1 has been included to provide measures in the unanticipated event that potential paleontological resources are uncovered during project grading and excavation activities. With implementation of PAL-1, impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies The following existing requirements would reduce geology and soils related impacts from the proposed project: PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the project is required to demonstrate compliance with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Title 15 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of construction permit approval. PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed in in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 67 of 122 PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As listed in in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Measures. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the proposed project applicant/developer shall demonstrate compliance with the California Building Code in effect at the time of permitting as detailed in the recommendations of the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, the required structural setback from the Wildomar Fault, foundation specifications, and soils requirements. Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Paleontological Resources. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, evidence shall be provided to the City Building and Safety Division that a qualified paleontologist has been retained. In the event that potential paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground- disturbing activities, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified paleontologist. Construction activities may continue in the other areas of the Project site. Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and Society for Vertebrate Paleontology professional standards. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils would be prepared and submitted to the City Building and Safety Division. (Sources: Paleontological Assessment, Appendix F) VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section is based on the Greenhouse Gas Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Urban Crossroads(Appendix G). The project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. The results and conclusions of the report and calculations relative to emissions are summarized herein. These impacts are analyzed on a cumulative basis, utilizing Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e), measured in metric tons (MT) or MTCO2e. Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole. GHGs contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by allowing solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere but preventing radiative heat from escaping. The principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, CCR Section 15364.5 defines GHGs to include CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed “global warming,” the trend of warming of the Earth’s climate from anthropogenic activities. GHG Thresholds The City of Lake Elsinore has not adopted a numerical significance threshold to evaluate greenhouse gas Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 68 of 122 (GHG) impacts. SCAQMD does not have approved thresholds; however, it does have draft thresholds that provides a tiered approach to evaluate GHG impacts, which includes the following: • Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. • Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions. • Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant: o Residential and Commercial land use: 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e per year o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year The SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 year 2050 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm), thus stabilizing global climate. Therefore, for purposes of examining potential GHG impacts from implementation of the proposed project, and to provide a conservative analysis of potential impacts, the Tier 3 screening level for all land use projects of 3,000 MTCO2e was selected as the significance threshold. In addition, SCAQMD methodology for evaluating a project’s construction emissions are to amortize them over 30-years and then add them to the project’s operational emissions to determine if the project would exceed the screening values listed above. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Construction activities produce GHG emissions from various sources, such as site excavation, grading, utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles onsite, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, building construction, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. As shown on Table GHG-1, construction of 140 residences would result in a total of 177.83 MTCO2e amortized over 30 years. Table GHG-1: Project Construction Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTC02e) Year Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e 2022 568.11 0.10 0.04 581.11 2023 1535.78 0.13 0.08 1562.41 2024 1635.48 0.15 0.08 1662.63 2025 1505.02 0.17 0.07 1528.67 Total Annual Construction Emissions 5,244.38 0.55 0.26 5,334.82 Amortized Construction Emissions (MTCO2e) 174.81 0.02 0.01 177.83 Source: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G. In addition, operation of the proposed residences would result in area and indirect sources of operational Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 69 of 122 GHG emissions that would primarily result from 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 estimated operational GHG emissions that would be generated from 140 residences was determined using CalEEMod. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD recommendation, the project’s amortized construction related GHG emissions are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions. As shown on Table GHG-2, operation of 140 residences would generate approximately 2,321.24 MTCO2e per year, which would be below the screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, operation of the proposed 140 residences would also be below the screening threshold, and impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant. Table GHG-2: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e Construction emissions amortized over 30 years 174.81 0.02 0.01 177.83 Area 32.62 0.00 0.00 32.85 Energy 409.08 0.02 0.01 411.36 Mobile 1,509.37 0.10 0.07 1,531.61 Waste 33.63 1.99 0.00 83.32 Water Use 76.27 0.24 0.01 84.27 Total CO2e (All Sources) 2,321.24 Source: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G. (Sources: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (No Impact.) The proposed project would develop the site with residences that would comply with state programs that are designed to be energy efficient. The proposed project would comply with all mandatory measures under the California Title 24, California Energy Code, and the CalGreen Code, which would provide efficient energy and water consumption. Consistent with these requirements, the project includes photovoltaic (PV) solar panels to offset the energy demand. The City’s administration of the requirements includes review of the energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Also, as described in Section 17, Transportation, the proposed project would result in a less than significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact because the project is located within a low VMT generating area, where the VMT per service population and VMT per capita is lower than the jurisdictional average; and therefore, is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and SB 375. In addition, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan to reduce GHG emissions levels. The Scoping Plan identifies the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by SB 32. The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable measures established in the Scoping Plan, as shown in Table GHG-3. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with CARB plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 70 of 122 Table GHG-3: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Action Responsible Parties Consistency Implement SB 350 by 2030 Increase the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50% of retail sales by 2030 and ensure grid reliability. CPUC, CEC, CARB Consistent. The project area uses energy from Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE has committed to diversify its portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. The project would not interfere with or obstruct SCE energy source diversification efforts. Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. Consistent. The new development implemented by the project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures. The project would not interfere with or obstruct policies or strategies to establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction. Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through the implementation of the above measures and other actions as modeled in Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) to meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets in the IRP process. Load-serving entities and publicly- owned utilities meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets through a combination of measures as described in IRPs. Consistent. The new development would be designed and constructed to implement the Title 24 (CalGreen) Standards. Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels) At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty EV by 2025. CARB, California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), Strategic Growth Council (SGC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CEC, OPR, Local Agencies Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2025 targets. At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty EV by 2030. Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2030 targets. Further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean cars regulations. Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts to further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 71 of 122 Action Responsible Parties Consistency Advanced Clean cars regulations. Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2. Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts to implement Medium- and Heavy- Duty GHG Phase 2. Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20% of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100% of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard. Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts improve transit-source emissions. Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero- emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5% of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10% in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030. Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts to improve last mile delivery emissions. Further reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through continued implementation of SB 375 and regional Sustainable Communities Strategies; forthcoming statewide implementation of SB 743; and potential additional VMT reduction strategies not specified in the Mobile Source Strategy but included in the document “Potential VMT Reduction Strategies for Discussion.” Consistent. The project would not obstruct or interfere with implementation of SB 375 and would therefore, not conflict with this measure. CARB Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 72 of 122 Action Responsible Parties Consistency Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (2035 targets). to Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (2035 targets). Harmonize project performance with emissions reductions and increase competitiveness of transit and active transportation modes (e.g. via guideline documents, funding programs, project selection, etc.). CalSTA, SGC, OPR, CARB, Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank), Department of Finance (DOF), California Transportation Commission (CTC), Caltrans Consistent. The project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to harmonize transportation facility project performance with emissions reductions and increase competitiveness of transit and active transportation modes. By 2019, develop pricing policies to support low-GHG transportation (e.g. low-emission vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user, parking pricing, transit discounts). CalSTA, Caltrans, CTC, OPR, SGC, CARB Consistent. The project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to develop pricing policies to support low-GHG transportation. Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan Improve freight system efficiency. CalSTA, CalEPA, CNRA, CARB, Caltrans, CEC, GO-Biz Consistent. This measure would apply to all trucks accessing the project site, this may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector. The project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to Improve freight system efficiency. Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission freight Consistent. The project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 73 of 122 Action Responsible Parties Consistency vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%. CARB Consistent. The project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%. Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS) by 2030 40% reduction in methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013 levels. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA, SWRCB, Local Air Districts Consistent. These are not emissions related to the proposed project. Hence, the proposed project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to reduce SLPS emissions. 50% reduction in black carbon emissions below 2013 levels. By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA SWRCB, Local Air Districts Consistent. The new development would be required through City permitting to implement waste reduction and recycling measures consistent with state and City requirements. The project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. Implement the post-2020 Cap-and- Trade Program with declining annual caps. CARB Consistent. The project is not applicable to implementation of Cap- and-Trade Program provisions. Thus, the project would not obstruct or interfere implementation the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink Protect land from conversion through conservation easements and other incentives. CNRA, Departments Within CDFA, CalEPA, CARB Consistent. The project includes preservation of 15.65-acres of natural open space. Thus, the project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to protect land from conversion through conservation easements and other incentives. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 74 of 122 Action Responsible Parties Consistency Increase the long-term resilience of carbon storage in the land base and enhance sequestration capacity Consistent. The project provides for residential development. The project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to increase the long-term resilience of carbon storage in the land base and enhance sequestration capacity. Utilize wood and agricultural products to increase the amount of carbon stored in the natural and built environments Consistent. Where appropriate, the new development would incorporate wood or wood products. The project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to encourage use of wood and agricultural products to increase the amount of carbon stored in the natural and built environments. Establish scenario projections to serve as the foundation for the Implementation Plan Consistent. The project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to establish scenario projections to serve as the foundation for the Implementation Plan. Establish a carbon accounting framework for natural and working lands as described in SB 859 by 2018 CARB Consistent. The project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to establish a carbon accounting framework for natural and working lands as described in SB 859. Implement Forest Carbon Plan CNRA, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), CalEPA and Departments Within Consistent. The project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to implement the Forest Carbon Plan. Identify and expand funding and financing mechanisms to support GHG reductions across all sectors. State Agencies & Local Agencies Consistent. The project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to identify and expand funding and financing mechanisms to support GHG reductions across all sectors. Source: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G. The City of Lake Elsinore adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2011. The following table consists of an analysis of project consistency with the policies in the CAP. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 75 of 122 Table GHG-4: Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan CAP Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Consistency Measure T-1.2: Pedestrian Infrastructure Applicable Consistent. 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 provide sidewalks along all internal streets and would be implemented through project permitting. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure T-1.4: Bicycle Infrastructure Applicable Consistent. 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 is included in the half-width improvements along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. This measure is implemented by the Department of Public Works, Community Services Department, and Building Department through policy development, development review, and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure T-1.5: Bicycle Parking Standards Not Applicable Not Applicable. This measure requires the City to enforce short-term and long-term bicycle parking standards for new non- residential developments. This measure is not applicable to the residential project. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure T-2.1: Designated Parking for Fuel Efficient Vehicles Not Applicable Not Applicable. This measure requires new non- residential developments to designate 10% of total parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient vehicles. This measure is not applicable to the residential project. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure T-4.1: Commute Trip Reduction Program Not Applicable Not Applicable. This measure requires the City to institute a commute trip reduction program for employers with fewer than 100 employees. This Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 76 of 122 CAP Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Consistency measure is not applicable to the residential project. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-1.1: Tree Planting Requirements Applicable Consistent. This measure requires new developments to plant at minimum one 15-gallon non-deciduous, umbrella-form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary length near buildings. The project would comply with this measure as shown on Figure 6, Landscape and Recreation Plan. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation through the development review process, and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-1.2: Cool Roof Requirements Not Applicable Not Applicable. 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 not applicable to the residential project. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-1.3: Energy Efficient Building Standards Applicable Consistent. This measure requires that new construction exceed the California Energy Code requirements 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 the development review process, and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-3.2: Energy Efficient Street and Traffic Signal Lights Applicable Consistent. This measure requires the City to work with Southern California Edison to replace existing high-pressure sodium streetlights 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. This measure would apply to any street and/or traffic lights replaced or installed as part of the project. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Building through the development review process, and conditions of approval. As such, the Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 77 of 122 CAP Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Consistency proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-4.1: Landscaping Ordinance Applicable Consistent. 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. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s landscaping and irrigation requirements. This measure is verified by the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Building through the development review process, and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-4.2: Indoor Water Conservation Requirements Applicable Consistent. This measure requires that development projects reduce indoor water consumption. The proposed project is designed to be consistent with the Title 24 water conservation requirements. This measure would be verified by the Departments of Building and Planning through project permitting. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-5.1: Renewable Energy Incentives Applicable Consistent. 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. The proposed project is designed to be consistent with the Title 24 energy requirements and would include PV solar panels. No elements of the proposed project would conflict with this measure. Measure S-1.4: Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Applicable Consistent. This measure requires development projects to divert, recycle or salvage nonhazardous construction and demolition debris generated at the site, 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, Municipal Code amendments, development and review process, and conditions of approval. The proposed project would implement construction and demolition waste diversion, as further detailed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 78 of 122 Source: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G. (Sources: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G) Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2020. (Appendix H). a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less Than Significant Impact.) A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that regulatory agencies have a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the home, workplace, or environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment. Construction The proposed construction activities would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking during construction activities. In addition, hazardous materials would routinely be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state regulations that are implemented by the City during building permitting for construction activities. Construction of the project would not require the use of acutely hazardous materials. As such, impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is not expected. Therefore, impacts related to use of these materials during construction would be less than significant. Operation The project involves operation of 140 new residences and recreation facilities, which involve routinely using hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H) 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? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Construction While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 79 of 122 regulations during construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts; improper use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. To avoid an impact related to an accidental release, the use of best management practices (BMPs) during construction are implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (and included as PPP WQ-1). Implementation of an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment. Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs that include, but are not limited to: • Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; • Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction; • Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; • Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and • Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. Operation Other operational aspects of the proposed residential project involve use and storage of common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, cleaning products, fuels, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides. These types of hazardous materials are regulated by existing laws that have been implemented to reduce risks related to the use of these substances. Normal routine use of typical residential products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the project. (Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less Than Significant Impact.) The closest school to the project site is the Lakeside High School, at 32593 Riverside Drive, which is less than 0.25-mile from the project site. As detailed previously, construction and operation of the proposed residential project would involve the use, storage, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials on the project site. These hazardous materials would be limited and used and disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential of accidental release into the environment near the school. Additionally, the emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the project were evaluated in the Air Quality analysis presented in Section III, and the emissions generated from the project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the federal or state air quality standards. Thus, the project would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste near the school, and impacts would be less than significant (Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H) 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? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 80 of 122 The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment describes that the Site is listed in the environmental database search report in the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker Cleanup Sites (CLEANUPSITES) and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (CALUST) databases, the Riverside County Leaking Underground Storage Tanks database (CARCLUST), and the Facility Registry System (USFRSCA) database. The listings are related to the discovery, removal of, and cleanup of three leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) on the site in 1989. The USTs were previously used for operation of an RV park on the site. The site remediation included the bioremediation of approximately 200 tons of soil and the installation of an activated carbon groundwater treatment system. This leaking UST (LUST) case was closed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a closure letter was issued for the site on August 2, 1999. According to the closure letter, concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene were remediated to concentrations below the California maximum contaminant levels. In 2005, a Phase II environmental site assessment was one the site and organochlorine pesticides, volatile organic compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, and Title 22 metals concentrations were below the US EPA Residential Screening Levels and the California Department of Toxics Substances Control screening levels for residential land uses. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the proposed project completed a comparison of these detections to present day residential screening levels, which determined that the site is suitable for residential land use. Thus, hazards related to the previous leaking UST no longer exist on the project site. The project site does not include hazardous materials that could result in a hazard to the public or environment, and impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H) 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? (No Impact.) The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan. The closest airport is the Skylark Field located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the project site. As such, the project would not be exposed to hazards related to airport operations, and no impacts would occur. (Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H; Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K) f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Significant Impact.) The proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction Short-term construction activities include improvements to Grand Avenue/SR-74, development of the project driveways, and installation of utility connections to the existing infrastructure systems. These activities would require the temporary closure of one lane of Grand Avenue/SR-74. However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process, as incorporated into the construction permits. Thus, impacts related to an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction would be less than significant. Operation Direct access to the project site would be provided from Grand Avenue/SR-74. The design of internal streets would provide access to each of the proposed residences. The project is required to provide internal streets Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 81 of 122 and fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) that conform to the California Fire Code requirements, included in Municipal Code Chapter 15.56 (included as PPP HAZ-1), as verified through the City’s permitting process. As such, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: project plans, City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code) g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (No Impact.) The project site is vacant and moderately covered with vegetation. The project site is adjacent to residential, roadways, commercial uses, and undeveloped areas within the urban environment. The project site is not within or adjacent to any wildland areas. According to the CalFire Hazard Severity Zone map, the project site is not within a high fire hazard zone. As a result, the proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf ) Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies The following existing requirements would reduce the potential for impacts related to hazards: PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed in in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality. PPP HAZ-1: Fire Code. The project shall conform to the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56, Fire Code. Specifically, Section 503 of the California Fire Code provides regulations related to emergency access. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The discussion below is based on the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by MDS Consulting, 2021, included as Appendix I and Appendix J. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Construction Implementation of the proposed project includes grading, site preparation, construction of new buildings, and infrastructure improvements. Grading, stockpiling of materials, excavation, construction of new structures, and landscaping activities would expose and loosen sediment and building materials, which would have the potential to mix with stormwater and urban runoff and degrade surface and receiving water quality. Additionally, construction generally requires the use of heavy equipment and construction-related materials and chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents, Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 82 of 122 and paints. In the absence of proper controls, these potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction activities and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, resulting in a significant impact to water quality. Pollutants of concern during construction activities generally include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction, which would have the potential to be transported via storm runoff into nearby receiving waters and eventually may affect surface or groundwater quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, thereby increasing the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation to occur compared to existing conditions. In addition, during construction, vehicles and equipment are prone to tracking soil and/or spoil from work areas to paved roadways, which is another form of erosion that could affect water quality. However, the use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit (and Municipal Code Section 14.08) and included as PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Furthermore, an Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer (QSD) is required to be included in the SWPPP for the project, and typically includes the following types of erosion control methods that are designed to minimize potential pollutants entering stormwater during construction: • Prompt revegetation of proposed landscaped areas; • Perimeter gravel bags or silt fences to prevent off-site transport of sediment; • Storm drain inlet protection (filter fabric gravel bags and straw wattles), with gravel bag check dams within paved roadways; • Regular sprinkling of exposed soils to control dust during construction and soil binders for forecasted wind storms; • Specifications for construction waste handling and disposal; • Contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas; • Erosion control measures including soil binders, hydro mulch, geotextiles, and hydro seeding of disturbed areas ahead of forecasted storms; • Construction of stabilized construction entry/exits to prevent trucks from tracking sediment on City roadways; • Construction timing to minimize soil exposure to storm events; and • Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping. Therefore, compliance with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements, included as PPP WQ-1, which would be verified during the City’s construction permitting process, would ensure that project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Operation The proposed project includes operation of residential and recreation/open space uses. Potential pollutants associated with the proposed uses include various chemicals from cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. If these pollutants discharge into surface waters, it could result in degradation of water quality. However, operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 83 of 122 the Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit and has prepared a project-specific WQMP (included as Appendix J) that describes the low-impact development (LID) infrastructure and non-structural, structural, and source control and treatment control BMPs that are included in the project’s design to protect surface water quality. The Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit regulations are included in the City’s Municipal Code in Chapter 14.08. The MS4 Permit: • Provides the framework for the program management activities and plan development; • Provides the legal authority for prohibiting unpermitted discharges into the storm drain system and for requiring BMPs in new development and significant redevelopment; • Ensures that all new development and significant redevelopment incorporates appropriate Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs to address specific water quality issues; and • Ensures that construction sites implement control practices that address construction related pollutants including erosion and sediment control and onsite hazardous materials and waste management. The Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit requires that new development and significant redevelopment projects (or priority projects), such as the proposed project, develop and implement a WQMP that includes BMPs and LID design features that would provide onsite treatment of stormwater to prevent pollutants from onsite uses from leaving the site. A WQMP has been developed (included as Appendix J) and is required to be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. The proposed project would install a water quality basin on the site to provide stormwater treatment, which has been sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour) from the project site. As described previously, the WQMP is required to be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. The project’s WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure it complies with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Permit regulations. In addition, the City’s permitting process would ensure that all BMPs in the WQMP would be implemented with the project. Overall, implementation of the WQMP pursuant to the existing regulations (included as PPP WQ-2) would ensure that operation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality; and impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix J) b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less Than Significant Impact.) The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) provides water services to the project area. The EVMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan describes that the EVMWD obtains water from local groundwater wells, surface water from Canyon Lake Reservoir and treated at the Canyon Lake Water Treatment Plant, and imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District. EVMWD pumps water from the Elsinore Valley Subbasin and the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. EVMWD actively manages the groundwater subbasins and serves as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Elsinore Valley Subbasin and is a member of the Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Authority (BCGSA), which serves as the GSA for the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. The EVMWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) shows that the anticipated production of groundwater would remain the same through 2045 and the supply would exceed demand in both normal years and multiple dry year conditions (shown in Table UT-1 in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems). The project would not result in changes to the projected groundwater pumping that would decrease groundwater supplies, and the project Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 84 of 122 would not otherwise impede the sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The project site is largely undeveloped impervious surface. After completion of project construction, a large portion of the site would be impervious. The project would convey stormwater drainage into landscaping areas and the water quality basin, which would infiltrate into soils and groundwater and lake. From the water quality basin, runoff would flow to the South Riverside Channel and then to Lake Elsinore. Therefore, impacts related to interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant. (Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix J) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i). Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less Than Significant Impact.) The project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a natural stream or river. The Hill Street Channel, which is a cement lined flood control channel is located adjacent to the site. However, the project would not alter this drainage structure and implementation of the project would not alter the course of a stream or river. Construction Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and grading activities that would expose and loosen building materials and sediment, which has the potential to mix with storm water runoff and result in erosion or siltation off-site. However, the project site does not include any slopes, which reduces the erosion potential, and the large majority of soil disturbance would be related to excavation and backfill for installation of building foundations and underground utilities. The NPDES Construction General Permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer for the proposed construction activities (included as PPP WQ-1). The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to potential sources of sedimentation and erosion and would list the required BMPs that are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of erosion or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. In addition, a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) is required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. The SWPPP would be amended and BMPs revised, as determined necessary through field inspections, in order to protect against substantial soil erosion, the loss of topsoil, or alteration of the drainage pattern. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) would prevent construction-related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or erosion from development activities. With implementation of the existing construction regulations that would be verified by the City during the permitting approval process, impacts related to alteration of an existing drainage pattern during construction that could result in substantial erosion, siltation, and increases in stormwater runoff would be less than significant. Operation The project site consists of a generally undeveloped site with a grassland and soil surface, which has the potential for erosion and sedimentation. With development of the project, a large portion of the site would be covered by impervious surfaces, such as residential structures, roadways, sidewalks, and driveways, which would not be subject to erosion. Pervious areas of the site would be landscaped with groundcovers that would inhibit erosion and the water quality basin that is designed to filter in infiltrate stormwater and would not result in erosion or sedimentation. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 85 of 122 The proposed project would maintain the existing drainage pattern. The runoff from the project area would be collected by roof drains, surface flow designed pavement, curbs, and area drains and conveyed to either landscaping areas or to the proposed water quality basin. Additionally, the MS4 permit requires new development projects to prepare a WQMP (included as Appendix J) that is required to include BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or sedimentation through site design and structural treatment control BMPs. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage and water quality design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division to ensure that the site-specific design limits the potential for erosion and siltation. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing regulations would ensure that project impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern and erosion/siltation from operational activities would be less than significant. (Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix J) ii). Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; (Less Than Significant Impact.) Construction Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and grading. These activities could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and change runoff flow rates. However, as described previously, implementation of the project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction- related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding on or off-site from development activities. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation As described previously, the proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces on the project site. However, the project would convey runoff to landscaped areas or to the proposed water quality basin for treatment and infiltration that has been designed to accommodate the stormwater volume pursuant to the MS4 permit requirements, as shown in the Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I. Therefore, an increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite would not occur. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that the proposed drainage would accommodate the appropriate design flows. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing MS4 permit regulations, which would ensure that project impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding from operational activities would be less than significant. (Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix J) iii). 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; or; (Less Than Significant Impact.) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 86 of 122 Construction As described in the previous response, construction of the proposed project would require grading and excavation activities that could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and could result in increased runoff and polluted runoff if drainage is not properly controlled. However, implementation of the project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site specific pollutant and drainage issues related to construction of the project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of polluted runoff and increased runoff during construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction- related impacts related to increases in run-off and pollution from development activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Operation As described previously, the proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces. However, the project would manage stormwater flows with landscaping and the water quality basin that has been designed to accommodate the stormwater volume pursuant to the MS4 permit requirements. As stormwater flow conditions would be controlled and accommodated by the proposed infrastructure, an increase in runoff that could exceed the capacity of storm drain systems and provide polluted runoff would not occur. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that project specifications adhere to the existing MS4 permit regulations, which would ensure that pollutants are removed prior to discharge. Overall, with compliance to the existing regulations as verified by the City’s permitting process, project impacts related to the capacity of the drainage system and polluted runoff would be less than significant. (Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix J) iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less Than Significant Impact.) According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 06065C2017G, the project site not within a flood zone. As detailed in the previous responses, implementation of the project would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces on the site. However, the runoff from the project area would be accommodated by landscaping, catch basins, and a water quality basin that has been sized to accommodate the MS4 required design storm. Therefore, the project would not result in impeding or redirecting flood flows by the addition of the impervious surfaces. As detailed previously, the City’s permitting process would ensure that the drainage system specifications adhere to the existing MS4 permit requirements, and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix J) d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Less Than Significant Impact.) According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 06065C2017G, the project site not within a flood zone. Thus, the project site is not located within a flood hazard area that could be inundated with flood flows and result in release of pollutants. Impacts related to flood hazards and pollutants would not occur from the project. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 87 of 122 Tsunamis are generated ocean wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The proposed project is approximately 23 miles from the ocean shoreline and behind mountains. Based on the distance of the project site to the Pacific Ocean, the project site is not at risk of inundation from tsunami. Therefore, the proposed project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from a tsunami. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities (e.g., reservoirs and lakes). Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream properties. The project site is located adjacent to Lake Elsinore that could generate a seiche. However, the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that due to the distance and planned elevation of the residences, the possibility of seiches impacting the site is less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant risk related to the release of pollutants from inundation from a seiche. (Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E) e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less Than Significant Impact.) As described previously, use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES Construction General Permit and PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Thus, construction of the project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. All new development projects are required to implement a WQMP (per PP WQ-2) that would comply with the MS4 permit requirements. The WQMP and applicable BMPs are verified as part of the City’s permitting approval process, and construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. Water production from groundwater basins is managed by EVMWD, who is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Elsinore Valley Subbasin, and by the Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Authority for the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. The 2020 UWMP details that the anticipated production of groundwater would remain steady through 2045 (as shown in Table UT-1). As detailed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, the EMWD’s supply of water listed in Table UT-1 would be sufficient during both normal years and multiple dry year conditions between 2025 and 2045 to meet all of the estimated needs, including the proposed project. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the groundwater management plan and would not conflict with or obstruct its implementation. Thus, impacts related to water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant. (Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix J) Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies The following existing requirements would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality: PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 88 of 122 provide the City Building and Safety Department evidence of compliance with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. The project applicant/proponent shall comply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site. PPP WQ-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department. The Final WQMP shall identify all Post- Construction, Site Design. Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact.) The project site is currently vacant and generally undeveloped with the exception of remnants of a residence and its related infrastructure and retaining wall. The site is planned for residential development by the City’s General Plan and zoning designations. The site is adjacent and across the street from existing residential development. The proposed project would develop the site with 140 residential units, which is consistent with the existing development adjacent to the site and consistent with the recreation land use and zoning designations near the lake. Therefore, the change of the project site from a vacant site to a residential neighborhood would not physically divide an established community. Conversely, it would add to the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. In addition, the proposed roadway/sidewalk system provides for circulation through the site and does not result in any physical division. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to physical division of an established community. (Sources: Project site plan, General Plan Land Use map, Accessed: http://www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24601; and City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603) b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less Than Significant Impact.) As described previously, the project site is adjacent to residential, open space, and roadways. The project would develop the project site to provide 140 new residences and recreation areas, which would be similar to the existing uses that are adjacent to the site. General Plan The project site has General Plan land use designations of High Density Residential and Recreational. The High Density Residential land use designation provides for residential densities between 19 and 24 units per net acre. The Recreation land use designation provides for public and private areas of permanent open space and allows for passive and/or active private and public recreation. The project includes 140 single-family residences within 10.94 gross acres of the site. According to the Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 89 of 122 General Plan, standards of building intensity for residential uses are stated as the allowable range of dwelling units per net acre. On a net acre basis, the 140 residences would be developed on 6.00 net acres, which would result in 23.33 units per net acre. Thus, the project would not exceed the allowable High Density Residential density of 24 dwelling units per acre. In addition, 15.65 acres of the project site, which is designated Recreational would be preserved as open space adjacent to Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the existing residential and recreation General Plan land use designations for the site, and impacts related to General Plan land uses would be less than significant. Zoning The project site is zoned as High Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation (R). The R-3 zone allows a density up to 240 dwelling units per net acre, which is consistent with the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation. The proposed project includes 140 residences within 10.94 gross acres of the site. On a net acre basis, the 140 residences would be developed on 6.00 net acres, which would result in 23.33 units per net acre. Thus, the project would not exceed the allowable R-3 density of up to 24 dwelling units per acre. In addition, 15.65 acres of the project site, which is zoned R would be preserved as open space adjacent to Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with the residential and recreation zoning designations of the site. PUD Overlay The project includes implementation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. Municipal Code Chapter 17.108, Planned Unit Development Overlay District states that the PUD overlay district is intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in the development regulations and design standards of the underlying base district. In addition, Municipal Code Section 17.080.050(B)(2) states that the development standards for PUDs are generally the same as for the underlying base zoning district. However, modifications to those standards may be approved as part of the PUD plan in order to allow for greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan, such as providing an increase in housing opportunities for the community. As described in the previous responses, the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the General Plan and provides an increase in housing opportunities within the City. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with a land use plan or policy would not occur from implementation of the proposed PUD Overlay. (Sources: Project site plan, General Plan Land Use map, Accessed: http://www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24601; and City of Lake Elsinore Zoning code, Accessed: http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603) Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact.) Figure 3.12-1 of the General Plan EIR shows that the project site is located within the Mineral Resource Zone 3 Area (MRZ-3), or areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The project site is not located within an area that has been classified or designated as a mineral resource area by the State Board of Mining and Geology, nor has mineral extraction been documented to occur on site. The project site has a land use designation of High Density Residential and Recreation and is not planned for mineral extraction use. Therefore, impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 90 of 122 would not occur. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR Section 3.12 and Figure 3.12-1, Mineral Resource Zones) 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? (No Impact.) As described in the previous response, Figure 3.12-1 of the General Plan EIR shows that the project site is located within an MRZ-3 area and is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site. The project site has a land use designation of High Density Residential and Recreation and is not planned for mineral extraction use. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of a mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a land use plan. No impacts would occur. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR Section 3.12 and Figure 3.12-1, Mineral Resource Zones) Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. XIII. NOISE A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Urban Crossroads (Appendix K) to assess the project’s potential noise and vibration related impacts. The following analysis incorporates information from the study. California Building Code The State of California’s interior noise standards for all new construction with habitable spaces are codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Chapter 12, Section 1206. A habitable space in a building is defines as a space used for “living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. The acceptable interior noise limit is 45 CNEL in all habitable rooms. General Plan The City’s General Plan Public Safety and Welfare Element includes a compatibility matrix (Table 3-1) to determine if new land uses are compatible with the existing noise environment. The table identifies noise environments that are less than 70 dBA CNEL to be normally compatible with residential uses. Additionally, areas that have existing ambient noise levels above 75 dBA CNEL are considered clearly incompatible with residential uses. Municipal Code Section 17.176.060, Exterior Noise Limits, identifies the maximum permissible sound levels by receiving land use. For residential land use, the noise level limits for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours of 50 dBA L50 and 40 dBA L50 during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours for: • a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any hour (L₅₀); or • the standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour (L₂₅); or • the standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour (L8); or • the standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour (L2); or • the standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (Lmax). Municipal Code Section 17.176.060 for residential uses are detailed in Table N-1. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 91 of 122 Table N-1: Municipal Code Residential Exterior Noise Level Standards Receiving Land Use Condition Based Exterior Noise Level Standards (dBA) L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax (30 mins) (15 mins) (5 mins) (1 min) (Anytime) Single-Family Residential Daytime 50 55 60 65 70 Nighttime 40 45 50 55 60 Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K. Section 17.176.080.F, Construction/Demolition, states that the following is prohibited: 1. Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between 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 of public service utilities or by variance issued by the City. 2. Noise Restrictions at Affected Properties. Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum noise levels at affected residential properties will not exceed those listed in the following schedule: Mobile Equipment: Maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short‐term operation (less than 10 days) of mobile equipment: Type I Areas Single‐Family Residential Type II Areas Multifamily Residential Type III Areas Semi‐Residential/ Commercial Daily, except Sundays and Legal Holidays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day Sunday and Legal Holidays 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Stationary Equipment: Maximum noise levels for repetitively scheduled and relatively long‐term operation (period of 10 days or more) of stationary equipment: Type I Areas Single‐Family Residential Type II Areas Multifamily Residential Type III Areas Semi‐Residential/ Commercial Daily, except Sundays and Legal Holidays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Daily,7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day Sunday and Legal Holidays 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA Section 17.176.080.G, Vibration, states that it is prohibited to operate any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of any individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet (46 meters) from the source if on public space or public right-of-way. However, the Municipal code does not define a quantitative vibration threshold. The Caltrans Construction Vibration Manual defines the thresholds for readily or distinctly vibration levels for transient and continuous vibration sources as 0.24 and 0.08 PPV in/sec, respectively. Many types of construction activities fall between a single event and a continuous source. A vibration level of 0.16 PPV in/sec is the middle point between 0.08 and 0.24 PPV in/sec. To be conservative a vibration level of 0.1 PPV in/sec is used as the vibration threshold for construction to cover both short-term transient and continuous vibration Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 92 of 122 from construction activity. Existing Noise Levels As detailed in the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K), to identify the existing ambient noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at the project site on June 2, 2021. Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. The background ambient noise levels in the project area is dominated by the transportation-related noise associated with the Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 and other local surface streets A description of the locations and the existing noise levels are provided in Table N-2. Table N-2: Summary of 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements Measurement Location Description Energy Average Noise Level (dBA Leq) Daytime Nighttime L1 North of the project site at 32900 Riverside Drive in the mobile home park. 47.4 43.0 L2 Southeast of the project site near a single-family residence at 15524 Grand Avenue. 59.4 57.6 L3 South of the project site near a single-family residence located at 33027 Hill Street. 62.9 60.7 L4 North of the project site near the mobile-home park located at 32900 Riverside Drive. 61.1 58.0 L5 North of the project site near the mobile-home park located at 32900 Riverside Drive. 52.0 46.2 Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K. Sensitive Receivers Sensitive receivers are defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land, including: residences, schools, hospitals, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing residences that are as close as 37 feet north of the project site, as shown on Figure N-2. a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Construction The construction noise from the proposed project would occur throughout various portions of the project site over a 40-month period. Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Construction is expected to occur in the following stages: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, paving. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment range from approximately 67 dBA to 79 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source, as shown on Table N-3. However, per Municipal Code Section 17.176.080, included as PPP N-1, construction activities are prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on weekend or on holidays. The Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 93 of 122 Figure N-1: Noise Measurement Locations Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 94 of 122 Figure N-2: Sensitive Receiver Locations Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 95 of 122 construction activities would be in compliance with the City’s construction related noise standards. Therefore, the construction noise would be limited. In addition, construction noise would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. The typical operating cycle for a piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. The construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators. Table N-3: Construction Reference Noise Levels Construction Stage Reference Construction Activity Reference Noise Level @ 50 Feet (dBA Leq) Highest Reference Noise Level (dBA Leq) Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 77 77 Hauling Trucks 71 Rubber Tired Dozers 71 Grading Graders 79 79 Excavators 64 Compactors 67 Building Construction Cranes 67 72 Tractors 72 Welders 65 Paving Pavers 70 70 Paving Equipment 69 Rollers 69 Architectural Coating Cranes 67 67 Air Compressors 67 Generator Sets 67 Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K. The calculated noise from construction equipment was attenuated to the sensitive receiver locations. As shown on Table N-4 the construction noise levels are expected to range from 39.9 to 60.9 dBA Leq, and the highest construction levels are expected to range from 51.9 to 60.9 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. This is below the allowable construction noise level of 75 dBA in residential areas per Municipal Code Section 17.167.080(f). Therefore, noise impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant. Table N-4: Project Construction Noise Levels At Receivers Receiver Location Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Demolition Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest Levels R1 52.9 58.9 60.9 53.9 51.9 48.9 60.9 R2 43.9 49.9 51.9 44.9 42.9 39.9 51.9 R3 47.9 53.9 55.9 48.9 46.9 43.9 55.9 R4 46.2 52.2 54.2 47.2 45.2 42.2 54.2 R5 51.7 57.7 59.7 52.7 50.7 47.7 59.7 Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 96 of 122 Operation Consistency with Residential Noise Standards. Although CEQA analysis is to evaluate the project’s potential impact on the environment, the following evaluation is provided to show that development of the project would not result an inconsistency (or non-compliance) with noise standards related to residential uses. As described previously, the project site is located along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 which generates the ambient noise on the project site. To reduce the onsite and residential interior noise from vehicular noise from the adjacent roadway the project includes development of an 8-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the project site frontage of Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 and the following noise abatement design features on Lots 1 through 32: • Windows & Glass Doors: Windows and glass doors would be well-fitted, well-weather-stripped assemblies and shall have minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 27. • Exterior Doors: All exterior doors facing Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 would be well-fitted, well-weather stripped, and have minimum STC ratings of 27. • Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits would be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. All exterior wall assemblies facing Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 shall have a minimum STC rating of 46. • Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the attic space. • Ceilings: Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or constructed of well-sealed gypsum board of at least one-half inch thick. • Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system (e.g., air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g., fresh air supply) shall be provided which satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Exterior Noise. As shown on Table N-5, exterior noise levels at adjacent residences with the 6-foot-high wall would range from 52.5 to 61.7 dBA CNEL, which is identified as normally compatible with residential uses by the City’s General Plan. Table N-5: Exterior Noise Level Reduction From 6-Foot-High Wall Lot Noise Level Without Wall (dBA CNEL) Noise Level With Wall (dBA CNEL) 1 69.7 59.2 9 69.7 61.2 15 69.6 58.8 22 69.6 61.1 25 69.6 61.3 31 57.7 61.7 A 52.5 52.5 Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K. Interior Noise. Typical building construction provides a noise reduction of approximately 12 dBA with Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 97 of 122 "windows open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." Table N-6 shows that exterior noise levels at the first-floor building façade are expected to range from 59.9 to 62.2 dBA CNEL, and Table N-7 shows that noise levels at the second-floor building façade are expected to range from 58.7 to 69.3 dBA CNEL. As detailed in both tables, with implementation of the proposed project design, including noise reduction features, the interior noise levels would not exceed the 45 dBA CNEL with windows-closed interior noise standard. Therefore, the proposed project has been designed to be consistent with the City’s noise standards, and no impacts related to noise standard compliance would occur. Table N-6: First Floor Interior Noise Levels Lot Noise Level at Façade1 Required Interior Noise Reduction2 Interior Noise Reduction3 Upgraded Windows4 Interior Noise Level5 1 59.9 -14.9 25 No 34.9 9 61.5 -16.5 25 No 36.5 15 61.2 -16.2 25 No 36.2 22 61.5 -16.5 25 No 36.5 25 61.7 -16.7 25 No 36.7 31 62.2 -17.2 25 No 37.2 Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K. 1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 3 Minimum interior noise reduction 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. Table N-7: Second Floor Interior Noise Levels Lot Noise Level at Façade1 Required Interior Noise Reduction2 Interior Noise Reduction3 Upgraded Windows4 Interior Noise Level5 1 69.3 -24.3 25 No 44.3 9 68.9 -23.9 25 No 43.9 15 63.8 -18.8 25 No 38.8 22 68.9 -23.9 25 No 43.9 25 62.8 -17.8 25 No 37.8 31 58.7 -13.7 25 No 33.7 Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K. 1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 3 Minimum interior noise reduction 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. Project Traffic Generated Noise. Development of the proposed project would result in 140 residences, which would generate approximately 1,322 daily vehicular trips; of which 104 would occur in the a.m. peak hour and 139 would occur in the p.m. peak hour. The noise generated from these vehicular trips has been identified through utilization of the FHWA Roadway Noise Model, and a comparison of noise generated by traffic volumes with and without the project is provided in Table N-8. Neither the General Plan or Municipal Code quantifies what constitutes a significant increase in ambient noise. Therefore, thresholds from the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) have been utilized, which identifies noise impacts by comparing the existing noise levels and the future noise levels with the proposed project. Based on the FICON guidance, a substantial increase in ambient noise from vehicular traffic could occur when the noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses (e.g. residential, etc.) are less than 60 dBA CNEL and the project creates an increase of 5 dBA CNEL or greater noise level increase; when noise Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 98 of 122 levels range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL and the project creates 3 dBA CNEL or greater noise level increase; or when noise levels are above 65 dBA CNEL and the project creates a 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater noise level increase. As shown in Table N-8, without the project traffic in the opening year, would range from 71.1 to 72.7 dBA CNEL. With inclusion of project traffic, noise levels would range from range from 71.3 to 72.9 dBA CNEL, which is an increase of 0.1 to 0.3 dBA CNEL, which is less than the 1.5 dBA CNEL threshold. Therefore, impacts related to operational traffic noise would be less than significant. Table N-8: Project Generated Traffic Noise in the Opening Year Condition ID Road Segment CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Incremental Noise Level Increase No Project With Project Change Threshold Exceeded? 1 Riverside Dr Lincoln St to Lakeshore Dr 71.8 72.0 0.1 1.5 No 2 Riverside Dr Lakeside HS Stadium Way to Lincoln St 71.1 71.3 0.2 1.5 No 3 Riverside Dr Grand Ave to Lakeside HS Stadium Way 72.2 72.4 0.2 1.5 No 4 Grand Ave Jamieson St to Grand Ave 72.7 72.9 0.3 1.5 No Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K. (Sources: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K) b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Construction Construction activities for development of the project would include demolition, excavation, and grading activities, which have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. People residing in close proximity to the construction could be exposed to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Site ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can be perceived in the audible range and be felt in buildings very close to a construction site. The reference vibration levels provided by the FTA show that a large bulldozer results in a velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet, as shown in Table N-9. Table N-9: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Small bulldozer 0.003 Jackhammer 0.035 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Large bulldozer 0.089 Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K. Table N-10 provides the modeled construction equipment vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations. At distances ranging from 37 feet to 318 feet from the project site boundary, construction vibration levels Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 99 of 122 would range from 0.005 to 0.049 in/sec PPV, which is below the threshold of 0.1 in/sec PPV. Therefore, construction related vibration impacts would be less than significant. Table N-10: Project Construction Equipment Vibration at Receiver Locations Receiver Location1 Distance to Const. Activity (Feet)2 Typical Construction Vibration Levels PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds PPV (in/sec)4 Thresholds Exceeded? Small bulldozer Jack- hammer Loaded Trucks Large Bulldozer Highest Vibration Level R1 41' 0.001 0.017 0.036 0.042 0.042 0.1 No R2 318' 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.1 No R3 110' 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.010 0.010 0.1 No R4 103' 0.000 0.004 0.009 0.011 0.011 0.1 No R5 37' 0.002 0.019 0.042 0.049 0.049 0.1 No Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K (Sources: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K) c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact.) The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan. The closest airport is the Skylark Field located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the project site. As such, the project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and no impacts would occur. (Sources: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K) Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies The following existing requirements would reduce the potential for impacts related noise: PPP N-1: Construction Hours. The project shall comply with Municipal Code Section 17.176.080, that prohibits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on weekend or on holidays. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix X) XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less Than Significant Impact.) The proposed project would construct 140 two-story condominium residences and the associated amenities and infrastructure on the project site and preserve 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake as natural open space. The California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of Lake Elsinore has a residential population of 64,762 and 19,306 housing units in 2021. The Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 100 of 122 EIR (GPU EIR) details that the City has an average of 3.27 persons per household. Furthermore, the GPU EIR details that by 2030 the population in the City is projected to be approximately 85,376 and the City would have approximately 28,704 housing units. Based on this information, the proposed 140 condominiums would result in a net increase of approximately 458 new residents. The addition of 458 new residents would represent a population increase of 0.7 percent and the new housing units would result in a 0.7 percent increase in residential units within the City. Additionally, the proposed population and housing unit increase would be within the projected population and housing stock as analyzed by the GPU EIR. Furthermore, the proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City, is surrounded by residential and urban uses, and is already served by the existing roadways and infrastructure systems. No infrastructure would be extended or constructed to serve areas beyond the project site, and indirect impacts related to growth would not occur from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts related to inducement of unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant. (Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR, August 2011; California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates, September 2021, https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact.) The project site is generally undeveloped and vacant. The site does not include any existing housing and no people are located onsite. Therefore, the project would not displace any people or housing, and no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection services throughout the City. The Fire Department has four fire stations within 5.5 roadway miles of the project site, as listed in Table PS-1. Table PS-1: Fire Stations Serving Project Station Address Distance from Site (roadway miles) #85 29405 Grand Avenue Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 2.4 miles #11 33020 Maiden Lane Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 3.1 miles #10 410 W. Graham Ave Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 4.0 miles #97 41725 Rosetta Canyon Dr, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 5.4 miles Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 101 of 122 The proposed project would develop 140 two-story condominium residences and the associated amenities and infrastructure within the site. Implementation of the project would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56. As part of the permitting process the project plans would be reviewed by the City’s Building and Safety Division to ensure that project plans meet the fire protection requirements. Due to the increase in onsite people that would occur from implementation of the project, an incremental increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would occur. However, the increase in residents onsite is limited (458 residents) and would not increase demands such that the four fire stations would not be able to accommodate servicing the project in addition to its existing commitments. Furthermore, per the Riverside County Fire Department Master Plan, the City falls into the Urban category (GPU EIR). This classification requires a fire station be within three roadway miles of the project site and has a response time goal of 7 minutes. As shown in Table PS-1, Riverside County Fire Department Station 85 is approximately 2.4 roadway miles from the site. Based on the travel distance from the station to the site, the approximate response time would be six minutes. As such, per the Riverside County Fire Department Master Plan, the project site would have adequate fire service. Provision of a new or physically altered fire station would not be required that could cause environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services from the proposed project would be less than significant. (Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; Riverside County Fire Department) b) Police protection? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Lake Elsinore contracts with the County of Riverside Sheriff’s Department for police services. The Sheriff Station serving the project area is the Lake Elsinore Station, located at 333 W. Limited Avenue, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. The Station is located approximately 4.2 roadway miles from the project site. The City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Operating Budget describes that the City has 52.7399 sworn officers and 5 community service officers. The California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of Lake Elsinore has a residential population of 64,762 in 2021. Therefore, the City currently has approximately 1.2 officer per 1,000 residents. Because the project site is currently vacant, development of the proposed 140 residences would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services. However, the increase would not be significant when compared to current demand levels. As described previously, the residential population of the project site at full occupancy would be approximately 458 residents. Based on the current staffing ratio of 1.2 officers for every 1,000 residents, the proposed project would require 0.55 percent of an additional officer. This additional staffing would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing policing facilities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, which requires a development impact fee (DIF) payment to the City for impacts to public services and facilities, including sheriff facilities and services. Payment of the DIF fee would ensure that funds are available for either the purchase of new equipment and/or the hiring of additional sheriff personnel to maintain the County’s desired level of service for sheriff protection. Impacts related to police services would be less than significant. (Sources: City of Lake Elsinore FY 2020-2021 Annual Operating Budget, Accessed: http://www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=27115; California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates, September 2021, https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/; Lake Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 102 of 122 Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, https://www.riversidesheriff.org/743/Lake-Elsinore-Station) c) Schools? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) that is comprised of 13 elementary schools, 2 K-8 schools, 4 middle schools, and 3 high schools. The schools that serve the site are listed below: • Lakeland Village K8 located at 18730 Grand Avenue Lake Elsinore, approximately 4.8 roadway miles from the project site. Lakeside Village K8 has a capacity of approximately 1,300 students. • Lakeside High School located at 32593 Riverside Drive Lake Elsinore, approximately 0.5 mile from the project site. Lakeside High School has a capacity of 3,363 students. The project would develop 140 condominiums. The LEUSD student generation rate is 0.28 students per dwelling unit for elementary school; 0.15 students per dwelling unit for middle school; and 0.20 students per dwelling unit for high school. Based on the existing capacity of the schools serving the project site, both schools would be able to serve the project, as shown in Table PS-2. Table PS-2: School Capacity and Project Generated Students School School Capacity 2019-2020 Enrollment1 Existing Remaining Capacity Students Generated by Project Remaining Capacity with Project Lakeland Village K8 1,300 909 391 40 351 Lakeside High School 3,363 1,806 1,557 28 1,529 1Source: Lake Elsinore Unified School District, School Accountability Report Cards Additionally, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for development projects. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants shall pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts. As a result, impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant with the Government Code required fee payments. (Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; Lake Elsinore Unified School District, https://www.leusd.k12.ca.us/) d) Parks? Less than Significant Impact. As of 2011, the City of Lake Elsinore had approximately 559 acres of developed parks and open space within the City. There are 16 existing park facilities totaling approximately 125.1 acres and four recreational facilities totaling 21,000 square feet. The parks closest to the project site include the following: • McVicker Canyon Park located at 29355 McVicker Canyon Park Rd, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, approximately 2.7 roadway miles from the project site. This park includes baseball fields, soccer Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 103 of 122 fields, play equipment, picnic areas, barbecues, and pedestrian walkways. • Machado Park located at 15150 Joy St, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, approximately 1.8 miles from the project site. This park includes volleyball courts, tennis courts, play equipment, picnic areas, barbecues, and pedestrian walkways. The proposed project would develop 140 two-story condominium residences and the associated amenities and infrastructure on the site, and 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as natural open space. Additionally, the project would provide 0.77 acres of recreational space for future residents. The City’s Municipal Code Section 17.84.120 provides park requirements that are based on the number of dwelling units. Based on the Code’s requirement of 250 square feet of common open space per unit, the project would require 35,000 square feet or 0.80 acres of common open space. Therefore, a large majority of the project’s park demand would be met by the provision of the onsite park. In addition, the project would be required to pay parkland fees pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.12.170, as a condition of the approval of a tentative map (included as PPP PS-2), which would be used by the City for public purposes and facilities to the benefit of the public and the residents of the City. Also, as described previously, the City currently has over 125.1 acres of park facilities, including two parks within 3 miles of the project site. Therefore, impacts related to the need to provide new or altered park and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios would be less than significant. Further, the impacts of development of the proposed 0.77-acre recreation areas are considered part of the impacts of the proposed project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this MND. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the park are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation sections. (Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011) e) Other public services/facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would redevelop a portion of the project site with 140 condominium units within an area that already contains multi-family residential. The additional residences would result in a limited incremental increase in the need for additional services, such as public libraries and post offices, etc. Because the project area is already served by other services and the project would result in a limited increase in residences, the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide other services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011) Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies The following existing requirements would reduce impacts to school facilities from the proposed project: PPP PS-1: Schools Development Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of building permit, the project shall pay applicable development fees levied by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.407). PPP PS-2: Park Fees. As a condition of the approval of a tentative map, the project shall pay applicable park related fees pursuant to Municipal Code 19.12.170. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 104 of 122 XVI. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less Than Significant Impact.) As described previously, the project would develop 140 condominium units and 0.77 acre of recreation area with a pool/spa, open passive recreation area, barbecue, tot lot and other amenities. The City’s Municipal Code Section 17.84.120 provides park requirements that are based on the number of dwelling units. Based on the Code’s requirement of 250 square feet of common open space per unit, the project would require 35,000 square feet or 0.80 acres of common open space. Therefore, a large majority of the project’s park demand would be met by the provision of the onsite recreation area. In addition, the project would be required to pay parkland fees pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.12.170, as a condition of the approval of a tentative map (included as PPP PS-2), which would be used by the City for public purposes and facilities to the benefit of the public and the residents of the City. Also, as described previously, the City currently has over 125.1 acres of park facilities, including two parks within 3 miles of the project site. Therefore, impacts related to the increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated would be less than significant. (Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact.) As described above, the project includes 0.77 acre of recreation space that includes a pool/spa, passive recreation area, barbecue area, tot lot, and other amenities. The impacts of development of the recreation areas are considered part of the impacts of the proposed project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this MND. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the park are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections. In addition, while the project would contribute development impact fees pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.12.170 (included as PPP PS-2) to be used towards the future expansion or maintenance of parks and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development, and the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code) Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies The following existing requirement would reduce impacts to recreation facilities from the proposed project: PPP PS-2: Park Fees. Listed previously in Section 15, Public Services. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 105 of 122 XVII. TRANSPORTATION This section is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Fehr and Peers (Appendix L). The project’s vehicular trips were calculated using the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017). Traffic Threshold The City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide identifies LOS C as the target for intersection operations. However, LOS D is allowed in community development areas at intersections with any combination of secondary highways, major highways, arterials, urban arterials, expressways, conventional state highways or at freeway ramp intersections. Based on the classifications of the study area roadways, the intersections of SR-74 & Grand Avenue (Intersection 2), SR-74 & Lincoln Street (Intersection 4), and SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive (Intersection 5) are applicable to the criteria of LOS D and the remaining intersections (Intersections 1 and 3) are applicable to the criteria of LOS C. However, automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measure of traffic congestion, is no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA, except in locations specifically identified in the Guidelines. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099(b)(2).) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 - Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts states that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for evaluating VMT. Thus, the LOS analysis using a threshold of LOS D is provided to describe the project effect on local intersections and project consistency with the General Plan circulation requirement. Traffic Study Area and Existing Conditions The following five intersections were evaluated for impacts related to the project: 1. SR-74 & Jamieson Street/Project Driveway (Unsignalized) 2. SR-74 & Grand Avenue (Signalized) 3. SR-74 & Lakeside High School Stadium Way (Signalized) 4. SR-74 & Lincoln Street (Signalized) 5. SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive (Signalized) As shown in Table T-1, two of the intersections currently operate at LOS E or F during either the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which is considered an unsatisfactory condition per City criteria. Table T-1: Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Peak Hour Delay LOS 1 SR-74 & Jamieson Street TWSC AM 40 E PM 53 F 2 SR-74 & Grand Avenue Signal AM 13 B PM 11 B 3 SR-74 & Lakeside High School Stadium Way Signal AM 13 B PM 7 A 4 SR-74 & Lincoln Street Signal AM 70 E PM 30 C 5 SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive Signal AM 40 D PM 37 D Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L Bold type indicates an unacceptable LOS Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 106 of 122 Poor operations at the Riverside Drive/SR-74 and Lincoln intersection are due to high turning movement volumes, particularly the southbound left-turn during the AM peak hour. Poor operations at the Riverside Drive/SR-74 and Jamieson Street intersection are a result of delay experienced by vehicles turning onto Riverside Drive/SR-74 from Jamieson Street that have few gaps in traffic due to the high volume on Riverside Drive/SR-74. a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact.) The proposed project would develop the project site with 140 residences and recreation/open space facilities. The trip generation for the project was calculated using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 10th Edition, 2017. As shown in Table T-2, the project would generate approximately 1,322 daily trips including 104 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 139 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Table T-2: Project Trip Generation Land Use Units ITE Code Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates Single-Family Residences DU 210 25% 75% 0.74 63% 37% 0.99 9.44 Project Trip Generation Single-Family Residences 140 26 78 104 88 51 139 1,322 Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L Opening Year Plus Project Cumulative Condition The project includes widening Riverside Drive / SR-74 to two lanes along the project frontage and construction of a median to prohibit left-turns onto Riverside Drive / SR-74 from the project site and Jamieson Street. This median would restrict left-turns onto Riverside Drive / SR-74 from Jamieson Street. Left-turns from Jamieson Street to Riverside Drive / SR-74 would use Laguna Avenue and Grand Avenue to make a left-turn at the signalized intersection of Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive / SR-74. An intersection operations analysis was conducted for the study area to evaluate the opening year plus project a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions with operation of the proposed project and cumulative projects. The opening year traffic forecasts were developed by applying an annual growth rate of 2% to 2021 traffic volumes. As the proposed project is expected to be complete by 2023, two years of growth was applied to existing counts and the project generated trips, and the cumulative projects’ generated trips. Although Table T-1 shows that two of the intersections currently operate at LOS E or F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the opening year plus project scenario shown in Table T-3, includes traffic signal timing adjustments to improve the performance of the roadway. Traffic signal timing adjustments are considered standard maintenance for local and state agencies, and it is assumed that signal timing would be regularly optimized based on traffic volumes. The modeling held cycle lengths constant while optimizing intersection splits (e.g. timing allocated to each turning movement) to reflect standard maintenance. With these adjustments and addition of project and cumulative project traffic, the intersections would experience an improvement in delay compared to existing conditions. As shown in Table T-3, the intersections of SR-74 & Lincoln Street and SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive would operate below the LOS standard in the cumulative with project condition. Signal timing improvements including cycle length optimization and optimized splits would improve operations at these two intersections; however, LOS E conditions would continue to occur at the SR-74 & Lincoln Street Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 107 of 122 intersection during both peak hours and at the SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive intersection in the p.m. peak hour. To provide for optimum traffic flow conditions, a Condition of Approval COA T-1 has been included to require the project to be responsible for a 26% fair share contribution toward implementation of the timing improvements along SR-74 to adjust cycle lengths along the roadway corridor. At the SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive intersection, signal timing optimization would result in a 6 second decrease in delay. However, this continues to result in LOS E operations. The project would be responsible for a 17% fair share contribution toward the implementation of the timing improvements at the SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive intersection. Table T-3: Opening Year Plus Project Peak Hour Level of Service Intersection Control Peak Hour Delay LOS 1 SR-74 & Jamieson Street TWSC AM 22 C PM 17 C 2 SR-74 & Grand Avenue Signal AM 16 B PM 13 B 3 SR-74 & Lakeside High School Stadium Way Signal AM 14 B PM 7 A 4 SR-74 & Lincoln Street Signal AM 59 E PM 59 E 5 SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive Signal AM 45 D PM 58 E Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L Transit Services. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides 36 local fixed-routes services that connect local communities, nine Commuter Link express bus routes, and a Rapid Link Gold Line for long-distance commuters traveling to Metrolink, Coaster and Sprinter stations, business parks, shopping malls and regional transit facilities. Bus routes that run through the City include RTA routes 8, 9, 22, 40, 205/206 that serve major destinations in the region. RTA Route 8 is the closest to the project site, and stops at Lakeside High School Stadium Way and at Grand Avenue. Route 8 runs from the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center south to Wildomar. It operates Monday through Friday from 4:40 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on weekends from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with one-hour headways. These existing transit services would serve project residents. The proposed 140 residences units would not alter or conflict with existing transit stops and schedules, and impacts related to transit services would not occur. Bicycle Circulation. Class II bicycle facilities are striped lanes that provide bike travel and can be located next to a curb or parking lane and vary between 4 and 5 feet wide. There is an existing Class II bicycle facility on Riverside Drive/SR-74 adjacent to the project site. There are no existing bicycle facilities on Grand Avenue, Lakeside High School Stadium Way, Lincoln Street, or Lakeshore Drive. However, the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan includes development of Class II bike facilities on Grand Avenue, Lincoln Street, and Lakeshore Drive. The proposed project includes roadway improvements to Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 that would add Class II bike facilities. The existing and proposed bicycle lanes would provide bicycle transportation opportunities for residents of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would enhance, and not conflict with, existing bicycle facilities. Thus, impacts related to bicycle facilities would not occur from the project Pedestrian Facilities. The only existing sidewalks near the project site are located on the south side of Riverside Drive west of Lakeshore High School Stadium Way to Joy Street and with gaps to Lakeshore Drive. Striped pedestrian crossings are currently located on Riverside Drive at Lakeshore High School Stadium Way, Lincoln Street, Grand Avenue, and Lakeshore Drive. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 108 of 122 The proposed onsite roadway system includes sidewalks throughout the project site that would connect to the offsite sidewalks. This would facilitate pedestrian use and walking to nearby locations. Therefore, the proposed project would improve, and not conflict with, pedestrian facilities. Thus, impacts related to pedestrian facilities would not occur. (Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L) b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. SB743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses. The bill also specified that delay-based level of service could no longer be considered an indicator of a significant impact on the environment. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines beginning January 1, 2019. Section 15064.3(c) states that the provisions of the section shall apply statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 - Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts states that VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for evaluating VMT. The City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (June 2020) provides the following VMT screening criteria from Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to assess the potential for VMT impacts: 1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: Projects which are located within a TPA are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. 2. Low VMT Area Screening: This screening threshold applies to residential or office projects that are located within a low VMT-generating area, which are identified by WRCOG as traffic analysis zones (TAZ) where total daily VMT per service population performs at or below the jurisdictional average of total VMT per service population under base year (2012) conditions. Projects which are located within a low VMT-generating area are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. 3. Project Type Screening: Local serving projects listed in the TIA Guidelines and projects that generate fewer than 110 net new daily vehicle trips (or 11 single-family residences) are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. A VMT analysis was prepared for the project (Appendix M) using the web-based VMT screening tool developed by WRCOG that is used by the City. The screening tool identified that the TAZ that the project site is located within has a daily total VMT of 28.23 per service population, which is lower than the jurisdictional average 2012 daily VMT of 36.29 per service population. In addition, the TAZ that the project site is located within has a residential home based VMT of 14.42 per capita, which is lower than the jurisdictional average 2012 daily VMT of 18.63 per capita. Based on the City’s screening thresholds, the proposed project is within a low VMT-generating area, and would therefore, have a less than significant impact on VMT. (Sources: VMT Analysis Memorandum, Appendix M) c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 109 of 122 The project includes development of residences and recreation facilities and open space. The project includes community type uses and does not include any incompatible uses, such as farm equipment. The proposed project would be accessed from Grand Avenue/SR-74 through gated driveways that have been designed to City standards that would be verified during construction permitting. The proposed onsite roadways would provide access to each residence. The Transportation Impact Analysis prepared a queueing analysis of the project driveway during both peak hours to confirm that adequate capacity would be provided for vehicles exiting the project site. The analysis identified that a maximum queue based on peak hour traffic volumes is expected to be four vehicles, which can be accommodated by the proposed design without affecting circulation. With the project improvements to Riverside Drive / SR-74, project trips traveling west on Riverside Drive / SR-74 would need to make a U-turn at the Grand Avenue intersection. The Transportation Impact Analysis details that there is 50 feet of space between the left edge of the left- turn pocket and the outside curb of the receiving lane. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) turning templates note a minimum 32-feet of distance to allow for U- turns of a passenger car and our professional experience has identified that 36-feet is more appropriate to account for longer wheel-based vehicles (such as pickup trucks and SUVs. The 50 feet of available space is sufficient to serve vehicles making a U-turn to travel west on Riverside Drive / SR-74. Therefore, the project would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature. All of the onsite streets would be developed in conformance with City design standards. The City’s construction permitting process includes review of project plans to ensure that no potentially hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the project. For example, the design of the project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant. (Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L) d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less Than Significant Impact.) Construction The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the project site or adjacent areas. The installation of the driveway, and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed project would require the temporary closure of one lane of Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level. Operation As described previously, the proposed project area would be accessed from a driveway along Grand Avenue/SR-74 through the onsite streets to each residence. The design and permitting of these roadways would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the project are and would provide more than one route for emergency responders to access different portions of the project area. Because the project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. (Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L) Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies The following existing requirements would reduce the potential for impacts related to transportation: PPP HAZ-1: Fire Code. The project shall conform to the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 110 of 122 of Regulations, Part 9), as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56, Fire Code. Specifically, Section 503 of the California Fire Code provides regulations related to emergency access. Condition of Approval The following Condition of Approval is required by the City as part of implementation of the project to assist in meeting the City’s LOS requirements. COA T-1: Prior to certificate of occupancies are granted, the project applicant shall provide a 24% fair share contribution toward implementation of traffic signal timing improvements along SR-74 to adjust cycle lengths along the project study area corridor (SR-74 between Jamieson Street and Lakeshore Drive) to improve the function of the roadway system with implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L) XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES This section is based on the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (Appendix C). The Cultural Resources Study includes a records search, Sacred Land File search, historic archival research, and a field survey. AB 52 Requirements The project would be required to comply with AB 52 regarding tribal consultation. Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC Section 21074). AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource falling outside the definition stated above nonetheless qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” In compliance with these requirements, on June 30, 2021, the City sent letters to the following Native American tribes that may have knowledge regarding tribal cultural resources in the project vicinity. • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Pechanga Band of Mission Indians • Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians • Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians • Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested formal government-to-government consultation under AB 52. The City held consultation meetings with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians on August 16, 2021, with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on September 1, 2021, and with the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians on September 16, 2021. Consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians concluded on September 9, 2021. Consultation with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians is ongoing. 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). (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 111 of 122 As detailed previously in Section V, Cultural Resources, the project site does not include any resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. However, the records search for the project identified resources within 0.25-mile of the project site that include prehistoric habitation sites, and the site’s location next to the lake provides potential for the site to be used previously by tribes; and therefore, may contain tribal cultural resources. Additionally, the Cultural Resources Study includes a search of the Sacred Lands File from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within the project. The search results were positive for sacred, religious, or ceremonial sites within the area surrounding the project. Therefore, to ensure that potential impacts to unknown resources are limited to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 are included to ensure that any potential disturbance to buried tribal cultural resources during the grading and/or construction phases of the project is reduced to a less than significant level. (Sources: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C) 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 Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.) As described in the previous response, no known tribal cultural resources are known to exist on the project site. However, the records search for the project identified prehistoric habitation sites within 0.25-mile of the project, the site’s location next to the lake provides potential for the site to be used previously by tribes; and the Sacred Lands File from the NAHC were positive for sacred, religious, or ceremonial sites within the area surrounding the project. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-7 are included to ensure that any potential disturbance to buried tribal cultural resources during the grading and/or construction phases of the project is reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7. Listed previously in Section V, Cultural Resources. (Sources: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C) XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. Water Infrastructure. The proposed project would redevelop the project site, which is served by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). Water is not currently provided to the project site as it is vacant. The proposed project would install onsite 8-inch water lines that would be located within each of the residential streets and serve each of the proposed residences. The project would also install a new 8- inch water line within the Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 right-of-way along the project frontage and within Grand Avenue that would connect to the existing 32-inch water line at the intersection of Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 112 of 122 Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue and to the existing 14-inch water line within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. The new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed residences and landscaping through plumbing/landscape features that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code for efficient use of water. The proposed offsite water lines would be sized to serve the proposed project. Installation of the new water distribution lines within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 and Grand Avenue would only serve to connect the proposed project to the existing system and would not provide new water supplies to any off-site areas. The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed residences and associated open space areas is included as part of the proposed project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections III, Air Quality and VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater Infrastructure. EVMWD provides wastewater treatment services to the project site via a 10- inch sewer line within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. The project would install an 8-inch sewer line that would be located within each of the residential streets and serve each of the proposed residences. The new 8-inch sewer line would extend approximately 700 feet offsite from the northern portion of the project site to connect with the existing offsite 10-inch sewer line within the within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 right-of-way. The proposed sewer lines would be sized to serve the proposed project. Installation of the new lines in Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 would only serve the proposed project and would not provide sewer service to any off-site areas. The construction activities related to installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve the proposed project, is included as part of the proposed project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is included in Section III, Air Quality and VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section XIII, Noise. As the proposed project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Stormwater Drainage. The project includes installation of an onsite stormwater drainage system with a 1.33-acre water quality basin to be located along the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the preserved natural open space area. The construction activities related to installation of onsite stormwater drainage that would serve the proposed project, is included as part of the proposed project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the stormwater infrastructure is included in Section III, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, drainage changes are analyzed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section XIII, Noise. As the proposed project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new stormwater drainage facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Electricity, Natural Gas, & Telecommunications. Southern California Edison provides electricity to the project site via overhead lines on Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to the project site via a 4-inch underground gas line in Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. Spectrum provides telephone service to the project site and Cox Communications provides cable and internet to the project site. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 113 of 122 The proposed project would install onsite infrastructure that would connect to the existing service systems. In addition, the project includes removal of the existing utility poles along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 fronting the project site and undergrounding these dry utilities. The construction activities related to installation of onsite electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications that would serve the proposed project, is included as part of the proposed project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the infrastructure is included in Section III, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section XIII, Noise. As the proposed project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new infrastructure facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: Project Site Plans) b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact The proposed project would result in an increased demand for water supplies from the 140 residential units. The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) details that in 2020 the water demand in the City for residential uses was 129 gallons per day per capita, which was below the water use target of 188.6 gallons per day per capita. To provide a conservative estimate of project water use, a generation rate of 188.6 gallons per capita per day was used to estimate water demand from the proposed project. As described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed project would result in 458 additional residents at full occupancy. Based on the City’s 2020 water use target of 188.6 gallons per capita per day, the 458 additional residents would generate a water demand of 86,379 gallons per day (96.8 acre-feet per year). The project would limit water demand by inclusion of low-flow plumbing and irrigation fixtures, pursuant to the California Title 24 requirements, and by reusing treated rainwater to irrigate the park area, as detailed in the Project Description. The EVMWD’s 2020 UWMP estimates water supply increase to 47,219 and total water demand of 38,932 in 2025, as shown in Table UT-1. The project’s demand of 96.8 acre-feet equates to 0.3 percent of projected water demand in 2025. Therefore, the City would have water supplies available to serve the project. Because the project’s residential uses are consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning designation of the site, which are used to project future water demands, the demand from the project is included in the UWMP demand projections listed in Table UT-1. Table UT-1: Urban Water Management Plan Projections Water Supply Additional Detail on Water Supply Projected Water Supply (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Purchased or imported water Western/Metropolitan1 26,286 26,286 26,286 26,286 26,286 Purchased or imported water Raw Imported Water Western/Metropolitan1,2 0 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 Groundwater Elsinore Valley Subbasin3 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 Groundwater Coldwater Subbasin3 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 114 of 122 Groundwater Bedford Subbasin3 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 Groundwater Lee Lake Subbasin3 875 875 875 875 875 Groundwater Palomar Well Replacement3 450 450 450 450 450 Groundwater Temecula-Pauba GW3 0 0 750 750 750 Surface Water Canyon Lake/CLWTP4 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Other IPR at Regional WRF5 0 0 0 940 1,970 Recycled Water Temescal Wash & Lake Elsinore Replenishment5 7,270 8,027 8,863 8,960 8,960 Recycled Water Metered Customers6 1,459 1,459 1,459 1,459 1,459 Recycled Water Canyon Lake and Summerly Golf Course6 378 378 378 378 378 Total Projected Supply7: 47,219 51,675 53,261 54,298 55,328 Total Projected Demand: 38,932 41,994 45,313 48,085 50,967 1Imported water will be used to fill the gaps will be based on the availability of local supplies. There is no total right or safe yield. EVMWD can purchase more water at an additional charge. 2 Starting in 2026, EVMWD plans to start purchasing about 3,700 AFY of raw imported water from Western/Metropolitan for treatment at the CLWTP. 3 The safe yield for the groundwater subbasins will be established with their respective GSPs. 4 In settlement of litigation, EVMWD agreed not to treat more than 8,000 AFY of San Jacinto River flows in any water year at EVMWD’s CLWTP. This 8,000 AFY limit applies only to San Jacinto River runoff and excludes any imported water conveyed in the river channel. 5 In accordance with its NPDES permit, EVMWD is permitted to discharging 0.5 MGD to Temescal Wash and 7.5 MGD to Lake Elsinore. EVMWD is planning to use excess wastewater collected at the Regional WRF to implement an IPR project. It is anticipated that this water will be available between 2035 and 2040. 6 Includes recycled water produced by the three EVMWD WRFs and recycled water from SRRRA and Eastern. 7 The total right or safe yield were not calculated because the groundwater safe yields are being updated as part of the GSP projects. Source: EVMWD 2020 UWMP The EVMWD 2020 UWMP details the available supply, including groundwater, surface water, imported water, and recycled water would meet the projected demand during normal, single dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to water supplies from the proposed project would be less than significant. (Sources: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, May 2021, https://www.evmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/2233/637571268195170000) c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less than Significant.) EVMWD operates and maintains sewer collection pipes in the project area that feed into EVMWD’s trunk sewers that convey wastewater to the Regional Water Reclamation Facility that has a regular capacity of 8.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and is going through an expansion to provide an additional 4 MGD of treatment capacity. Based on EVMWD’s wastewater generation rate of 3,500 gallons per day per acre for high density residential, the proposed project would generate approximately 38,290 gallons per day over the 10.94-acre portion of the site that is slated for residential development. The project generated 38,290 gallons per day is within the 4 MGD of additional capacity that is being developed within the Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. (Sources: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, May 2021, https://www.evmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/2233/637571268195170000; Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 115 of 122 EVMWD, 2016 Sewer System Master Plan, August 2016, https://www.evmwd.com/home/showdocument?id=1773) d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less Than Significant Impact.) In 2019, approximately 92 percent of the solid waste from the City of Lake Elsinore, which was disposed of in landfills, went to the El Sobrante Landfill. The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to accept 16,054 tons per day of solid waste and is permitted to operate through 2051. In June 2019, a maximum of 13,796 tons in a day was disposed at the El Sobrante Landfill, which provides for a remaining capacity of 2,258 tons per day. Construction Project construction would generate solid waste in the form of packaging and discarded materials. Section 5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus, the demolition and construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated. As project construction does not require demolition of any structure, solid waste generated would be limited in comparison to operation wastes. As described above, the El Sobrante Landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,258 tons per day. Therefore, the facility would be able to accommodate the limited construction waste generated by the project. Operation The CalEEMod solid waste generation rate for single-family residential land use is 0.41 tons per resident per year. As described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, full occupancy of the proposed project would generate approximately 458 new residents. Thus, operation of the project would generate approximately 187.78 tons per solid waste per year; or 3.61 tons per week. However, at least 75 percent of the solid waste is required by AB 341 to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 0.9 tons per week. As the El Sobrante Landfill has additional capacity of approximately 2,258 tons per day, the solid waste generated by the project would be within the capacity of the landfill. Thus, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs and the project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant. (Sources: CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System Facility/Site Search. Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/; CalRecycle Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility (ca.gov). Accessed: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility) g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The proposed project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City is subject to the requirements set forth in Section 5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 116 of 122 the City’s development project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with all solid waste statute and regulations; and impacts would not occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. XX. WILDFIRES The discussion below is based on CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping of the project site and vicinity. a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact.) The project site is vacant and moderately covered with vegetation. The project site is adjacent to residences, roadways, commercial uses, and undeveloped areas within the urban environment. The project site is not within or adjacent to any wildland areas. According to the CalFire Hazard Severity Zone map, the project site is not within a high fire hazard zone. Also, as described previously, the proposed onsite street system would meet City design standards for emergency access. Permitting of these roadways would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the project area for emergency responders. Because the project is not located within a high fire hazard zone and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City, potential impacts related to wildfire emergency response or evacuation would not occur. (Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf) b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (No Impact.) The project site is generally flat and does not contain or adjacent to slopes. The project site is adjacent to a roadway, residences, and undeveloped areas. The project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas, and as determined by the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, the project site is not within a high fire hazard zone. There are no factors on or adjacent to the project site that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Thus, no impact related to other factors that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would occur from the project. (Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf) c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (No Impact.) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 117 of 122 As described previously, the project site is not within a wildfire hazard zone. The project does not include any infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks. In addition, the project would provide internal streets and fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) that conform to the California Fire Code requirements, included as Municipal Code Chapter 8.16, as verified through the City’s permitting process. Therefore, impacts related to infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risks would not occur with the proposed project. (Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf) d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (No Impact.) As described previously, the project site is not within a wildfire hazard zone. In addition, the project site is relatively flat and adjacent to flat areas. There are no slope or hillsides that would become unstable. In addition, the project would install onsite drainage that would convey runoff to a water quality basin on the project site. Therefore, impacts related to flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would not occur from the proposed project. (Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf) Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) As described in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project would preserve the Southern Willow Cottonwood Riparian Forest areas that contain the special status species, including the least Bell’s vireo that is designated as a federally and state endangered species. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to ensure the nesting/breeding activities are not disrupted and that impacts to least Bell’s vireo habitat would occur. Section IV, Biological Resources, also describes that although burrowing owl was not identified during onsite surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is included to survey the site prior to construction to ensure that no owls have colonized the site. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 has been included to require nesting bird surveys if construction commences during nesting bird season, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Also, as detailed previously, the project Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 118 of 122 would impact 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of non-riparian streambed along a concrete portion of the Hill Street Channel from construction of two outlet structures into the cement lined channel. As a result, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to require purchase of mitigation credits within the Santa Ana River watershed. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the loss of non- riparian streambed would be less than significant. Therefore, potential impacts related to plant or animal communities would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. As described in Section V, Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any buildings or structures that meet any of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) criteria or qualify as “historical resources” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. However, the site has the potential to contain archaeological resources. Thus, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 have been included to require archaeological and tribal cultural resource monitoring during initial ground-disturbance activities, which would reduce potential impacts to important examples of California prehistory to a less than significant level. (Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B; Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C) 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)? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) The project would develop 140 residences with recreation, open space, and associated infrastructure and amenities on a site that was planned for such uses within an urban area. The cumulative effect of the proposed project taken into consideration with other development projects in the area would be limited, because the project would develop the site in consistency with the General Plan land use designation, zoning designation, and municipal code. As described by the City’s General Plan EIR Section 6.1, Growth Inducement and Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts, which includes development of the project site pursuant to the existing land use designations, buildout of the General Plan is anticipated to provide direction for future growth and facilitate development. As described herein, the development area of the project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential, which allows up to 24 units per net acre. The project would result in 23.33 units per net acre, which is within the growth projections of the General Plan, and the cumulative impacts of which have been identified in the General Plan EIR. Also, as described above, all of the potential impacts related to implementation of the project would be less than significant or reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures that would be imposed by the City and would effectively reduce environmental impacts. The project would not result in substantial effects to any environmental resource topic that could become cumulatively significant. As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook methodology describes that any projects that result in daily emissions that exceed any of these thresholds would have both an individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant air quality impact. If estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant. As shown in Tables AQ-2, AQ-4, and AQ-5, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds with use of tier 3 construction equipment, which has been included as Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-3, which shows that the proposed project would result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, the project’s operational emissions would not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 119 of 122 operational impacts would be less than significant. As discussed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, global climate change occurs as the result of global emissions of GHGs. An individual development project does not have the potential to result in direct and significant global climate change effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs. The project’s total annual GHG emissions at buildout would not exceed the annual GHG emissions threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. As shown on Table GHG-2, the project would result in approximately 2,321.24 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the project would not result in cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions. As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, the project meets the City’s VMT screening criteria because it is located within a low VMT-generating area. Therefore, cumulatively considerable transportation related impacts would be less than significant. Overall, impacts to environmental resources or issue areas would not be cumulatively considerable; and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: Previous responses and associated studies) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.) The project proposes the construction and operation of 140 residences and related park and open space areas. The project would not consist of any use or any activities that would result in a substantial negative affect on persons in the vicinity. All resource topics associated with humans the proposed project have been analyzed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and were found to pose no impacts or less-than-significant impacts, or less-than-significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures. For impacts related to humans, the topic areas that require mitigation include construction related air quality emissions and geology. The other subject areas that require implementation of mitigation measures are related to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources which do not have an adverse effect on a living human being. Consequently, with implementation of mitigation, the potential environmental effects on human beings directly or indirectly would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Tier 3. As listed in Section III, Air Quality. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Least Bell’s Vireo. As listed in Section IV, Biological Resources. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Burrowing Owl. As listed in Section IV, Biological Resources. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Jurisdictional Area. As listed in Section IV, Biological Resources. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As listed in Section IV, Biological Resources. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: DBESP. As listed in Section IV, Biological Resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Unanticipated Resources. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Archaeologist/CRMP. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Cultural Resources Disposition. As listed in Section V, Cultural Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 120 of 122 Resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Tribal Monitoring. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Phase IV Report. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Discovery of Human Remains. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Measures. As listed in Section VII, Geology and Soils. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 121 of 122 VI. DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner Bradley Brophy, PE, Traffic Engineer 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 CEQA Document Preparer: EPD Solutions, Inc. Konnie Dobreva, J.D. Renee Escario Meaghan Truman Brooke Blandino Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A Urban Crossroads, Inc. William Maddux, Senior Associate Biological Technical Report, Appendix B Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. Martin Rasnick, Senior Regulatory Specialist Stephens, Lesley Lokovic-Gamber, Senior Regulatory Specialist David Smith, Wildlife Biologist Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Brian F. Smith, MA Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA Energy Analysis, Appendix D Urban Crossroads, Inc. William Maddux, Senior Associate Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E Leighton and Associates, Inc. Simon I. Saiid, GE 2641, Principal Engineer Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921, Senior Principal Geologist Paleontological Assessment, Appendix F Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Todd A. Wirths, M.S., Senior Paleontologist, California Professional Geologist No. 7588 Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G Urban Crossroads, Inc. William Maddux, Senior Associate Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 122 of 122 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H Leighton and Associates, Inc. Zachary Freeman, PG, Project Geologist Robert Hansen, PG, Associate Environmental Geologist Preliminary Hydrology Study, Appendix I MDS Consulting Edward J. Lenthr, PE Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix J MDS Consulting Edward J. Lenthr, PE Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K Urban Crossroads, Inc. William Maddux, Senior Associate Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L Fehr and Peers Spencer Reed, PE Jason Pack, PE VMT Analysis Memorandum, Appendix M Fehr and Peers Spencer Reed, PE Jason Pack, PE Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 1 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2021-01 This chapter of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) contains responses to the comments that the City of Lake Elsinore (Lead Agency) received on the Public Review IS/ MND for the Lakeside Residential Project during the public review period, which began Friday, November 19, 2021 and ended on Monday, December 20, 2021. This document has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document, together with the Public Review IS/MND, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program comprise the Final MND. The following public comments were submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore during the public review period that began November 19, 2021and ended on Monday, December 20, 2021: 1. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Received December 9, 2021 (2 pages) 2. Riverside Transit Agency, Received December 1, 2021 (1 page) 3. Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Received December 9, 2021 (1 page) 4. Pechanga Tribe, Received December 16, 2021 (1 page) 5. California Highway Patrol, Received December 22, 2021 (1page) The public comments and responses to comments are included in the public record and are available to the Lead Agency decision-makers for their review and consideration prior to making their decision whether to approve the proposed project. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) Consideration and Adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, none of the comments provide substantial evidence that the project will have significant environmental effects which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Further, none of the information in the letters or responses constitute the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Lakeside Residential Project IS/MND for further public review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Lakeside Residential Project IS/MND. Additionally, none of this information indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 does not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received, the City of Lake Elsinore has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of providing a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of each comment letter. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 2 of 14 Letter 1: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Received December 9, 2021 (1 of 2 pages) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 3 of 14 Letter 1: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Received December 9, 2021 (2 of 2 pages) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 4 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 1: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Comment 1.1: This comment states that the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District limits comments/recommendations for such cases to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities and other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system. The comment states that the project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, Line A Water Quality Basin. The comment also states that the District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request from the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. In addition, this comment states that an encroachment permit is required to be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities. Response to Comment 1.1: As described on page 15 of the IS/MND, the project includes development of a 1.33-acre vegetated water quality basin to be adjacent to the preserved natural open space area. Additionally, the proposed project would install an onsite drainage system that could convey runoff to the water quality basin. From the water quality basin, runoff would flow to the South Riverside Channel that is maintained by Riverside County Flood Control, and then to Lake Elsinore. Consistent with this comment, the drainage facilities would be constructed to District standards, and an encroachment permit would be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District right of way or facilities. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. No further response is needed or warranted. Comment 1.2: This comment states that the project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. Response to Comment 1.2: As described on page 84 of the IS/MND, implementation of the proposed project requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a Qualified SWPPP Developer pursuant to the NPDES for the proposed construction activities (included as PPP WQ-1). Including this requirement as a PPP, ensures that it would be implemented through verification by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and would be implemented prior to grading. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. No further response is needed or warranted. Comment 1.3: This comment states that if the project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. Response to Comment 1.3: As described on page 86 of the IS/MND, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 06065C2017G, shows that the project site not within a floodplain. Thus, no floodplain related studies are necessary for the proposed project. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. No further response is needed or warranted. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 5 of 14 Comment 1.4: This comment states that if a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is e xempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Response to Comment 1.4: As described on page 49 of the IS/MND, the project would result in a permanent impact to 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of Corps and Regional Board Waters of the United States and 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of CDFW non-riparian streambed along a concrete portion of the Hill Street Channel from construction of two outlet structures into the cement lined channel. As a result, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to require that prior to the issuance of any grading permit for areas identified with jurisdictional features, the project applicant shall obtain regulatory permits from the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW. Thus, the IS/MND is consistent with the recommendation of this comment. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. No further response is needed or warranted. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 6 of 14 Letter 2: Riverside County Transit Agency, Received December 1, 2021 (1 of 1 page) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 7 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 2: Riverside County Transit Agency Comment 2.1: This comment states that the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) currently has an active bus stop (1319) located on Grand Avenue before Riverside Drive. The comment states that the project will provide sidewalk adjacent to the curb. The comment requests verification that Grand Avenue would be widened to include an additional lane, and requests provision of an ADA compliant bus stop. Response to Comment 2.1: As described on page 15 of the IS/MND, the project includes widening Riverside Drive / SR-74 to two lanes along the project frontage to meet the future roadway buildout of the Lake Elsinore General Plan. This includes provision of two 12-foot-wide north bound lanes and a 6-foot- wide bike lane would be provided at the existing bus stop location on Grand Avenue. The project would also a bus stop at this location with a bus turn out adjacent to bike lane per RTA guidelines. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. Comment 2.2: This comment asks if there will be a traffic signal and/or pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Jamieson Street. Response to Comment 2.2: As described in Section XVII, Transportation, of the IS/MND, signal would not be provided at Jamieson Street as no impacts at the intersection would occur and it is not anticipated to meet signal warrants. A marked pedestrian crossing is not currently proposed due to the median modifications that would occur at this intersection to prohibit left-turn egress from the project site and from Jamieson Street. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 8 of 14 Letter 3: Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Received December 9, 2021 (1 of 1 page) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 9 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 3: Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians Comment 3.1: This comment states that the project site is within the Traditional Use Area of the Luiseño people and is also within Rincon’s specific area of Historic interest. The comment states that the IS/MND document has been reviewed and that the Tribe agrees with the proposed mitigation measures, which include archaeological and tribal monitoring, a monitoring report, and protocols for discovery of cultural material and human remains. The comment also states that the Rincon Band supports all efforts to completely avoid cultural resources and requests that the Rincon Band be notified of any changes in project plans and receive a copy of the final monitoring report. Response to Comment 3.1: This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the Lakeside Residential Project IS/MND. This comment provides information that is consistent with the Cultural Resources Study (Draft IS/MND Appendix C) for the project that describes that the site is located within the borders of ethnographic Luiseño territory, and the comment provides agreeance with the mitigation measures. Consistent with the comment, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 provides for preservation in place as a means of avoiding any resources that are uncovered during project construction. The City will apprise the Tribe of any changes in project plans, and a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is provided as part of the Final MND that will be forwarded to the tribe for review, prior to City approval. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 10 of 14 Letter 4: Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, Received December 16, 2021 (1 of 1 pages) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 11 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 4: Pechanga Band of Mission Indians Comment 4.1: This comment asserts concern that the MND has been issued for public review in violation of AB 52. The comment states that the Pechanga Tribe requested consultation on July 30, 2021, and had its initial (and only) consultation on September 16, 2021. The comment states that the Tribe notified the City both in our request for consultation and during our consultation that the project lies within a Traditional Cultural Property, which is a Tribal Cultural Resource under AB 52 and CEQA. The comment asserts that the MND lacks any discussion of the TCRs, and simply adopts mitigation measures, none of which were ever discussed with the Tribe. The comment further asserts that the MND fails to even acknowledge the presence of tribal cultural resources and lacks any discussion of the impacts thereto and states that this is a violation of the law. Further, the comment states that the mitigation measures were never discussed with the Tribe and have not been agreed upon, as demanded by the statute. (See PRC Sections 21080.3.2 and 21082.3). In short, this MND is fatally flawed and fails to comport with even the basic requirements of AB 52 and CEQA. Response to Comment 4.1: The IS/MND has not been issued for public review in violation of state law. AB 52 requires that the Lead Agency begin the consultation process prior to the release of a mitigated negative declaration. As detailed by the comment, the Tribe and City had an initial consultation on September 16, 2021. The public review of the IS/MND began Friday, November 19, 2021, which is after the commencement of City Tribal consultation. Thus, the City’s tribal consultation process is not in violation of AB 52. In addition, the City has attempted to proceed with consultation process and has provided the Tribe the Cultural Resources Study and other project related materials on August 4, 2021 to which the City has not received any comment or response. The MND includes discussion of the potential of the site to include tribal cultural resources, on both pages, 53 and 111 the MND describes that the records search for the project identified resources within 0.25-mile of the project site that include prehistoric habitation sites, and that the site’s location next to the lake provides potential for the site to be used previously by tribes; and therefore, may contain tribal cultural resources. Also, page 111 of the IS/MND describes that the Sacred Lands File from the Native American Heritage Commission was positive for sacred, religious, or ceremonial sites within the area surrounding the project. Further, the Cultural Resources Study (Draft IS/MND Appendix C) for the project describes that the site is located within the borders of ethnographic Luiseño territory. Thus, the MND includes discussion of potential tribal cultural resources and acknowledges the potential presence of resources. To ensure that potential impacts to unknown resources are limited to a less than significant level, the IS/MND includes Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 were included to ensure that any potential disturbance to buried tribal cultural resources during the grading and/or construction phases of the project is reduced to a less than significant level. Further, as described in the IS/MND on page 110, AB 52 consultation with the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians is ongoing through the IS/MND public review period. Comments related to revisions to the mitigation measures have not yet been received by the tribe through either AB 52 consultation or comments to the public review IS/MND. Overall, the IS/MND evaluation related to tribal cultural resources is compliant with AB 52 and CEQA. Comment 4.2: This comment states that the Tribe informed the City of the Project’s vicinity to the Machado Adobe, a historic resource and that because the project lies within a Traditional Cultural Property, this project would need to be presented to its Tribal Council. The comment states that the Pechanga has had no other notification from the City regarding this project since September 16, 2021, that the City failed to document the tribal information and assess the project’s impacts to tribal cultural resources, and that AB 52 requires these steps be completed before an environmental document may be issued. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 12 of 14 Response to Comment 4.2: The IS/MND provides a discussion regarding the Machado Adobe (Site P-33- 007230) (on page 53) that has been removed through a City approved demolition permit. As detailed on page 53, the Machado Adobe was destroyed in a fire, and prior to its demolition the structure was determined to have no integrity or research value and was determined to not be a significant historical resource. As described in Response to Comment 4.1, the City has attempted to proceed with consultation process and has provided the Tribe the Cultural Resources Study and other project related ma terials on August 4, 2021 to which the City has not received any comment or response . Further, AB 52 requires that the Lead Agency begin the consultation process prior to the release of a mitigated negative declaration, which was done for the proposed project. Thus, the environmental process is in compliance with the requirements of AB 52. Comment 4.3: This comment asserts that and there is no assessment of impacts to the Tribal Cultural Place and that the IS/MND contains deferred mitigation. The comment states that impacts to the tribal cultural resources have not been assessed, and thus, no mitigation measures can be adopted because the City does not even know what is being mitigated. This is another violation of CEQA. Response to Comment 4.3: As described in Response to Comment 4.1, the IS/MND describes that the project site is located within tribal territory and has the potential to contain tribal cultural resources. Specifically, pages, 53 and 111 the IS/MND describes that the records search for the project identified resources within 0.25-mile of the project site that include prehistoric habitation sites, and that the site’s location next to the lake provides potential for the site to be used previously by tribes; and the Sacred Lands File from the Native American Heritage Commission was positive for sacred, religious, or ceremonial sites within the area surrounding the project site. Therefore, the IS/MND describes that the site has the potential to contain tribal cultural resources. Thus, the IS/MND identifies the potential impact to be mitigated and in response, the IS/MND includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Comment 4.4: This comment states that the Tribe is engaged in government-to-government consultation with the City as lead agency, and requests that the City pull back the MND from public review. The comment asserts that the document was issued for public review in violation of CEQA and that the City must complete consultation with the Tribe before this document can withstand public review. Response to Comment 4.4: As described in previous responses, the City has attempted to continue and complete the AB 52 tribal consultation process and has provided the Tribe the Cultural Resources Study and other project related materials on August 4, 2021 to which the City has not received any comment or response. AB 52 requires that the Lead Agency begin the consultation process prior to the release of a mitigated negative declaration, which was done for the proposed project. Thus, the environmental process is in compliance with the requirements of AB 52. Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 13 of 14 Letter 5: California Highway Patrol, Received December 22, 2021 (1 of 1 pages) Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Page 14 of 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 5: California Highway Patrol Comment 5.1: This comment states that after reviewing the Lakeside Residential project, and based upon the study which shows a 2% traffic growth yearly in the area, with this project not included, as well as the improvements being made to the roadway, no impact to the Temecula area’s local operations and/or public safety was identified. Response to Comment 5.1: This comment provides concurrence with the findings of the IS/MND. This comment does not identify any concerns related to the content or conclusions of the IS/MND. Thus, no further response is needed or warranted. SH-74 GRAND AVE LAGUNA AVE MACY STRIVERSIDE DRMACHADO STLIME STLINCOLN ST ULLA LNVIA LAKISTASSHORELINE DRPATSY PLHILL STROSE STHALF MOON DR LE HARVE AVE OLIVE ST MARIE DRDARNELL DR TILLER LNPAYNE STLEEWARD WAYKINGSWAY DR WESTLYNN DRHART LEY STTEMPE STMADISON CTEISENHOWER DR WINDOVER CT GRAND AVE SH-74 GRAND AVE LAGUNA AVE MACY STRIVERSIDE DRMACHADO STLIME STLINCOLN ST ULLA LNVIA LAKISTASSHORELINE DRPATSY PLHILL STROSE STHALF MOON DR LE HARVE AVE OLIVE ST MARIE DRDARNELL DR TILLER LNPAYNE STLEEWARD WAYKINGSWAY DR WESTLYNN DRHART LEY STTEMPE STMADISON CTEISENHOWER DR WINDOVER CT GRAND AVE Planning Application No. 202 1-11APNs: 379-060-005, 022, and 027VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE ´ MACY STSH-74 GRAND AVE LAGUNA AVERIVER SIDE DRLIME STJAMIESON STFAIRVIEW STHILL STULLA LN KEVIN PLTILLER LN SERENA WAYMARK AVERIVERSIDE DRSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunityMACY STSH-74 GRAND AVE LAGUNA AVERIVER SIDE DRLIME STJAMIESON STFAIRVIEW STHILL STULLA LN KEVIN PLTILLER LN SERENA WAYMARK AVERIVERSIDE DRSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity Planning Application No. 202 1-11APNs: 379-060-005, 022, and 027AERIAL MAP PROJECT SITE ´ LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1 (APN 379-060-022): BLOCK D OF A MAP OF A PORTION OF THE LA LAGUNA RANCH, IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 1, PAGE 36 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 26, 1961 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92163 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHWEST OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 3090-2C ON FILE IN BOOK 54, PAGE 49 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 37'02'20" EAST 383.77 FEET ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3090-2C AND THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF TO A W IRON PIPE SHOWN AS FOUND ON LAST SAID MAP; THENCE SOUTH 52'57'40" EAST, 773.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20" WEST, 511.06 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 193.00 FEET, A RADIAL TO SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 61'31'38" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY 220.67 FEET ON SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 65'30'42 ; THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20" WEST 50.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61'20'49" WEST, 232.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52'57'40" WEST, 80.30 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 57'5740" EAST 760.00 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE, 60.00 FEET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON FIRST SAID MAP; THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20" WEST 127.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 52'57'40" EAST, 122.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20" WEST, 291.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52'57'40" WEST, 743.98 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE END OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF THE LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 3090-2A ON SAID MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 54, PAGE 49 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 2 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005): THE NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES OF LOT 1, BLOCK C OF A MAP SHOWING SUBDIVISIONS IN ELSINORE, IN THE CITY OF ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGE 377 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. SAID LAND IS SHOWN A PARCEL A IN LOT 1, BLOCK C OF RANCHO LA LAGUNA, ON FILE IN BOOK 12, PAGE 4 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 3 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005): THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK C OF A MAP SHOWING SUBDIVISIONS IN ELSINORE, IN THE CITY OF ELSINORE, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 377 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHEAST 60.00 FEET ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHEAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE WESTERLY ON SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES; THENCE SOUTHWEST ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 07, 1970 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 77806 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 4 (APN 379-060-027): PARCEL 2 OF THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO 89-13 RECORDED JANUARY 30, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90-037878, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK D OF RANCHO LA LAGUNA AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 377 OF MAPS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDS, ALL IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF AND SHOWN AS PARCEL 3090-2C ON SHEET 3 OF THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 54, PAGE 49 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER WITH THE SOUTHEAST RIGHT OF WAY RIVERSIDE DRIVE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING 6 COURSES; SOUTH 3702'20" WEST, 350.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52'57'40" WEST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20" WEST, 276.35 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 30'02'05" WEST, 81.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 665.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02'03'19", A DISTANCE OF 23.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, TO WHICH RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 62'01'14" WEST; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23' 15'31 " A DISTANCE OF 269.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 52'57'40" EAST, 743.98 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3702'20" EAST, 291.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52'57'40" WEST, 122.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20" WEST 34.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 532624" WEST 716.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PURSUANT TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 89-13, RECORDED JANUARY 30, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90-37878 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. UTILITIES WATER EVMWD 31315 CHANEY ST. LAKE ELSINORE, CA 95530 (951) 674-3146 SEWER EVMWD 31315 CHANEY ST. LAKE ELSINORE, CA 95530 (951) 674-3146 ELECTRIC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON P.O. BOX 6400 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729 (800) 655-4555 GAS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 7000 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 105 RIVERSIDE, CA. 92506 (800) 427-2200 RECYCLE WATER TELEPHONE EVMWD 31315 CHANEY ST. LAKE ELSINORE, CA 95530 (951) 674-3146 TDACIll - , P.O. BOX 1208 PARRIS, CA 92572-1208 (951) 943-1991 l 1 LV I I IVIVI 31500 GRAPE STREET, SUITE 9 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92532 (888) 406-7063 CABLE / INTERNET COX COMMUNICATION C/O. TEL-PATH COMMUNIATIONS 34350 BLOSSOMS DRIVE LAKE ELSINORE, CA. 92532 (619) 992-2994 PREPARED FOR: • tr[ pRinte� MES 1250 Corona Pointe Court Suite 600 Corona, CA 92879 (951 ) 4 2 8 - 4 4 0 0 PREPARED BY: 17320 Redhill Avenue M O R S E Suite 350 S C Irvine, CA 92614 '&',A H U L T Z Voice: 949-251-8821 PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS SHEET INDEX MAP SCALE: 1 "=150' SITE COVERAGE SUMMARY LOT LAND USE 1 CONDOMINIUM UNITS 2 PRESERVED OPEN SPACE "A" - "B": RECREATION LOTS "C" BIO-DETENTION BASIN "D" - "G": OPEN SPACE PRIVATE STREET EAEMENTS GRAND AVENUE (RW TO TB) TOTAL: (GROSS ACREAGE) AREA (AC) PERCENT(%) 10.94 31.4% 15.65 45.0% 0.77 2.2% 1.39 4.0% 0.65 1.9% 4.60 13.2% 0.81 2.3% 34.81 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 38116 NUMBER OF LOTS: TOTAL DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RESERVED OPEN SPACE LOT BIO-DETENTION BASIN RECREATION LOTS LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE GROSS ACREAGE: 34.81 AC CONTOUR INTERVAL: 1 FOOT DATE: MATCH 25, 2021 REVISED: AUGUST 6, 2021 fM�160011R nk f 17320 REDHILL AVENUE, SUITE 350 IRVINE, CA 92614 PHONE: (949) 251-8821 CONTACT: EDWARD J. LENTH 100% OPEN SPACE SUMMARY 9 LOTS ACREAGE 1 D' 0.12 AC 1 'E' 0.04 AC 1 F' 0.04 AC 2 G' 0.45 AC 4 TOTAL ACREAGE 0.65 AC Q�OF E S S /ON 9 F� No. 052496 m �* Exp. 12-31-22 J�9T CIVIL F �F CAL\F0� EDWARD J, LENTH RCE 052496 EXP. DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2022 LEGEND 5 CONDOMINIUM UNIT NUMBER 1.00% PROPOSED STREET GRADE �■■ ■■� TENTATIVE TRACT BOUNDARY 1 280.0 PAD ELEVATION PROPOSED RETAINING WALL - - - - - CONDOMINIUM UNIT LINE (SEE PLAN FOR HEIGHT) PROPOSED STREET LIGHT ��� PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT 2:1 T_ PROPOSED 2:1 SLOPE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED NON -POTABLE WATER 4:1 PROPOSED 4:1 SLOPE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER CD PROPOSED CENTERLINE PROPOSED POTABLE WATER STREET GRADE EXISTING STORM DRAIN -� - - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING POTABLE WATER - A EXISTING GAS LINE GENERAL INFORMATION 1 EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT 2. EXISTING ZONING: R3 - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: R3 - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4. PROPOSED ZONING: R3 - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PUD OVERLAY PROJECT DENSITY -23.33 DU/AC 5. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN: R3 - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 6. ADJACENT LAND USES: NORTH: PRESERVED NATURAL OPEN SPACE, TRAILER PARK EAST: FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, VACANT SOUTH: GRAND AVENUE (HWY 74), COMMERCIAL WEST: RIVERSIDE DRIVE, EXISTING S.F.R. 7. PARK REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-3 ZONING COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 17.84.120, ITEM B. 8. SCHOOL DISTRICTS: (LAKE ELSINORE SCHOOL DISTRICT) ELEMENTARY: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MIDDLE SCHOOL: MIDDLE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL: HIGH SCHOOL 9. PAD ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON MAY BE ADJUSTED PLUS OR MINUS 3 FEET. 10. MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS MAY BE FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE. 11. ALL PROPOSED MANUFACTURED SLOPES SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 2:1, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. 12. ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: ADJUSTED CUT* ADJUSTED FILL* IMPORT 25,800 CY 82,000 CY 56,200 CY* * ADJUSTMENTS INCLUDE SOIL SHRINKAGE (13%) AND PAD OX (3.0') PER SOILS REPORT. 13. GEOTECHNICAL/SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT WAS PREPARED BY LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, DATED OCTOBER 30, 2020. 14. THERE ARE NO HABITABLE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. 15. PROPOSED PRIVATE STREET EASEMENTS 'A' -'I' WITHIN THIS TENTATIVE TRACT ARE PRIVATE AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY AN APPROVED H.O.A. 16. THE DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SHALL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MERGE LOTS ON THE FINAL MAP. 17. THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF LAND BEING SUBDIVIDED. 18. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WAS FLOWN AND COMPILED BY DON READ CORP, DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2020. 19. THERE ARE NO PROPOSED OPEN STORM DRAIN CHANNELS WITHIN THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. 20. THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS PROPOSED TO BE A GATED COMMUNITY. 21. ACCESS SHALL BE RESTRICTED ON GRAND AVENUE (HWY 74) AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE. 22. FINAL DESIGN SHALL COMPLY WITH THE N.P.D.E.S. REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED BY THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. 23. ALL PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PAD SHALL MAINTAIN MINIMUM GRADE FROM REAR OF THE PAD TO THE STREET IN ACCORDANCE WITH LATEST CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. 24. FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CAL FIRE. 25. ALL PROPOSED ON -SITE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES, SIZE AND LOCATION ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. 26. ALL PROPOSED ON -SITE STORM WATER DISCHARGE FROM THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SHALL BE TREATED BY PERMANENT ON -SITE TREATMENT CONTROL BMP'S FOR TRASH AND DEBRIS OF OFF -SITE AND ON -SITE PRIOR TO DISCHARGE TO ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITY. 27. ALL DIMENSIONS ON THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ARE APPROXIMATE. 28. OPEN SPACE LOTS 'D'-'G', ARE PRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY AN APPROVED H.O.A. 29. PROPOSED BIO-DETENTION WATER QUALITY BASIN IS PRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY AN APPROVED H.O.A. 30. PROPOSED PRIVATE STREETS 'A' -'I' ARE FOR ACCESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PURPOSES. 31. FLOOD ZONE 'X' AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING PER FEMA PANEL 0600636 ZONE "F". 32. GATES MUST BE A MINIMUM 20' IN WIDTH, AUTOMATIC WITH RAPID ENTRY SYSTEM (S). GATES MUST BE SETBACK 35' FROM FACE OF CURB/ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, PER THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 33. NO SUBSURFACE SEPTIC SEWAGE DISPOSAL IS PROVIDED. 34. PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN A COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT. 35. THERE IS AN EXISTING CATOPED WELL ON THIS PROPERTY. 36. LAND IS SUBJECT TO A VERY HIGH LIQUEFACTION OR OTHER GEOLOGICAL HAZARD AND IS NOT WITHIN A SPECIAL STUDIES ZONE. 37. LAND IS SUBJECT TO OVERLFOW, INUNDATION OR FLOOD HAZARD. 38. EXISTING UTILITY POLES WITHIN THE GRAND AVENUE WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS TO BE REMOVED ND UNDERGROUNDED. 39. THE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHIN THE GRAND WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS TO BE UNDERGROUNDED SHEET INDEX VICINITY MAP N.T.S. 2006 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP BOOK, PAGES 865, GRID H6 SHEET 1 TITLE SHEET SHEET 2 STREET SECTIONS SHEETS 3 & 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP EASEMENTS NOTES 1 ] PROPOSED ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES 2❑ PROPOSED 20' SD ESM'T 3❑ UTILITY ESM'T IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TO BE QUITCLAIMED ® UTILITY ESM'T IN FAVOR OF CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY & CALIFORNIA WATER AND TELEPHONE COMPANY TO BE QUITCLAIMED �5 UTILITY ESM'T IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN SIERRAS POWER COMPANY TO BE QUITCLAIMED UTILITY ESM'T IN FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA © TO BE QUITCLAIMED �7 UTILITY ESM'T IN FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA FLOOD ZONE NOTE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE 1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD. THE 1%ANNUAL FLOOD (100-YEAR FLOOD), ALSO KNOWN AS THE BASE FLOOD, IS THE FLOOD THAT HAS A 1 % CHANCE OF BEING EQUALED OR EXCEEDED IN ANY GIVEN YEAR. THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA IS THE AREA SUBJECT TO FLOODING BY THE 1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD. AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD INCLUDE ZONES A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V AND VE. THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS THE WATER -SURFACE ELEVATION OF THE 1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD. BEING A PORTION OF ZONE AE - BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS DETERMINED= 1266. BEING A PORTION OF ZONE X (OTHER FLOOD AREAS) - AREAS OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD. MAP No. 06065C2017G DATED: AUGUST 28, 2008 BEING A PORTION OF ZONE X- AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. MAP NO. 06071 C8745H DATED: AUGUST 28, 2008 ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER PARCEL 1 (APN 379-060-022) PARCEL 2 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005) PARCEL 3 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005) PARCEL 4 (APN 379-060-027) BENCHMARK: ELEVATION: 1281.62 (NGVD 29) DATE: DEC. 1994 LEVEL SUMMARY FILED MAP FILES 261838 TO REACH INFORMATION DESCRIPTION: BM-13-B-93 - SET CALDOT BRASS DISK IN W'LY CURB RIVERSIDE DR. (RTE 74) OPP FH 29' N'LY OF A 40' DRIVEWAY (31461) RIVERSIDE DR. AND 365' N'LY OF JOY ST. ± BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE OF GRAND AVENUE SHOWN AS N 52'52'57" W PER TRACT NO 33267 M.B. 471/11-13. APPLICANT/DEVELOPER TRI POINTE HOMES 1250 CORONA POINTE COURT, SUITE 600 CORONA, CA 92879 (951) 428-4400 CONTACT: CHRIS WILLIS OWNER ENGINEER TRI POINTE HOMES MDS CONSULTING 1250 CORONA POINTE COURT, SUITE 600 17320 REDHILL AVENUE, SUITE 350 CORONA, CA 92879 IRVINE, CA 92614 (951) 428-4400 (949) 251-8821 CONTACT: CHRIS WILLIS CONTACT: ED LENTH 40. THE PRESERVED OPEN SPACE LOT 2 SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY AN APPROVED H.O.A. (Now.- 1.m rx 1z I Li G TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 38116 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 1 OF 6 MDS Proj. Data: I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\TTM MDS File: 89490-TENT-01.dwg Created: 11.08.2021 01:54:18 PM Author:---- Plot Scale: 1" = 1 Dwg Scale: 1' = 60, Last Edit: 12.16.2021 10:50:43 AM By: STATION39 Plot Date: 12.16.2021 10:51:02 AM By: STATION39 WILY PLY SLY R/W I R/W R/W 5' 5' 0 2/0� 2% a PROPOSED _1/ 6" CURB & GUTTER OWATER 71 RESIDENTIAL LOT 4.5 5' .SI MEDIAN STORMOD SEWERO DRAIN 3' 6' STREET "A" (PRIVATE) (MODIFIED LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET) SCALE 1'1=101 55' (ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES) 22.5' I 22.51 181 181 2% 4.5' )EW, 5' 2%. 2% 2% 1 1 PROPOSED WATER PROPOSED ROLLED CURB 71 STORM O SEWERO ROLLED CURB DRAIN 3' 6' STREETS "B" - "D" (PRIVATE) (MODIFIED LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET) SCALE 1'1=101 1❑ ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES 50.5' 51 51 I SIDEWALK _2% --PROPOSED 611 CURB & GUTTER RESIDENTIAL LOT RESIDENTIAL R/W 1 (ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES) 411 OPEN SPACE < Q LOT 4.51 18' 18' 0.5' 10' 1 T m 1�► 51 (SIDEWALK 5 Q 1Cr 2%. 2% 2% d PROPOSED OWATER PROPOSED ROLLED CURB O SEWER ROLLED CURB T STORM DRAIN O 3' 6' STREET "E" (PRIVATE) (MODIFIED LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET) SCALE 111=101 11 ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES CONDO LINE / CE R/W BLOCK WALL STREET 21 VARIES 2' RESIDENTIAL 01-6' LOT I I� BLOCK WALL PAD PER PLAN SLOPE SHALL BE LANDSCAPED PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S PLAN AND MAINTAINED BY HOMEOWNER. TYPICAL SIDE -YARD SLOPE SECTION AT STREET CORNER LOT NTS PREPARED FOR: i tri pRnte° MES 1250 Corona Pointe Court Suite 600 Corona, CA 92879 (951 ) 4 2 8 - 4 4 0 0 PREPARED BY: 40' 20' 1.5% 6" CURB ONLY 181 EX.N'LY PRORN'LY R/W R/W 100' a RIGHT-OF-WAY) 40' TRACT BOUNDARY 48' 12' � 22'± 61 61 'MPROVEMENTS) (PROPOSED I IMPROVEMENTS) 22%� ° ° .e• A '• 2% I 42% I d a PROPOSED GRAND AVENUE (PUBLIC) SCALE 1'1=101 TRACT BOUNDARY 2' , VARIES �qX ACCESS ROAD (PRIVATE) FOR WATER QUALITY BASIN NTS 31' (ESM'T FOR INGRESS / EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSE) 2.5' 26' 2.5' 2% MIN, 2% PROPOSED —i DRIVEWAY PROPOSED PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 0" CURB PROPOSED ROLLED CURB STREETS "F", "G", "H" & "I" (PRIVATE) FOR LOTS 120 AND 138 NTS 1❑ ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES RESIDENTIAL LOT CONDO LINE / FENCE * VARIES 2' 21-12' 1 LOT PROPOSED 6.01 FENCE PAD PER PLAN RESIDENTIAL P� PAD PER PLAN SLOPES UNDER S SHALL BE LANDSCAPED & MAINTAINED BY HOMEOWNER. SLOPES OVER 5SHALL BE LANDSCAPED PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S PLAN AND MAINTAINED BY HOMEOWNER. TYPICAL REAR -YARD SLOPE SECTION . M O R S E 17320 Redhill Avenue Suite 350 S C H U L T Z Irvine, CA 92614 • Voice: 949-251-8821 PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS NTS TENTATIVE 2.5' 26' EMERGANCY ACCESS UNIT 1 TRACT BOUNDARY LOT'G' RESIDENTIAL PAD ELEVATION PROPOSED PROPOSED 6.01 _ PER PLAN RETAINING WALL PERIMETER WALL �S �Q��, EXISTING (5.5, MAX) r% T> GROUND — .a 0 _ FROPUSED 611 CURB 3.5 MAX _6" CURB & GUTTER ONLY RET. WALL PROPOSED 26EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD (PRIVATE) NTS Q o LOT "G" 2' 4.51 18' OPEN SPACE SIDEWALK STREET "A" 0 m UI PROPOSED �i RETAINING WALL 2%► 2% EXISTING GROUND--) — — — — — PROPOSED oonono�n 611 CURB & GUTTER CONC. V-DITCH SECTION A -A NTS Q LOT "GII OPEN SPACE 0 m U Q Cr EXISTING GROUND -- 2' LOT 100 RESIDENTIAL PAD ELEVATION PER PLAN PROPOSED CONC, V-DITCH SECTION B-B NTS EXISTING GROUND — m Q 0 z 0 m U Q m PROPOSED CONIC, V-DITCH SECTION C-C NTS LAKESIDE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 38116 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 2 OF 6 MDS Proj. Data: I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\TTM MDS File: 89490-TENT-02.dwg Created: 08.06.2021 08:53:38 AM Author:---- Plot Scale: 1" = 1" Dwg Scale: 1' = 60' Last Edit: 08.06.2021 08:53:38 AM By: STATION39 Plot Date: 12.16.2021 10:51:59 AM By: STATION39 10100M�El I I low ION =w - `"off"i h 0 now b so w -�- lob", 1.274.7 1278.J\ 7 :/ :5 1073 D, �,1 • - �' lil III' • 72 �• 1. 1�� ; ' / • D44 + rrs�s-• LT in r Lmm MMM no qhh, Not - KIM I �_ NE_ ■■ r WNE ■ ��—jam a ■ ��i ■0A `_ ---- -- — `_a=1i■--.•-- .----- — — --- — — -- ---� .� �MRS 1285.4 MIR --- - it • -© ,�! • . , 11111 rt i 1286.5 1�1 1111 • i� fill) wM E+ 128q.---� ' W.4_ • �. ■�� -'3�J = CAM V '' • ' ­ff t��'�� �a111� �li��ii■ ���t� ■ice ■ ■ ��fii'� s/� FANII ��.. 89. =1291. 1 ® ® - _ ■ ■1■III _ 1WI 1291.5 ..1./ 1 ITA BUS STO� moms 1% 0 F2 Pm 0- WIN ■���i�� ;�c Kiwi _�IVAi� �• ' ii a ���•• �� - s _ _ i� ■ / ■T` , • — — Kim ' 1 11 1 1 111 '1 1 1 -_: r/r - - - EXISTING LLTH IV '1 1 — OVED' 1 �`o�1 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 60 120 ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 30 ft. 1296.2 ND AV 74 ' 12 5.6 1295.3 ,. ,. M !�°� o �_ _ _ _ �_ __��� ______,��� • • 9 k 2° E��� � 95k°y�2E�-�v � FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES \ 1202' 6+ 1296.4 l4 I I 1F91. 80 Y PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: tripRnteM E 5 1250 Corona Pointe Court Suite 600 Corona, CA 92879 DATE.NO. REVISIONS (951 ) 4 2 8 - 4 4 0 0 17320 Redhill Avenue Suite 350 S C H U L T Z Irvine, CA 92614 Voice: 949-251-8821 PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 3 OF 6 MDS Proj. Data: I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\TTM MDS File: 89490-TENT-03.dwg Created: 08.05.2021 03:48:48 PM Author:---- Plot Scale: 1" = 1" Dwg Scale: 1' = 60' Last Edit:12.16.2021 10:52:20 AM By: STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 10:53:40 AM By: STATION39 1282.3 1291.4 I G I�-O 8278. r� OT 1kI O ENSPACE /Ib ��FtiJ -� r r0 0.45 AC N 52 55 29 W 716.85�� - - ----- ---ilJA - C 1276.3 ------------ --- / 8.0 AC �9. � 4 J RUSH 'I' 1 80.1 1 I \ �, - 127 1276� K IF 8"S AWAM&IM MILE 1y �^t 1 �o �06+ I R�r01 r 2 - - - - -111- - i-- --- -- " i i i i N �R`�r3, + I _ - CET n It "I STREET C 9 1280.4 I-°�� " o _ RU 10� /�'��3►�i -8„W ,�\ \�`\ 1 1 10 1280.4 / 07. _5 IL 2.5 / 5 1 ----- 5 �- 1287.1 /�c--------- \1 7 1281.7 7 :2'83. T 4I I 1 59 $ 2 \ + 1� 1 5 1284.2 1280.5 7.4 103 0104 + i I 107 ' ' \ I 1281 . I i 112 \ / r X � 1281.3 I 1 1281.4 I 1281.2 1 12� 1 1 80.8 1234. 57 //\� \ \ I I I I 1 + , 0 1287.9 + Q72 LOT 1 3 s \ O ' �� \ ` - 1 .71 + - \� � 1284.0 loll �___� \,� ? , .�\ ,i,_ 0 AC I I I 1 \ �� �� O ,\ \ 2 3.3 /� / ---- _ 1 1 1 1280.41, 1287.E 1284. � � � � / � _ �_ + \ �� �� ,� \ R=25' /i / ��- __-------- ------ - - - - - - - --------- 111 ' \ \\ �'' '' i` \o '/ 8 / 1282.4 I I 1281.6 I 1 12 4.4 \ + l I I I I + I \ +\ 8.2 /'� ��2'It I I 1283.2 := / 9 I + 1 \ + 1283.8 1284, s \ \' / N / 3.9 1 96 1282. 95 lev , \ ^ ^S\ 1 1I I1 282.O39 I1 92 1287.8 + q�84.2 1 1O4.4 +1284.0ECENTLYfi D + 284.. 1285.4 I1 128�5 + � \ 5 • 1280 / ^ry '\ + I I I I + I 84. �i1283.E ' \ \ I 1 1 I + / �\ \,LOT 1 63 /� / \ os� 12 3 \ „ � �_ 8 S \ 54 i .71 AC #N` _i 1 85. 6 )<' /� 12 � 3.3 7 �_ o.s� 8»S 283. E01 + / 1285.5 ^ _ --- --- - -i- --� --- 6-4 N� � ' 1283.5 // \ \ I -53 - \ +1286.6 /�, - \ \i' 1288.9 �/' �� \ // 65 / 1285.5 I 1285.3 - 1 - - - - - � - \ 1286.E I I i I / 1 +52 I T I iREQENTLYTILLEDI�I 285 68 15 128570 1 .4 71 1284.1 + 1 128 I +/1283.81287/251 1286.E 12841284.2^ + 12876 v + 1 1286.5 100 '+ ++ 2�7jI1 4 50 , 12874 289.E 49 ------------- ----__ ------ r-�28fi6----� i \ � QQ 12s . �� � � 128�3 / I I I I I +1294.7 �os �/ 1288.8 + // \ \ \ \1288.5 / 48 �1/r I I I I I �Q 47 ' 1 I I I 10. 0�\ 10 �' \ r\h� . \ 1288.7 ; 0.1 I i 46 i 45 i 44 I LY 43 i I 1292.4 / ` / °`'� 1288.3 1290.4 I I I I 12 4.6 \\ ° `� `� \ ,' 12 / \ i 1290.7 1290.9 1 1291.1 W 291.3 I 1291.5 1 _ I O I O I /� J / �9D6 , �\ 11288.E I 1 1 1 1291.E 1�sy. 3 / / \ 1288.4 I 1 1 1109.5 ­4 1288.9 12 9.1 1289.2 1,� � �29 1290.4 2 .2 / / / 1290.41 -----$-- °' ---�- - ----- - 8 S ---- ---1 + 1 29. " E \ 13� „ / 129 .5 89.E c��ss 8 W � / / 5°° \ 1295.5 (// 15 1 1 I � J�Ci ^ � 4.>3�291. 1289.8 � / + I I I I I 1 I /1294.8 !'`_ \ \� o� t2 l 1290.0 I 1 S 1 i + 1290.5 + 1 1290 / + J`V Ss;�� � l / � I 1 I 1 � � I I / Q' 1294. ' 1290.3 I I 1 19 1 20 21 1290. 22 1 I_`Q i / � , \ / I ► 1290.5 I 1290.7 I I O2891 1291.1 i291.3 1I 12O15 �2924 12911 1297. 2 I I I +1 I 1 I 1291.4 ��„o�S�5a 1 1292.4 I I I 11291.5 I I I I / ,45/ 12923 1295.4 �� � l/ 1 ; PROPOSED RTA OP ED ; I 4 � 129J. \ I BU STOP +11_% / �1 95.5 �X�q„ tc -- ---- - ---- `� ----------\��9 .5 - �+ - - - EX t� - UTIM POLES70-REMAIN S \ �' � - FS `0 • `\ � M W EX. THE - / ' + 1295. 3 - ---- /' --- --- - --- -- -f29 . --- -----�,\ ---- EXf&TIIGllT Tv °4-36»W 3 ------ ---- rvI - - �T - - - - - 10310 - - Ti�� '.4 38116 11S b L 211MX3-/ ' 11S „b L - - - - 11S ��b L li1MX� - - - 111M'X� �- 11S ��b L k11MX� 11S ��bl lI1MX� 11S ��b l X� `\� - BE REM�� U R-�� 1295 C , TENTATIVE TRACT NO. - - - - - - - - - - J - 1296. 12 .9 + I / 1296 Q ----�29qi2 -------------------------------- ---- PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: tri I� � M O R S E 17320 Redhill Avenue . Suite 350 H O M E S S C H U L T Z Irvine, CA 92614 Voice: 949-251-8821 1250 Corona Pointe Court Suite 600 PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 60 ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 30 ft. 120 1295.3 `� �� "'FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DA TE.• NO. Corona, CA 92879 REVISIONS (951 ) 4 2 8 - 4 4 0 0 SHEET 4 OF 6 MDS Proj. Data: I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\TTM ADS File: 89490-TENT-04.dwg Created: 08.05.2021 03:47:08 PM Author:---- Plot Scale: 1" = 1" Dwg Scale: 1' = 60' Last Edit: 08.06.2021 08:53:26 AM By: STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 10:53:54 AM By: STATION39 1271.3 + 1270.7Tij- ' ',ONC + 1271.7 • \ 1271.5 o u • U. MF ■ 0 1 276.4 f I� 1270.6 + (SEE SHEET 6 /L.7J.1) 1 7 'Cl^W " + 1257.4 L T 2 1259.3 1259.3 1258.5 PRE RVED / + + NATURAL OPEN SPACE 15.65 AC + /0 1262.E 1261.4 7. 1267 I � 1266.5 F \ 1265.CO N 72E43 1263 3 / 726.1.2- C u 266> 31264.4 1261.2 + RECENTLY TILLED + 1263.3 MATCHLINE 115y.915 Z HV 10313 1261.5 1260.4 + + 7 + 1263.2 1259.7 + + 1259.3 1261 9 \ + 1260.2 1270.6 N + + 1263. -_-_- 1264.4 + 1268.2 126J.5 •h / / 1266.6 MB / MB + 1269. - 1270.5 -: - -- ■MAN!_ r _ 1130 NO. I� ■����,,, .•=mil MEEW,,�11�- 1 ._,,�, ,� v 1 ��� �� ��_ ��� .�.�© 1ma `ter o_. � Il �� , ..WL Smog MOM i .ty.-- ,��■�■ice ■��r� ���� il�a..►i■ a■■r0._-=W ME WIN u jin.'gli iz lk PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: tri p ,in H O M E S 1250 Corona Pointe Court Suite 600 Corona, CA 92879 DATE.NO. REVISIONS (951 ) 4 2 8 - 4 4 0 0 . M O R S E 17320 Redhill Avenue Suite 350 S C H U L T Z Irvine, CA 92614 Voice: 949-251-8821 PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 60 ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 30 ft. + 1259.5 + 1262.4 + 1260 1260.3 1260.5 1259.7 it ^-----=637-�1216---- - N49' 07' 1" '24.87' +1268.4 + 1269.5 + 1270.3 1261 + 1272.4 1273.5 + 1273.6 1272.4 MATCH E + EE SHEET DEBRIS + _OT 1274.8 OPENSPACE 12 AC 1275.7 + LAKESIDE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 38116 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES _ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 5 OF 6 MDS Proj. Data: I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\TTM MDS File: 89490-TENT-05.dwg Created: 08.05.2021 03:47:02 PM Author:---- Plot Scale: 1" = 1" Dwg Scale: 1' = 60' Last Edit: 08.06.2021 08:53:22 AM By: STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 10:54:06 AM By: STATION39 1255.6 N 1255.5 OBSCURED 125 .2 I 0 N 1255.7 w LO M z + 1256.3 + 1257.4 1258.4 + `6S � 126\ \ 1 x BRUSH 1251.9 +' 1250.5 \ 1249.2 1250.7 + 1250.7 + 1251.1 / + 1249.4 1250.71 1250.4 OBSCURED 1244.9 1246.4 + X OBSCURED +1247.7 I OBSCURED 1248.5 I ' LOT 2 � 1242.2 �12484 PRESERVED NATURAL OPEN SPACE 1242.8 15.65 AC X 1) -- 1249.J _ .1248.6 1246,11 + OBSCURED 1244.1 7 I I1247.5 9 I I I 1244.7 I USH 1 250 12475 \ - 1249.E + 24 6 51.4 2\1111.8 1252.4 0&�U�c- 1245.4 >I I 1248.5 + 1256.2 1245.9 12 ..1 1255 0 - - 1249.5 N 1254.9 rn 1257.2 1258.4 / + Z - 12574 1256.5 1251.5 MATCHLINE (SEE SHEET 5 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: tripo�nte H O M E S 1250 Corona Pointe Court Suite 600 Corona, CA 92879 (951 ) 4 2 8 - 4 4 0 0 17320 Redhill Avenue Suite 350 S C H U L T Z Irvine, CA 92614 Voice: 949-251-8821 PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 12567 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 160 + 1249.8 OBSCURED ■ e'e x x X s� ELSINO I \ LAKESIDE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 38116 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN FEET) CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA "°`° °°" SHEET 6 OF 6 MDS Proj. Data: I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\TTM ADS File: 89490-TENT-06.dwg Created: 08.05.2021 03:46:55 PM Author:---- Plot Scale: 1" = 1" Dwg Scale: 1' = 60' Last Edit: 08.05.2021 03:46:55 PM By: STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 10:54:20 AM By: STATION39 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE IN ` THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: '"` o PARCEL 1 APN 379-060-022 : GRAPHIC SCALE `ON0 ° T9D� 'yS BLOCK D OF A MAP OF A PORTION OF THE LA LAGUNA RANCH, IN THE CITY OF LAKE 0 50 100 200 400 F:1 I - © qy ELSINORE, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 1, PAGE 36 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF2 ° 1 „IM RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. a \ �o� ��oo LAKE ELSINORE EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED ( IN FEET ) - SHE , � o�� ��' RECORDED OCTOBER 26 1961 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92163 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF 1 inch = 100 ft. �� RECENTLY TILLS RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. O ,° PRESERVD ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHWEST OF THE FOLLOWING NATURAL OPEN SPACE ° 1260 DESCRIBED LINE: 1 LLI BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 3090-2C ►. W�L 0 j \ ON FILE IN BOOK 54, PAGE 49 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE � PROJECT SITE ,?, r� " \ - - - - - - - - - - - - COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; , '\ W m 1AL THENCE NORTH 37'02'20"EAST 383.77 FEET ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3090-2C AND THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF TO A 3/4"IRON PIPE SHOWN '?ems - �� WATER 2 ASI I[ -- ---- V - t--� --�--- ---�-------L--- ---3--- ---r--3- t AS FOUND ON LAST SAID MAP; � � r----- ,- ---, `_� MAI CE-- \ ,� THENCE SOUTH 52'57'40"EAST, 773.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; I ! ' C] r- 1 1 I 1--i I--i i 1 ��11 / ACC - [ s- THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20"WEST, 511.06 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT ° ° I 1 137 1 132 i 1 i I 125 1 120 1 i ���,. SPECIFIC PLAN 138 1 , I , 1 1 CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 193.00 FEET, A RADIAL TO SAID I 1� 6 E R ENCY - T u u I _I � I L----- 1 LOTL1__ ; = I L------ ' - ) VICINITY MAP BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 61'31'38"EAST RESIDENTIAL I ------ 1 = 1 ---� I = a------� 1 - 1------� 1 = 1 ) I �, O E ACC S RO D O N SPA 1 I ' - THENCE SOUTHERLY 220.67 FEET ON SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1 -- --- I 1 I W I ----- 1-- w 1 ----- ----- w 1--------L------ I W 65'30'42"; _ _ 1 - 1 I 1 1 I W 1 2006 THOMAS BROTHERS �I _ __ ______ w r I w I , w I I I + THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20"WEST 50.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61'20'49"WEST, 232.48 FEET; _ ® - �- - I I I 7s4 I 1 i 128 I 123 i I � 1 I I y 1270� j = - - i I 135 1 i ' 129 i i 1 122 i H 1 1 �* MAP BOOK, PAGES 865, GRID H6 THENCE NORTH 52'57'40"WEST, 80.30 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 57'S7'40" a -- 1 1 1 I EAST 760.00 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE, 60.00 FEET WIDE, AS �, STREET "C" ii -=-----=y --I--�--_� �_-- - -- � I1` '- _�__�_� 1 STREET "D" SHOWN ON FIRST SAID MAP; ; (PRIVATE) `� iG1 y , 1 I (PRIVATE) -------- THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20"WEST 127.00 FEET; ------?---- I----rI --- I----,I----rI ----II---- I----rI � 1 DEB 5 °THENCE SOUTH 52'57'40"EAST� 122.00 FEET; F- 59 99THENCE SOUTH 3702'20"WEST, 291.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52'57'40"WEST, 743.98 FEET 58 .' ' �(/ 102 I I I TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE ,� \ ��� / 2 �� `� i Q/Q ; 10 i 1041 1 5 I 1061 107 I I I I I I I I 41 = I' GENERAL INFORMATION END OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED. , 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 �1 w� k 3 /i^ \ \ 60 ' ` \` �?/ Zr-r 11 11 - w > �I ' ,2 EXISTING LAND USE : VACANT \ 57 . . `��. ' i�i`1-- 1 I I I I I I I I I I IE ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST LINE �� !� �'. 98 ; I I I I 1 OT B I I I I I I I I 1 1 11 I_ \ �' �� 56 �'v� 61 ,' .` I , 97 t I I I I I REC LOT I I I I I I I I I I 1 11 W�p� LO D OF THE LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 3090-2A ON SAID MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 54, PAGE 49 \ 4 ���� . �� , 96 1 95 1 4 1 93 I 92 91 ' 90 ' 89 ' 88 ' 87 1 86 1 85 1 841 831 82 r1' °C�°- -� OPEN PAC EXISTING ZONING : R3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL .'� , , �� �� I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I f- , OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. \ , ���, 62 �� STgFc� J`` 1 1 1 1 1 j I I I I I I I I I H� U) Z 55 i Tom` �/J\FT o ___i I I I I ---- ---1----i----�----1----i----�----1----L---`�' Q L-____-_ _�_____ I EXISTING GENERAL PLAN : R3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL \ 5 /,,a\ �\ .���\ 63 /. .,� grF�e- ------ STREET NCII ----------- - 1 PARCEL 2 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005): , __ ____________ -_ n THE NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES OF LOT 1, BLOCK C OF A MAP SHOWING SUBDIVISIONS IN __ I \ \ ` �� �`�' S4 ,' �'�� i 64 i /-)-- (PRIVATE) i Ui1 PROPOSED ZONING : R3- HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, ELSINORE, IN THE CITY OF ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS I I \\ ` 6 ,�'��� �`� .' /' l�c 65 i T--"r-- r---T- --T----7- ----r----r-----l----r----r----I----r----�� J PUD OVERLAY PROJECT DENSITY-23.33 DU/AC h Ne 53 / �/` , 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGE 377 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO - 1I \ `� ` , ` , 66 COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. �`,�'� 7 �` 52 i ,VT '� 67 I I I I 1 73 i 74 1 75 1 76 1 77 1 78 1 79 1 80 1 81 I i PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN : R3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 9�; , 6 69 70 71 72 I I 1 10T 11 1 1 1 , , H , V SAID LAND IS SHOWN A PARCEL A IN LOT 1, BLOCK C OF RANCHO LA LAGUNA, ON FILE \ ' , 'T � ' 1 1 1 1 - _ I I 1 I I 1 1 + I Z 8 %A,4F 51�' ---[ __-,_ 1 1 r---_ 1 I 1 O °°NC ADJACENT LAND USE : NORTH: PRESERVED NATURAL OPEN SPACE, IN BOOK 12, PAGE 4 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, °� ?�� Lq� �.nn 50, ; F__ , LOT "All I -,--- I 1 U I I TRAILER PARK �. i g i �. T�w'� `�� ; 49 , , 1 I I I I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CALIFORNIA. (� .X / , i 48 I I I I I r a REC LOT I I I I I I I I 1 1, 1 i 0 T o EAST: FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, 0 �A \� 1 1 47 11 46 i 45 ; i 43 i A' l ---_--- ! 41 ; 40 ; 39 ; 38 ; 37 ; 36 ; 35 i 34 i 33 ' I , I VACANT PARCEL 3 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005): "/ / i `T� ___1-_ - _ f I �. ( ), `. , 10 i ter.. i` i i i i 1 O _1_ 1 1 I I I ]____ J__� SOUTH: GRAND AVENUE HWY 74 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK C OF A MAP SHOWING SUBDIVISIONS IN ELSINORE, IN 11 / 9 e ,� \�� i' i ��\T\` STREET "B" COMMERCIAL THE CITY OF ELSINORE, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 377 OF MAPS, • . r i 12 ; ; ,_ --- --- - -------- ---�- -----------(PRIVATE) ' WEST: RIVERSIDE DRIVE, EXISTING S.F.R. RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Cj ' 13 , r , �' I I I I Q I I I I I I I I I i1 i i-I'-' / 15 , 1 I 1 BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES OF SAID V I- i 16 i 17 1 1 i 19 i 0 1 21 i 22 w Q 23 1 24 1 25 1 26 1 27 1 28 i 29 i 30 1 31 1 3i 1 1 LOT 1; kA o - I I I I I I I / w I > I I I I I I I I I 1# --L _ 1 1 I I I w � 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 THENCE SOUTHEAST 60.00 FEET ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; • --- I I ❑C � I I 1 1 1 1 - THENCE NORTHEAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES g • -_[__ ==�_C_' = U)Q `� 1 TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 � �.. _ _ __ _ __ _ SHEET INDEX THENCE WESTERLY ON SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID / + { LOT F" ............. 1290 SHEET 1 TITLE SHEET NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES; BRUSH ° `\�'�- PEN SPACE Vr=Nl _ _ _ SHEETS 2 LOT TABLE SUMMARY THENCE SOUTHWEST ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES TO THE __-_-_-_-_-_ _-_ POINT OF BEGINNING. a WI ° I a �I SHEET 6 COMPOSITE SITE PLAN EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL >� -\�, a W W 2 - '° _ ° �! - PROPOSED EA EASEMENTS NOTES AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 07, 1970 AS �I 4E�o S S O S INSTRUMENT NO. 77806 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. W .o Z v�� W W,I� N i ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES PARCEL 4 (APN 379-060-027): �� Q COMMERGI"AL' O,f CI j W E TRACT 32585 coR , a �' �.� PARCEL 2 OF THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO 89-13 RECORDED JANUARY 30, �I . Cl/CP Iw I P g� Cl/C 1285 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90-037878, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, W R-1 W co I o ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: >i I P PARCEL 1 (APN 379-060-022) © PARCEL 2 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005) THAT PORTION OF BLOCK D OF RANCHO LA LAGUNA AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK PARCEL 3 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005) 8, PAGE 377 OF MAPS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDS, ALL IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ° PARCEL 4 (APN 379-060-027) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF AND SHOWN AS PARCEL LEGEND BENCHMARK. 3090-2C ON SHEET 3 OF THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 54, PAGE 49 OF RECORDS OF AIR CONDITIONING PAD ■■�■■� TENTATIVE TRACT BOUNDARY ELEVATION: 1281.62 NGVD 29 SURVEY, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER WITH THE SOUTHEAST RIGHT OF WAY ® ( ) RIVERSIDE DRIVE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING 6 CONDOMINIUM UNIT NUMBER PROPOSED RETAINING WALL SITE COVERAGE SUMMARY REQUIRED PARKING SPACES DATE: DEC. 1994 LEVEL SUMMARY FILED MAP FILES 261838 TO REACH INFORMATION COURSES; (SEE PLAN FOR HEIGHT) DESCRIPTION: BM-13-B-93-SET CALDOT BRASS DISK IN W LY CURB RIVERSIDE DR. (RTE 74)OPP FH SOUTH 37'02'20"WEST, 350.93 FEET; PROPOSED PLAN ELEVATION TYPE LOT LAND USE AREA AC PERCENT (%) (PER THE CITY OF LAKE ON 17.148INORE 29'N'LY OF A 40'DRIVEWAY(31461) RIVERSIDE DR.AND 365'N'LY OF JOY ST. + 1 A UNIT CONDO LINE 1 CONDOMINIUM UNITS 10.94 31.4% MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.148) THENCE NORTH 52'57'40"WEST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3702'20"WEST, 276.35 FEET; PROPOSED STREET LIGHT 2 PRESERVED OPEN SPACE 15.65 45.0% GARAGE: 2 SPACES (PER UNIT) BASIS OF BEARINGS THENCE SOUTH 30'02'05"WEST, 81.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN -"B": RECREATION LOTS 0.77 2.2% DRIVEWAY: 2 SPACES (PER UNIT)* SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 665.00 FEET; PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT ° THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE OF GRAND AVENUE SHOWN AS N THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02'03'19", A PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER C OPEBIO-N BASIN 1.65 4.9% NUMBER OF UNITS: 280 SPACES 52°52'57"W PER TRACT NO 33267 M.B.471/11-13. 2:1 PROPOSED 2:1 SLOPE "D"-"G": OPEN SPACE 0.65 1.9% GARAGE: 280 SPACES DISTANCE OF 23.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, TO WHICH RADIAL LINE OF SAID PROPOSED POTABLE WATER PRIVATE STREET EAEMENTS: 4.60 13.2% CURVE BEARS NORTH 62'01'14"WEST; GRAND AVENUE (RW TO TB) 0.81 2.3% DRIVEWAY: 280 SPACES APPLICANT/DEVELOPER THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY PROPOSED NON-POTABLE WATER 4:1 PROPOSED 4:1 SLOPE TOTAL: 560 SPACES THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23'15'31"A DISTANCE OF 269.95 FEET; - TOTAL: (GROSS ACREAGE) 34.81 100% '(MAY INCLUDE ON-STREET) TRI POINTE HOMES THENCE SOUTH 52'57'40"EAST, 743.98 FEET; _ = EXISTING STORM DRAIN THENCE NORTH 37'02'20"EAST, 291.00 FEET; - (4.0 SPACES PER UNIT) 1250 CORONA POINTS COURT, SUITE 600 - � EXISTING SANITARY SEWER GARAGE PARKING CORONA, CA 92879 THENCE NORTH 52'57'40"WEST, 122.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20"WEST 34.20 FEET; - - - EXISTING POTABLE WATER ELEVATION SUMMARY SETBACKS PROVIDED PARKING SPACES CONTACT: CHRIS WILLIS THENCE NORTH 53'26'24"WEST 716.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. - - - EXISTING GAS LINE O DRIVEWAY PARKING PLAN 1 A = SPANISH COLONIAL FRONT: GARAGE: 2 SPACES (PER UNIT) OWNER ENGINEER PURSUANT TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 89-13, RECORDED JANUARY 30, 1990 AS 1 PROPOSED STREET GRADE PLAN 1 B - SANTA BARBARA (FROM BACK OF SIDEWALK OR CURB) DRIVEWAY: 2 SPACES (PER UNIT)* INSTRUMENT NO. 90-37878 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. LIVING: 10 FEET MIN. TRI POINTE HOMES MDS CONSULTING FENCE PLAN 1C = CRAFTSMAN NUMBER OF UNITS: 140 SPACES z ON-STREET PARKING GARAGE: 18 FEET MIN. 1250 CORONA POINTS COURT, SUITE 600 17320 REDHILL AVENUE, SUITE 350 PORCH: 10 FEET MIN. GARAGE: 280 SPACES CORONA, CA 92879 IRVINE, CA 92614 PERIMETER COMBO WALL/ PLAN 2A = SPANISH COLONIAL DRIVEWAY: 280 SPACES (951) 428-4400 (949) 251-8821 0- UTILITIES TUBULAR STEEL FENCE PLAN 2B = SANTA BARBARA SIDE: CONDO LINE: 4 FEET MIN. ON-STREET 167 SPACES CONTACT: CHRIS WILLIS CONTACT: ED LENTH PLAN 2C - CRAFTSMAN TOTAL: 727 SPACES w WATER ELECTRIC RECYCLE WATER TELEPHONE LOT LINE: 4 FEET MIN. REAR: *(MAY INCLUDE ON-STREET) EVMWD SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON EVMWD SPECTRUM _ PLAN 3A = SPANISH COLONIAL CONDO LINE: 10 FEET MIN. 31315 CHANEY ST. P.O. BOX 6400 31315 CHANEY ST. 31500 GRAPE STREET, SUITE 9 PLAN 3B = SANTA BARBARA LOT LINE: 10 FEET MIN. J LAKE ELSINORE, CA 95530 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 95530 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92532 MINIMUM BUILDING SEPARATION: (951) 674-3146 (800) 655-4555 (951) 674-3146 (888) 406-7063 PLAN 3C _- CRAFTSMAN Q 8 FEET MIN. U SEWER GAS TRASH CABLE / INTERNET z EVMWD SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY C.R.& R COX COMMUNICATION 31315 CHANEY ST. 7000 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 105 P.O. BOX 1208 C/O. TEL-PATH COMMUNIATIONS TENTATIVE TRACT 38116 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 95530 RIVERSIDE, CA. 92506 PARRIS, CA 92572-1208 34350 BLOSSOMS DRIVE w (951) 674-3146 (800) 427-2200 (951) 943-1991 LAKE ELSINORE, CA. 92532 (619) 992-2994 i FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: MDS CONSULTING �pQ�o EJ S��Nq� T 17320 REDHILL AVENUE, SUITE 350 `� F r IRVINE CA 92614 Q�P �� C0 tryPRnt -17320 Red hill Avenue °M 0 R S EPHONE: (949) 251-8821 �, No. 052496Suite 350 CONTACT: EDWARD J. LENTHIrvine,CA 92614 Exp. 12-31-22 0 ME S S C H U L T Z Voice:949-251-8821 *�T O��\* z Sus e 6o0r0 1ona Pointe Court PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS -f _-f\2 21 F�F CALF CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 Corona, CA 92879 EDWARD J, LENTH RCE 052496 11 11 1 DATE' NO. REI/ISIONS (9 5 1 ) 4 2 8-4 4 0 0 EXP. DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2022 SHEET 1 OF 6 MDS Proj.Data:1:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\Site Plan MDS File:89490-SITE-01.dwg Created:12.16.2021 10:29:55 AM Author:---- Plot Scale:1"=1 Dwg Scale:1'=60' Last Edit:12.16.2021 10:29:55 AM By:STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 10:30:04 AM By:STATION39 UNIT UNIT SIZE UNIT PAD TOTAL HOUSE HOUSE SIZE FOOTPRINT PERCENT PLAN UNIT WIDTH UNIT UNIT SIZE UNIT PAD TOTAL HOUSE HOUSE FOOTPRINT PERCENT PLAN UNIT WIDTH WILY E�LY NO. (SF) SIZE (SF) (SF) (SF) COVERAGE (%) TYPE ROW (FT) NO. (SF) SIZE (SF) SIZE (SF) (SF) COVERAGE (%) TYPE ROW (FT) R/W 781 R/W PLAN TYPES 1 5,654 4,486 2,314 1,235 21.8 113 28 71 3,360 2,710 2,458 1,306 38.9 213R 42 10 8' 101 2 3,810 3,810 2,751 1,407 36.9 3C 47 72 3,520 2,812 2,314 1,235 35.1 1AR 40 51 51 24' 1 111 01 241 5 5 16 PLAN 1A PLAN 2A PLAN 3A 3 3,615 3,615 2,314 1,235 34.2 1A 40 73 3,840 3,140 2,751 1,407 36.6 3BR 44 SIDEWALK MEDIAN SIDEWALK 1A ( UNITS) ® 2A ( UNITS) 3A ( UNITS) 2--SSTORY 2--STORY 2--SSTORY 4 1 3,981 3,981 2,751 1,407 35.3 313 1 44 74 1 3,200 2,658 2,314 1,235 38.6 1CR 40 3 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM - OPTIONAL 4TH 4 BEDROOM - OPTIONAL 5TH 5 3,798 3,595 2,458 1,306 34.4 2A 42 75 3,360 2,831 2,458 1,306 38.9 2AR 42 2%- r% 2% f2-° 1st FLOOR 714 1st FLOOR 869 1st FLOOR 944 2nd FLOOR 1,079 2nd FLOOR 1,152 2nd FLOOR 1,344 6 3,615 3,317 2,314 1,235 34.2 1C 40 76 3,520 3,010 2,751 1,407 40.0 313R 44 a SUBTOTAL 1,793 SUBTOTAL 2,021 J SUBTOTAL 2,288 a 7 3,981 3,563 2,751 1,407 35.3 3A 44 77 3,200 2,776 2,314 1,235 38.6 1AR 40 PROPOSED PROPOSED GARAGE 422 GARAGE 421 GARAGE 42261'CURB&GUTTER WATER 611 CURB&GUTTER PORCH 99 PORCH 16 PORCH 41 8 3,798 3,307 2,458 1,306 34.4 2C 1 42 78 1 3,360 2,956 2,458 1,306 38.9 213R 42 71 STORM 0 SEWER TOTAL 2,314 TOTAL 2,458 TOTAL 2,751 9 3,615 3,077 2,314 1,235 34.2 113 40 79 3,520 3,141 2,751 1,407 40.0 3AR 44 DRAIN 3' 6' 10 3,981 3,320 2,751 1,407 35.3 3C 44 80 3,200 2,895 2,314 1,235 38.6 1BR 40 11 3,797 3,090 2,458 1,306 34.4 213 42 81 4,440 4,093 2,458 1, "All PLAN 1 B PLAN 2B PLAN 3B 306 29.4 2CR 36 STREET A (PRIVATE) 1 B 26 3B (16 UNITS) ® (15 UNITS) (16 UNITS) 12 3,614 2,882 2,314 1,235 34.2 1C 40 82 3,727 3,084 2,314 1,235 33.1 1A 30 (MODIFIED LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET) 2-STORY 2-STORY 2-STORY 13 3,980 3,127 2,751 1,407 35.4 3A 44 83 2,730 2,730 2,458 1,306 47.8 2C 42 SCALE 1"=10' 3 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM - OPTIONAL 4TH 4 BEDROOM - OPTIONAL 5TH 1 st FLOOR 714 1st FLOOR 869 1 st FLOOR 944 14 3,798 2,957 2,458 1,306 34.4 213 42 84 2,600 2,600 2,314 1,235 47.5 113 40 2nd FLOOR 1,079 2nd FLOOR 1,152 2nd FLOOR 1,346 15 3,615 2,809 2,314 1,235 34.2 1A 40 85 2,730 2,730 2,458 1,306 47.8 2A 42 J SUBTOTAL 1,793 SUBTOTAL 2,021 SUBTOTAL 2,288 GARAGE 422 GARAGE 421 GARAGE 422 16 3,981 3,108 2,751 1,407 35.3 3C 44 86 2,860 2,860 2,751 1,407 49.2 36 44 551 PORCH 99 PORCH 16 PORCH 41 17 3,798 2,999 2,458 1,306 34.4 2A 42 87 2,600 2,600 2,314 1,235 47.5 1 C 40 R/W (ESMIT FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES) R/W TOTAL 2,314 TOTAL 2,458 TOTAL 2,751 18 3,617 2,909 2,314 1,235 34.1 16 33 88 2,730 2,730 2,458 1,306 47.8 26 42 RESIDENTIAL t 22.5' 22.5' RESIDENTIAL LOT 4.5' 181 181 4.51 LOT 19 3,736 3,086 2,751 1,407 37.7 3C 44 89 2,860 2,860 2,751 1,407 49.2 3C 1 44 1 5' IDEWALK SIDEWALK 51 PLAN 1C PLAN 2C PLAN 3C 20 3,488 2,908 2,458 1,306 37.4 213 42 90 2,600 2,600 2,314 1,235 47.5 1A 40 z 1 C (15 UNITS) ® 2C (16 UNITS) z X (15 UNITS) 21 3,345 2,826 2,314 1,235 36.9 1A 40 91 2,730 2,730 2,458 1,306 47.8 2C 42 1 2% ° 2% 2-STORY 2-STORY 2-STORY -► 2% 2/° 3 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM - OPTIONAL 4TH 4 BEDROOM - OPTIONAL 5TH 22 3,806 3,208 2,751 1,407 37.0 3C 44 92 3,120 3,120 2,751 1,407 45.1 3A 44 ~- ° -1 1st FLOOR 714 1st FLOOR 869 1st FLOOR 944 a a °... 23 4,146 2,603 2,751 1,407 33.9 3A 44 93 2,730 2,730 2,458 1,306 47.8 2C 42 2nd FLOOR 1,079 < 2nd FLOOR 1,152 2nd FLOOR 1,346 PROPOSED WATER PROPOSED SUBTOTAL 1,793 SUBTOTAL 2,021 SUBTOTAL 2,288 24 3,570 3,123 2,458 1,306 36.6 213 42 94 2,600 2,600 2,314 1,235 47.5 1A 40 ROLLED CURB 71 STORM 0 SEWER ROLLED CURB GARAGE 422 GARAGE 421 GARAGE 422 25 3,400 2,938 2,314 1,235 36.3 1A 40 95 2,863 2,863 2,751 1,407 49.1 36 44 DRAIN 3" 6' 0 PORCH 99 PORCH 16 PORCH 41 26 3,740 3,192 2,751 1,407 37.6 3C 44 96 3,135 3,135 2,458 1,306 41.7 2A 50 TOTAL 2,314 TOTAL 2,458 TOTAL 2,751 27 3,570 3,007 2,458 1,306 36.6 2A 42 97 3,106 3,106 2,314 1,235 39.8 113 50 STREETS "B" - I'D" PRIVATE PLAN SUMMARY 28 3,400 2,828 2,314 1,235 36.3 1C 40 98 3,924 3,724 2,751 1,407 35.9 3C 42 ( ) 29 3,740 3,071 2,751 1,407 37.6 313 44 99 4,844 4,311 2,458 1,306 27.0 2CR 57 (MODIFIED LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET) PLAN 1A 2-STORY 16 UNITS 11.42% 30 3,570 2,892 2,458 1,306 36.6 2C 42 100 5,726 4,285 2,751 1,407 24.6 3AR 90 SCALE 1"=10' PLAN 1 B 2-STORY 15 UNITS 10.72% 0 ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES 31 3,400 2,719 2,314 1,235 36.3 1640 101 4,794 4,269 2,751 1,407 29.3 3CR 71 PLAN iC 2-STORY 16 UNITS 11.42% PLAN 2A 2-STORY 16 UNITS 11.42% 32 5,407 3,725 2,751 1,407 26.0 3A 51 102 4,648 3,406 2,751 1,407 30.3 3AR 34 PLAN 2B 2-STORY 15 UNITS 10.72% 33 3,404 3,404 2,458 1,306 38.4 213R 32 103 3,718 3,245 2,314 1,235 33.2 1BR 38 i PLAN 2C 2-STORY 16 UNITS 11.42% 34 2,860 2,860 2,751 1,407 49.2 3CR 44 104 3,554 3,114 2,458 1,306 36.7 2CR 40 50.5 PLAN 3A 2-STORY 15 UNITS 10.72% 35 2,600 2,600 2,314 1,235 47.5 1 BR 40 105 3,666 3,334 2,751 1,407 38.4 313R 44 R/W (ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES) Q PLAN 3B 2-STORY 16 UNITS 11.42% RESIDENTIAL 41' OPEN SPACE �z PLAN 3C 2-STORY 15 UNITS 10.72% 36 2,730 2,730 2,458 1,306 47.8 2AR 42 106 3,360 3,066 2,458 1,306 38.9 2AR 42 LOT 4.5' 18' 18' 0.5' 101-171 m TOTAL 140 UNITS 100% 37 2,860 2,860 2,751 1,407 49.2 3CR 44 107 3,520 3,212 2,314 1,235 35.1 1CR 40 38 2,600 2,600 2,314 1,235 47.5 1AR 40 108 3,200 2,920 2,314 1,235 38.6 1BR 42 1 51 SIDEWALK 51 rr PLAN ELEVATION SUMMARY 39 2,730 2,730 2,458 1,306 47.8 2CR 42 109 3,520 3,212 2,751 1,407 40.0 313R 44 20°. 2% 2% 1 .02% 40 2,860 2,860 2,751 1,407 49.2 313R 44 110 3,200 2,920 2,314 1,235 38.6 1CR 40 a . -1 ELEVATION PERCENT 41 2,860 2,860 2,314 1,235 43.2 1CR 40 111 3,360 3,066 2,458 1,306 38.9 213 TYPE PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 3 SUBTOTAL % R 42 PROPOSED WATER PROPOSED SPANISH COLONIAL (A) 16 16 15 47 33.6% 42 2,730 2,730 2,458 1,306 47.8 2AR 42 112 3,520 3,212 2,751 1,407 40.0 3AR 44 ROLLED CURB 0�JWEROSE ROLLED CURB ° 7' STORM SANTA BARBARA (B) 15 1516 46 32.8/°43 2,860 2,860 2,751 1,407 49.2 3BR 44 113 3,200 2,920 2,314 1,235 38.6 1AR 40 DRAIN 6' I CRAFTSMAN (C) 16 16 15 47 33.6% 44 2,730 2,730 2,458 1,306 47.8 2CR 42 114 3,360 3,066 2,458 1,306 38.9 2CR 42 TOTAL 47 47 46 140 100% 45 2,600 2,600 2,314 1,235 47.5 1AR 40 115 3,520 3,212 2,751 1,407 40.0 313R 44 STREET "Ell PRIVATE 46 3,027 3,027 2,751 1,407 46.5 3AR 50 116 3,200 2,920 2,314 1,235 38.6 1CR 40 (PRIVATE) 47 2,895 2,895 2,458 1,306 45.1 213R 48 117 4,838 4,236 2,751 1,407 40.0 3AR 32 (MODIFIED LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET) SCALE 1"=10' 48 2,755 2,755 2,314 1,235 44.8 1CR 46 118 4,227 4,227 2,458 1,306 38.9 2AR 54 1❑ ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES 49 3,034 3,034 2,751 1,407 46.4 313R 50 119 3,873 3,873 2,751 1,407 36.3 1CR 72 50 2,895 2,895 2,458 1,306 45.1 2AR 50 120 2,975 2,975 2,314 1,235 41.5 1AR 35 51 2,755 2,755 2,314 1,235 44.8 1CR 46 121 2,860 2,860 2,751 1,407 49.2 36 44 52 3,034 3,034 2,751 1,407 46.4 3AR 50 122 3,055 2,766 2,458 1,306 42.7 2C 47 53 2,895 2,895 2,458 1,306 45.1 213R 1 48 123 3,055 2,785 2,458 1,306 42.7 213R 47 54 2,755 2,755 2,314 1,235 44.8 1AR 46 124 2,600 2,600 2,314 1,235 47.5 1AR 40 55 3,034 3,034 2,751 1,407 46.4 313R 50 125 3,185 3,185 2,751 1,407 44.2 3C 43 56 2,895 2,895 2,458 1,306 45.1 2CR 48 126 2,925 2,925 2,314 1,235 42.2 1CR 39 57 2,755 2,755 2,314 1,235 44.8 16R 46 127 2,860 2,860 2,751 1,407 49.2 36 44 58 4,714 4,044 2,458 1,306 27.7 2AR 49 128 3,055 2,766 2,458 1,306 42.7 2A 47 59 4,744 4,043 2,458 1,306 27.5 2AR 42 129 3,055 2,785 2,458 1,306 42.7 2CR 47 60 3,551 3,074 2,314 1,235 34.8 16R 40 130 2,600 2,600 2,314 1,235 47.5 16R 40 61 3,906 3,364 2,751 1,407 36.0 3CR 44 131 3,185 3,185 2,751 1,407 44.2 3A 43 62 3,728 3,190 2,458 1,306 35.0 2BR 42 132 2,925 2,925 2,314 1,235 42.2 1AR 39 63 3,551 3,018 2,314 1,235 34.8 1CR 40 133 2,860 2,860 2,751 1,407 49.2 3C 44 64 3,906 3,295 2,751 1,407 36.0 3BR 44 134 3,055 2,766 2,458 1,306 42.7 26 47 65 3,728 3,120 2,458 1,306 35.0 2AR 42 135 3,055 2,785 2,458 1,306 42.7 2AR 47 66 3,551 2,947 2,314 1,235 34.8 1CR 40 136 2,600 2,600 2,314 1,235 47.5 1CR 40 67 3,906 3,213 2,751 1,407 36.0 3AR 44 137 3,185 3,185 2,458 1,306 41.0 26 43 68 3,669 2,998 2,458 1,306 35.6 2CR 42 138 3,025 3,025 2,314 1,235 40.8 16R 39 z 69 3,200 2,629 2,314 1,235 38.6 16R 40 139 3,115 3,115 2,751 1,407 45.2 3A 44 70 3,520 2,565 2,751 1,407 40.0 3CR 44 140 3,499 3,162 2,458 1,306 37.3 2C 47 W J Q U_ z TENTATIVE TRACT 2 NO . W FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES (.0 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: r Ill e co tri i nte Suite Redhill Avenue co M O R S E Suite 350 Irvine,CA 92614 b PFR M E 5 0 S C H U L T Z Voice:9 9-251 8821 z 1 250 Corona Pointe Court CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Suite 600 PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS Corona, CA 92879 DATE NO. REI/ISIONS (951 ) 4 2 8-4 4 0 0 SHEET 2 OF 6 MDS Proj.Data:I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\Site Plan MDS File:89490-SITE-02.dwg Created:12.16.2021 10:26:40 AM Author:---- Plot Scale:1"=1 Dwg Scale:1'=60, Last Edit:12.16.2021 10:29:50 AM By:STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 10:30:49 AM By:STATION39 1 -Ir=- ----- -ter ---il �r=-- I-- --ir ---it '� `--ice=-- --nr -11 -- ® I II� II 1 �2 � � 1 76 --1- ---1-J -1--- -- --1-�'---1=J -1--- '-=' '� -"' - --1�'---L-J -- _ _-�' 3'--- -- - MAC/HL-1NE + R" „ » (SEE SHED 5) - 0.5= ,n 8 S o 6 0.5 S 8 S 0.5%' in o 8 S 9 0.5% � �6 g 12- $„w 8„W (PRIVATE) N s„W N 1 °° N 8 w a� � �,.�� �,, I � �� 1 ^ � 1274.6 in Lj 42' o� I I 44' - - 0 40 a'�, 103' o o o o �o 0 0 42t�� - � �o o - I BSL ��sJ \ I� DEBRIS BSL BSL T \ I I ---"I r GF=1281.40 GF=1281.20 GF=1281.00 GF=1280.80 GF=1280.10 GF=1279.90 GF=1279.70 GF=1279.50 GF=1279.30 GF=1279.10 GF=1279.00 GF=1278.70 GF=1278.50 GF=1278.30 \191 1:�7 "V v V VV VV VV VV V V 'e� VU ''R 3BR 2AR 1 CR o BR 1 CR 1AR 1 CR I 50.5 1 BR 3 2BR 3AR 2CR 3BR 3AR I 1270.5 1275.7 12810.4 ® FF=1281.87 FF=1281.67 FF=1281.47 ® FF=1280.77 FF=1280.57 FF=1280.37 FF=1280.17 FF=1279.97 FF=1279.77 FF=1279.57 FF=1279.37 FF=1279.17 FF=1278.97 I 18 1 5' PAD=1281.2 PAD=1281.0 PAD=1280.8 PAD=1280.1 PAD=1279.9 PAD=1279'.7 PAD=1279.5 PAD=1279.3 PAD=1279.1 PAD=1279.0 PAD=1278.7 PAD=1278.5 PAD=1278.3 17 I I 10, 8' I 8' 4' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 6 8' 8' 8' 8' �J _ L _ J _ I� _ �I _ I� _ �I _ I� _ =N �N L _ - L _ �J J L _ J _ �J L _ J L _ =I1 J m 1 IiN I 0 `� o 0 0 0 0 LOT 1 I LOT 1 107 12so �' - 117 I I 105 106 108 109 110 111 11_2 _ --- 113 - ---- 114 - ---- 115 - --- 116 - -------- ) I 12217.5 - - -- --- -- --- ----- - ---- -- - ---- - - --- - -- J�L --- --- - - ----- - ---- - --42- - - 44.1 - --40�-�- - �-42--- - ---44- - - _ 30' _ 40' - 48' LOT 111311 � _421 - - 40 = _ ' = 42' 40' _ - --4440= �- - 1-- 42--- 4044 =�- - -=42' - I Q - = 94 - 9 - 92 1 91 - r 89 _ 88 - - 86 _ E - _ - - - - �I - B, 8 �� e 4 I I �� REC LOT I B' 90�1 a f� B N= $ 87� B I� $ s N= 8�� $ r 83 8 R2 I II T T T T > o I I 8 I 19' I I IzI2.6 I I ti' 0.33 AC I 3B 1A 2C 3A I I I I ® 2C 1A 2B 1C 3B 2A 16 2C 1A 3' ► I °' I► 1276.� =1285.07 FF=1284.87 FF=1284.67 FF=1284.47 I I - FF=1283.77 FF=1283.57 FF=1283.37 FF=1283.17 FF=1282.97 FF=1282.77 FF=1282.57 FF=1282.37 FF=1282.07 FF=1281.47 I I II , =1284.4 PAD=1284.2 PAD=1284.0 PAD=1283.8 L I I I a PAD=1283.1 PAD=1282.9 PAD=1282.7 PAD=1282.5 PAD=1282.3 PAD=1282.1 PAD=1281.9 PAD=1281.7 PAD=1281.4 PAD=1280.8 I I I / r I L=1 I , 1277.3 I I 1281 I I ✓ 11 I 1 I I a I s -� I I i C �t GF=1284.40 GF=1284.20 GF=1284.00 GF=1283.80 I I I GF=1283.10 GF=1282.90 GF=1282.70 GF=1282.50 GF=1282.30 GF=1282.10 GF=1281.90 GF=1281.70 GF=1281.4 GF=1280.80 1B I j W 1273.5 / Ls / - -- I _ II o - 0 0 0 0 0 � � � I �► 4' 1 0 40' o 0 44' 103' 42' I o 40' 44' 42' I o 40' 44' 42' !a-- 40' 42' 5 , I-II 01 ' I I ? 1279.4 °' " I o + 1278.4 Nco 5% 8 S N O 0� 8 S 0� 1 10 8 S M o- 12 0° 13 1.s% I I z + - - - -- - -�--N� - - �, + - -- - ---�- - N ----- - - PRIVATE- NI --- - ----- - -�--N - ---�- - --- ,� ^� - --------+-- N 8'W 1 "I 8 W (PRIVATE) 8„w 100 1 8.5 I - _ M III �J�J, I II 40' 44' _0 42' -0 40' 0 40' o-42' o_ 44' _ 40' _ 42' 44' u7 40' o �� F)N- 3 � � � �- 8'o p 8' - fici 8' - 10 8' T 8 10' 8 I I , � � �� � � �;1 rf � � I I 1280.E I GF=1284.40 GF=1284.2( GF=1284.00 GF=1283.80 GF=1282.90 GF=1282.70 GF=1282.50 GF=1282.30 GF=1282.10 GF=1281.90 GF=1281.70 GF=1281.40V V GF=1280.80 16 g �� I_I 00 00 I I� VV �7 7 ww 1 1. 11 - V� / 1BR 3CR 2BR 1AR 3BR 1CR 2AR 3BR 1AR 2BR 3AR 1BR 2CR j V V V- I I lit -j U 12i FF=1285.07 FF=1284.87 FF=1284.67 FF=1284.47 / FF=1283.57 FF=1283.37 FF=1283.17 FF=1282.97 FF=1282.77 FF=1282.57 FF=1282.37 FF=1282.07 FF=1281.47 j I I \ 'AD=1284.4 PAD=1284.2 PAD=1284.0 PAD=1283.8 4' 1► PAD=1282.9 4' PAD=1282.7 PAD=1282.5 PAD=1282.3 PAD=1282.1 PAD=1281.9 PAD=1281.7 PAD=1281.4 PAD=1280.8 Q 14 O I� = � 08 � = 11 8 _ � 71 8 � 72I� = 8' - �I 8 8' I 8 g 8 78 8' 8' 8' I 4' 10 10V 9 7(: T - 73 T74L = 4- _ J - L� J 0 L= J - _ � o - _ � - L _ J o o II ' --- -- - ---- -- r2a3 � ---- o � � �- 75 76 77 _ o m p 1 r � 00 � r -- -- - ------- - �� --- - --= ---- -- = T 1 - 79 80 - 81 I -- LO LOT , ---- -- ---- - ------- --------- - ----- II z _40' I-- - -42' - - -- 44'- -- \ n / 48' 40' I 42' 44' 40' 42' 44' 40' -- ----55 - - P.I.I �o� LOT A 1 ,2 9 1 __ I 44' 44' 37 - 42' 36 = 35 34 - = 55' 33 i III 1282.5 �° 45 - r _ � 44 r _ 1 43 � 4 I ti REC LOT I I = = fir 41 r r _ 1 40 r � = �9 r� fir 38 r r 1 r r , � 1� r _ � r 1 ► r ' 8, 31 8 8 1 I 0.44 AC I i 4 8 8 I 11 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 20' I II I I v AR 2CR 2AR ® I 1CR 3BR 2CR 1AR 2AR 1BR 3C 2BR 10' 10, I o, 1 1291.57 FF=1291.77 FF=1291.97 FF=1292.17 �, �� FF=1290.67 FF=1289.87 _ FF=1289.07 FF=1288.17 FF=1287.37 FF=1286.57 FF=1285.67 FF=1284.87 FF=1283.97 ® Nil I =1290.9 - PAD=1291.1 PAD=1291.3 PAD=1291.5 a I I 1 - PAD=1290.0 PAD=1289.2 PAD=1288.4 PAD=1287.5 PAD=1286.7 PAD=1285.9 PAD=1285.0 PAD=1284.2 PAD=1283.3 �I 50.5' I I O - I 1 n 1 5' 8' I 1283.5 I I Zap a 12g4 I I ` 18 I + P AA ';' AA AA AA A 90 GF=1291.10 GF=1291.30 GF=1291.50 8' �� // I GF=1290.00 GF=1289.20 GF=1288.40 GF=1287.50 GF=1286.70 GF=1285.90 GF=1285.00 GF=1284.20 GF=1283.30 0 0 - o Al0 \ SL � � BSL �5�/ _ `� 0 8' I -o _ T' o 0 8' 0 1 0 8' I o 8' I �// I 40' 0 42' 0 44' 42' 132' Y�, T' qk#44' 40' 44' 40' 44' 32' I I rn � I I 8 S 0.5% 10 1� 11 �I . 2� - - 12 � 2� 13 �_� 2� 8 S 14 0 2� 15 a C5= �N a ---- � N N N O I 1284.8 1 (PRIV TE) �,6� I + -1-4117 8„w 8„W I 12 s., 5� I I + I 1285.4 '_0 10' �S- �'� 1 0 42' o 40' o 44' _ °� -0 40' o °? _o o �? 40' o y gS� BSL - I - F- 1 - � - I 124� I - ti BSL Tf o Tf �.1 12' I I 285.5 o r V 2$9.9 r r r 0 GF=1291.10 GF=1291.30 GF=1291.50 LOT 4' GF=1290.10 GF=1289.20 GF=1288.40 GF=1287.60 GF=1286.80 GF=1285.90 GF=1285.10 GF=1284.20 GF=1283.30 GF=1282. I I LOT "E" OPENSPACE OPENSPACE �/ I J EXISTING 6.0'C IN LINK - V V V V / I ' 7 ` VVVV7VVVVV C I FENC T R AIN / IC 2B 1A 3C 1 ' 3929' 29'39 1 3A 2B 1A 3C 2A 1C 3B 2C 1B 3A 1290.57 FF=1291.77 FF=1291.97N FF=1292.17 ® I I - I 1 FF=1290.77 FF-1289.87 FF=1289.07 FF=1288.27 FF=1287.47 FF=1286.57 FF=1285.77 FF=1284.87 FF=1283.97 FF=1283.37 ® I I 1289.9 PAD=1291.1 PAD=1291.3 AD=1291.5 I I I PAD=1290.1 PAD=1289.2 PAD=1288.4 PAD=1287.6 PAD=1286.8 PAD=1285.9 PAD=1285.1 PAD=1284.2 PAD=1283.3 PAD=1282.7 121' 1 I o i = \ 4' u 1 8' u n 8' 8' 8 8' II 8' I 8' I 8' 8' 8 00 6 0 � � - �' � _ � - _ � � _ � � _ � �1�� 1287.5 --- 20 LOT 1 21 22 L1J /�� \` 24 25 M o M T 27 -_ �28 _--- - 29 ----- _ �30 ---- - 31 ---- - 32 ----- I 1287.5 M T I M M c�'�J T I -- ---- - 41, LLI - �23 ---- --- ---- - -- --- --------- - - -- - M M 1288.5 m m � GRAPHIC SCALE 4�-- 1� -�Z'l -1 4' 8---��22i4----�� ----�'L44'--- ---fill 2'--- - - 0'--- --- I 44' --- l o _ � � _-- 42_-- _ 437 40--- --- 44 --- - - 42'--- --- 40--- - - -- -�� 0 15 30 60 120 1ti Fs `� 9yv 5 %^�`� o �\\�s 9 G - - a - `� 9�' e� 5 �ti�s �ti i 411.Y. 4 S - - EXI ING I z 4ch ' P ETOf i 1`ti�' 'CG 1ti9 �c 1`�9 �c 1�91�c 1ti�'�c 1`�9 �c �o ( IN FEET ) _-EXZ�43A--------- I n' --- ------ --------- - --- --- -- - - ----- ---------- 1 inch = 30 ft. --- -- -- - -- ------ -- _�- N52 52 18 W 739.98 - - - ----- --- ----------- - --__+ -- - --------- e. -- -------- W -- PROPOS'ED�ifiA b - ---- ---- ------- -- -- ----- _-- is o ����--�� t� gU `� _ I `� _ EXISTING UTILITY P I, T0, + 125 EXISTING UTILITI POLES TO EXISTING UTILITY POLES TO + 1290.6 + - its bl ain < - - - u til a m - BE REMOV A D E --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------- -EXISTING UTILITY UTILITY P9�E&TO BE REMOVED AND UNDERGROUNDED � Q 2 1292.5 _ 1291.7 1291.E 1291.5 U 95 - 65 651I I 650 649 '?93.4 648 M N 645 v�+- - - - - - - ---- -v - - - --- - ------ - + ce N ------- -- - -- -----TZ92-'r ----- v - ------ --+--- - -t- - - ------ z 1296.2 Gfl�kND AVENUE (H\&/Y 74 j = 12 5.6 1295.3 -�0A,01-66- -�8froi 86rx+--- . k a - ' 3--- cl8/F��6�SS-1E3.-- - M� �J:ir"r.i;r-5-� 6 ��irrB�3S X�- --- X�---- /� I , ----- 18? S (�--- " M 1,292 R ---�� LI -}l 3---- 13tX3--. �'X�------3+3t� - 3a3i�(}- - 3�}1�F}-- -- -�31�(3 --- � -----r „ 131�(3-- -313�X3-- -- � --- 3�.. 0 2p�4E i ' g5k��02��w IIF IF Ink ----- 1 5\ 4 p 1 91.8 0 � � FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES 0 1 1296.4 I� PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: T 0 . CO tri inte: M 0 R S E Suite 350 Redhill Avenue co • Irvine,CA 92614 O PIR M E S • S C H U L T Z Voice:949-251-8821 54 vf Z SusteCorona 00 na Pointe Court PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE , COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE , STATE OF CALIFORNIA Corona, CA 92879 DATE. NO. REVISIONS (951 ) 4 2 8-4 4 0 0 SHEET 3 OF 6 MDS Proj.Data:I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\Site Plan MDS File:89490-SITE-03.dwg Created:08.05.2021 03:55:02 PM Author:---- Plot Scale:1"=1" Dwg Scale:1'=60' Last Edit:08.05.2021 03:55:02 PM By:STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 10:32:36 AM By:STATION39 N 1282.3 J� C' � ��. - o � r � 1277.8 1277. 1 13 � -- ^° k h h 0- /b1278.8 r �r6 h J� I r1Jh i1 N52 55 29W 716.85 0hti0� �O � � + r �r \ r J ° ���' eti Qp' �ti 1�' �ti \�' �ti \� �ti 1^' 140 , nLn 00 ?Q� PROPOSED 26' ,? ---T- - --- --- ------------------ --------- __ _ N Q N ------------------- ------------------ ro ro II III ? \ II II 164' ---- 11-------�\- 1----� -�__ �I--------------���� -- -- II �� % 0 8.0 AC% } '� �� h �'�, 93 - LOT 1 I I 71 / 5ti 59 ` _ OPEONSPACE I 0 I 1ti�' Q 1ti NI �tiFs F .� Q� .���' n .`���' \ 0 100 j 101 ® Ste - - - i i ®DAU1 9 If STREET C /.o\ % T 1 � �ti \- ,��, N -___ 1 1mL (PRIVAT 8 W- 9bN I "o' o° 1 0 12 yes ,Q \� ���'p 1 10, e �o� (PRIVATE) N - 0.5X / z I \N 28' r /� - BSL 5 � �,�� 17' / t2 2 c I / /0 58 I I BSL - 21' "' � 8 0 44' 42' 40, - � T L 99 \ '``•` / / GF-1281.80 BSL X � �/ �Q GF=1281.40 GF 1281 00 GF 1280 80 I / f V \ \\ I/ FF 3AR PAD,1, 1 B R V V V cp, _ 2CR 3BR �AR 1CR �5 \ O \ \ rr/r O� ® PAD 1282.27 FF=1282.07 6• \�\59 ' / \ ( 13' PAD=1281.4 ® FF=1281.87 FF=1281.67 FF-1281.47 \ PAD=1281.2 1281.0 PAD=1280.8 1\ \ yY �.�m'� �m�� cJ7\\ jQ '��A k\ �� r 98 \ \ \\\ N L _ �J 10 10, 81 4, \ \ p \ O \ 5 A��j °° '� \ Q1�ti\ / '2� r �� ?�, \\\ , 102 N N � '� - � o - � J o o J \ss \ 1 03 - - o - \\ NN�9 \ \ j� � 104 LOT 1 105 y 106 107 F PROPO D G TES \� A� \o R=25' / q,3C ---�___ -----�T- --- ---�-- - - - ----�- ® �� o \ \ 9°j'�� \\/ 6\0 " / � \Sy\ � ?4' D\r2g3� 6.96� _ � T � 14' 30' N 40' 42' 48' SECONDAFJY A ESS 12 •4 30 \ ° �� °°�, \ �, ® / �. ® �B 95 - 81 94 r = a 9 - 1 81 92� N= _ 1 4' \61 �� y \ Y a \ S \ 1? FF=1284.57 aj 12es.t �p 1 \ \ ° \ A ,g I PAD-1283.9 ® 2A 3B 1A 2C 3A rC \ o \5 �n \ FF=1284.87 FF=1285.07 FF=1284.87 FF=1284.67 FF=1284.47 PAD=1284.2 PAD=1284.4 PAD=1284.2 II PAD=1284.0 PAD=1283.8 \ 4 0�ooQ� / \ \ ti o 15 \\ per•' \ T \ � < � � AA / A A III 1288.E \ \ � � `. s °;���'p \ \ '2e �• ^' 8 S �? 1 �S( o 3s0 �•ry GF=1284.20 G F=1284.20 G F=1284.00 U F=1283.80 D 50' BSL 4' 40' 44' 33O \ �`\` 8»S 5 ����� \\' gOo'�e� 54 \\sue OT 1 ® M 5%cliq 8 S M O O.E 91> 3 •S° 8 w a�I= a AT `\ \ qo°r���� �11*1 8 W , \ \ oj�� ° � 96s �s8s� \�9 63 , �s FF 3Be GF,,2 ass � `���d> '\ \� CA 9 '\'� \\ \ pgp\r28'I 83•>° �� �4 T ! \ � \ \ 6 \^ •,\ //Y` \ r283r> � 42 j o 40' 44' 42' 0 40' �j - 10 M 8' GF;1283.90 rn ' 1 �� BSL 1 FFo r AR GF=1284.1 \ \ �Q \� 789g \ f, \64 �Q PAD\2gg3j GF=1284.30 GF=1284.40 GF-1284.20 GF=1284.00 GF-1283.80 I 1293.8 j �\ \ AST �B �a9_ \ \\ r2g3.> I \ � 9 °ram 6 9p\�/% \ h \ \ j�e� \ \\ 9 ' \\ \V 1j(�' ® FF�CR 1 \ \ \ \ 7 \ 65 1Q' PAD r1283g V V V V VV v v o , FF3AR.77 2CR 1BR 3CR 2BR 1AR PAD=1284.1 ® FF=1284.97 FF=1285.07 FF=1284.87 FF=1284.67 FF=1284.47 4 �! - _ p = PAD-1284.2 PAD=1284.0 PAD=1283.8 1291.4 \ st \\ G \ /A��� \\\ -- � 15 N PAD-1284.3 AD 1284.4 4 50 % \ \ \ °p,�C ° �\ / 0 \ oo �89 Aq 129 \ // \ 49\ = -__ _ 67 0 _ �c - � 68 o r69L J o , _ J 71 o T72N= = J / V v 90 4 f/. /�J 40 O� 02j m oo I 6 - - �� \\ \ 8 �, �e8s, \\,�8ea \ s\ \� FF,3BR 49 9, _ -40' -- _54' _� ------ N LOT 1 G pJIL r \ F 2 - \ 9 5� � 00\'289s° � '28gs 48 9 - 42� _ 47 - , 91 40' � �- - \ \ ts9 \��` ° �� FF,rCR , �1 - - �I 46 r _ i - 45 - r _ 1 44 � _ � 43 - r _ �421 42 1294.7 \ rc \ \ �° �° AAA �9 h PAD,2g0>> I 9 8 8 81 8 � R + e FF_1291.07 3 1 AR 2CR I 8 \ 89. PAD_ _ 3BR 2AR \ Ss \ \ �8�9> 9° o0 9° -1290.4 FF=1291.37 FF=1291.57 FF=1291.77 FF=1291.97 FF=1292.17 PAD=1290.7 - PAD=1290.9 - PAD=1291.1 PAD=1291.3 PAD=1291.5 1 O 4.6 1292.4 / �^\\ �6 \\ ��\ �� Q� r \ BSl oo r29°.ro dj \�� GF_1290.40 r GF 1290.70 �rl;'\rl �I_I A A A A JQ� \906i \ >896> �° r / \`47 GF=1290.90 GF=1291.10 GF=1291.30 GF=1291.50 8' 1288.9 \ ss 3.3 12 9. 1 ^ �' \ �ro pp-_ rC 8960 o 92 �_ - ---+- °0' - - ----- - $S- - --- - 10 90 / 129 .5 \ �� ��S �� \ 12� ® r2g980 a " 8 W �\ S�� \ \\ FF 3 �a0 44' r29 F, ' 129 \ \ \\\ 2e96> 12so.00 �8 42 j 33' T j 40' 44' o / \ rn - - o - �5 �\ 1295.5 \ \^ \ \ \13 ® GF_,2 - o 8 10' 8' I B� 2e rn I � o 0 V 7/ OF] / \ \\ ,�2' pA0 r28 q> ® GF=1290.50 r r 9 .6 1294.8 \� \ \\ s8 GF=1290.70 GF=1289.90 GF=1291.10 3F=1291.30 GF=1291.50 'r2s°.o VV v ® 3C / 1294. r Vv v v v v FF_129p.s> _ VV GRAPHIC SCALE \ 1 PAD_129 291 29117 yB 3C 2B 1A 3C 0 15 30 60 120 7 \ 03 ® PAD=,290,8 ® FF=1291.37 - - FF=1291.97 FF=1292.17 ® L FF-1290.57 FF-1291.77 / 1297.2 \ \�8 - �- PAD= 1291.4 „o \ 50�e D 9S \ 95� � \ � _ 1�� 11 12, 1290.7 PAD=1289.9 PAD=1291.1 PAD=1291.3 PAD=1291.5 _- �l J � a' a a a / �2.3 1295.4 �1 � ��\\4� --_ __ 17 =JJ T � _ � �11 � _ - - L _ J - L _ J o IN FEET a, 18 _--0 19 - --LOT 1 0 21 - 22 1 inch = 30 ft. W - - -- M - - --M - M SSX3 I 1 VJ /� - - --- Ex-4"�&--------- / --- \,295� _ 11TICITY P REMAIN \ C> S J 1294.5 \, �+_ - - Q -EX.TELE - � / - 7 - - L / _---- -- -- - --- - --\��,------ - E)U&TINGUTILITYPOLESTO5 ° � » TENTATIVE TRACT NO . 38116 BE REMOVED AND UNDERGROUNDED N52 46 36 W U us bl al�n x�/ - - - - - - - - - - - l1S bL HIM 11S,b4 a1M'X� S hl i1M X� 11S b4li1M X� 11S„bl ki1M X� 1S bl 3- b k1M'X� ll if li. ' 11S bLN w - 96. 12 �_�_ 654 / 1296.4A - ------------__ FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES --- - - ----- 2 �- - - --------------- - - - - ----_------ ---- -�, y�Tfi� _- __ -----------------------�- --_-_ _�3 --� CEO PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: r co trio, Rinte: M 0 R S E Suite 350 Redhill Avenue ` J • IIrrvilne,CA 92614 O M E S • S C H U L T Z Voice:949-251-8821 Z Sus a Corona Pointe Court PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Corona, CA 92879 DATE.- NO. REVISIONS (951 ) 4 2 8-4 4 0 0 SHEET 4 OF 6 MDS Proj.Data:I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\Site Plan MDS File:89490-SITE-04.dwg Created:08.05.2021 03:54:54 PM Author:---- Plot Scale:1"=1" Dwg Scale:1'=60' Last Edit:08,05.2021 03:54:54 PM By:STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 10:33:17 AM By:STATION39 ' � - OBSCURED �} N49° 07' 11"W 1261.2 �H V 10313 1260.4 /1261.5 + ' I / 24.87' 1271.3 1270.7 + + -�- 1257.4 + 0 1259.7 -- 1260.2 � RECENTLY TILLED + 1259.3 + 0 1261.9 LOT 2 1258.5 1270.6 0 1266.3 1264.4 + PRESERVED 1259.3 1259.3 NATURAL OPEN SPACE/ / + + + + 15.65 AC 1 C O N C + a 3.2 1271.7 • I + 126 i W I 1263.3 + • 1> 1262.6 - 1261.4 1259.5 +267.7 \J� / 1260 1266.5 , � / (3 1 260.3 5 - 1265.3 1260. 1259.7 z o p4 - + + 7 ry �� -1643 1270. - - - - - - 1263.3 - - - - - - / - - - - 1 1.E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � L t I N + + 1263.5 , Ln r� 1264.4 + rn = Q i -- \ Y 1268.2 12624 _ t D4 \ \ + w + v CIO + 12F / // / �\ \ 00 1266.E � �`�� v v 1263.5 + 0 3: o 1261.4 T J MB FA _T6NE t + 1 1269.8 / // / - - - \\� - - - - - - - - - - - - / - - - - - - - - - - TZ6�4- - 12�3 6- - - - - - - - - z U 1271.5 LOT G" /'�''�/' `�``\ Z LL 1271.3 / / / \ \ _ OPENSPACE / / / � �� 105' /� I + 0.45 AC / / \ --------------/--�- ----- 58' I O U / / \ �\ ------- �65 I U ° / /,a w N52 26 45 W 80.30 / // / \ 2:1 - N L 2:1 1266.2 R -------- ------- - ------------------ ---_ -------------- ---------__- 1270.4 //' / + - - --------------------1----------__4:i Jf, r.� - - - - - - - - � J J / /// // PROPOSED 20' LOT C _ _ _ STORM DRAIN + II II � _ �/� 2r EASEMENT 1266.5+ BOTTOM ELEVATION: 1270.5 WATER QUALITY BASIN , - ,\ I J - 1.33 AC PROPOSED 20' _ -_ \\// _ \\ I LL 1�F,sz � STORM DRAIN - _ _� ---- --------- ----------------- _ __ _____ __ ` 4:1 1267.3 __ __ 1273.5 0 --- -- -----T------- �I� --TT ____ _____ EASEMENT --------- -------- ------ill------- -- �I--------- ------JTL----- --�I----- N ' I 2:1 -------- 4:1 ---- 4:1 / �\� PROPOSED20' 1281.0 TW 1280.5 TF 1280.2 TW 1279.0 TW 1279.4 TW 1278.5 TW 2 // STORM DRAIN / 12 9 5 TF 1'0� 2:1 1279.5 TF 1'5� 1279.0 TF 1 5 546� 2:1 1278.0 TF 2 2 I� 1276.7 TF 2 3 Ir 1276.5 TF 2 9 T 2:1 3.2'1275.5 TF F \ +1268.4 o • - ------ --- - EASEMENT _----- I 79' � 781 78' �, 78' 78' �, 78' 78 -- 1138 10' 10' 137 132 10 �ti 10' 131 126 101 ° 125 120 10 + 12 I ^� - rL^�5 �o - rL1�c5 n co - �L^F �� - �2 ^�'O N W O m CO r - CO , ('\D O = j M N 1\ _ M N , 1 I\ 1269.5 O W I m�N ^ CD N N r O �N L¶ Ii N T N O N Ii C' a v II NN Qr II _ M NT II'� �j V II �..7 c0rco Q II I..�' I I I r L¢ N a - I I r LL¢ N a N 11� S I I r L¢ N a' M I I I r ILL I LLL W - 18 LL¢ LL� W 18 o LL¢ LLL 18 IIo LLL II 1 g - LLa LL 1 ao LLa it 2 N �¢a n \ ' I C7 - `� �' '2 = II CLL7 1 '� W LL 1 LOT 1 ¢ /0 � /p J_ 1275.8 r; i I 6s s5' ` LOT 165 -- LOT 1 65' \ -- > \ '- as 1270.3 1276.4 65' � -- � W _ `�65' a LL J I _ 65 N � I a' o � s' W co s' I„I,J _ s' a W o 35' 1 I 20' BAS I N C 18' Cm 0 11= 1a' C I� 1a' 1 I� LJ,J 18' I - II N� 0 N C�N� 12II 1112' N OD N 1 0 \ /0 " C oc�N 12II 1112' mnO \ /0 N pC OCD M� 12II Ih2' loo NN �r 1 \ /0 LL cC^N II - LI �(,\�� I i ACCESS ROAD 12 LL LL N�Lo N n L� Vr M I LLa _ rLLQ o M�Q _ _ r II III _ _ II C7 Vr II >� Q a r�¢ LLa b� r^ r II o I I I I - Q i1< �o vJ LL� LL(L LLo LL¢ - LLIL LL(L LLd 1276.9 i I B 10' 10' 136 133 10' 1 10' 130 127 10 1 61 124 121 10' 1 10 119 I I �� I I 1 + I 73' - `'65' 65'`- 26 ` 65' 65'" - 26 65' 65'` -- - 88' I I I I 1 1272.4 J o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5%1 \ co a' 1 0 135 134 a' 1 °° a 1 "' 3 122 o �, - + 2 N52°55'29"W 716.85' I I 140 ,� � N � N N �" N 129 128 �� N � - N cn I" I 81 1 - rn� 11 Cn 3 11 r.0 11 '0 00 p �� i i voi 11 II rnrn ' i `gym 11 (n= �i p I I I 1 o =1 LL - /p LL OC n o 12 12 LL D o p LL I: 12 12 0• li 1 0 In / 12 12 0_ 1 2 +� / GC 35 _�...... J II N 1 - " CO - (O 1 •U \ / r p LL pj V N LL LL 6 I (� Q. N CC\1 o C7 C7 N Q N C7 O C7 m N N N II C7 00 CV 00 p C7 Q N 1 I I _ I � - m VN N N � II I N I 11 76 it❑ _ LLa � % �� LL¢ I 11 `�' NN �� �� "'LL¢ I 11 LL� �� 2.0� LL� I 11 LL� �� -1 LLa LLn HIM ILL ~ v v I 1 + LOT "G" ' I L o o' _ �I L _ LL 0- o' lo' �I o' 0' �N N= I I 1 5� 59 ` _ OPENSPACE ® ?� ® ® 16 �. �- ® ® ® _ ® / ® I I I 1 1273.5 ti r a- M - 1272 4 j II S9 __ _____ _ Ir--- I - - --- -=-lr --- II- S r Ir=-- �I-- _,.., -•-I� �- 11 -Ir=-- _ -�� II - R 76 I -4--- 65r n -_1�5----I--� �-4- --1�---1-J �-1---�=' '� -�' - I + _ I 1 10�° (PRIVAT %L � I I ' E) - 0.59; u, 8„s o 0.59o'"S 7 STREET o 8"s 0. �, o $„S o.5% ,� 12�69 (PRIVATE) 8„W 8„w 8»W 00 8»w �x'���1 MAT H L 1 N E 1274.6 + Uj/14 '- '� 21' �, 1 ���� ' ' (S E H E E T 3 1 .0 ^� \ \ ' 8' I � 40' o 0 44' 40' �'� 4' 44' �;�, 42' 44' _ _ 32' � I GF= I - o - o - - - I \ems' \� I� II III DEBRIS 12s,.8o I I 1 �� / GF=1281.60 GF=1281.40 GF=1281.20 GF=1281.00 GF=1280.80 I GF=1280.10 GF=1279.90 GF=1279.70 GF=1279.50 GF=1279.30 F=1279.10 GF=1279.00 GF=1278.70 GF=1278.50 GF=1-78.30 19 LOT D + 1 I v 2'p Ile I OPENSPACE 1274.8 P F3AR> pp 0.12 AC -� AD_ VV / e VV 41 VV VV VV VV VV H VV 1281.8 ® FF�Dg.27 2CR PAD=1281.6 FF=1282.07 3BR 2AR 1 CR 1113113 3BR 1 CR 26R 3AR 1 AR 2CR 3BR 1 CR 3AR 1 1270.5 1275.7 11 13 PAD=1281.4 ® FF=1281.87 FF=1281.67 FF=1281.47 ® FF=1280.77 FF=1280.57 FF=1280.37 FF=1280.17 FF=1279.97 FF=1279.77 FF=1279.57 FF=1279.37 FF=1279.17 FF=1278.97 8' ' �1 PAD=1281.2 PAD=1281.0 PAD=1280.8 PAD=1280.1 PAD=1279.9 PAD=1279.7 PAD=1279.5 PAD=1279.3 PAD=1279.1 PAD=1279.0 PAD=1278.7 PAD-1278.5 PAD=1278.3 17 II I 5 I I + L - � 10 10, 81 81 41 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 }^ I 4j. 102 N L _ J _ L J _ L _ J L J o L = J o L _ J o L J o L _ J - L= J o L _ J o L _ J o N= = � o � _ � o N= - � I N I I _ - o - - - - - - - - - - - _ �� o o � o 103 0 - 0 \ \ ' -___ 104 LOT 1 105 106 107 12so o - - L 1 2 - - 117I I 40, 108 109 110 111 11 113 114 115 116 1 1217.5 I _ ----- - T - ---- - - ----- ----- - --- ---- - ----- - OT 97 N N _ _ _ - -- -- - ----- - --_- - n II --421-�--- --441 _IIL- - -401-j1- - il-421---- 14 44-�- - -40- - --- 40 - --42-�- - 6050 �I I I I 11 z a� 6 96 42'� 14--- 30 - --40 42' 48 LOT B 42 40 _ 44 42 - -- 40 - 44' --- 95r I� - 94� 9 - fir 92� I� - � I �� 91 � _ � = 1j89 � = �jr 88 � _ � r = � 86 � 1� =I=1� 85 r - � � _ �- 83 r =lj 82 III Q REC LOT 1 90 8 8 8' 87 8 8 8 84 81 8 T 1s' I 1 12726 J ® y B ` `� 8 a "' 8 4 1 I off° 8 81 I I, , FF_1284.57 I I ti' 0.33 AC I 2C 1A 3C 2B 1 C 3B 2A 1 B 2C 1A 8' PAD=1283.9 2A ® FF=1284.87 3B 1A 2C 3A I I ® FF=1282.97 FF=1282.37 PAD=1284.2 FF=1285.07 FF=1284.87 FF=1284.67 FF=1284.47 - FF=1283.77 FF=1283.57 FF=1283.37 FF=1283.17 FF=1282.77 FF=1282.57 FF=1282.07 FF=1281.47 I 1 I , 1276.5 + I W n PAD=1284.4 PAD=1284.2 PAD=1284.0 PAD=1283.8 _ I I PAD=1283.1 PAD=1282.9 PAD=1282.7 PAD=1282.5 PAD=1282.3 PAD=1282.1 PAD=1281.9 PAD=1281.7 PAD=1281.4 PAD=1280.8 I I VJ J Q U_ Z TENTATIVE TRACT 381162 NO . U W FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES c0 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: r � co tri PVR inte:� M 0 R S E 17320 Redhill Avenue GRAPHIC SCALE • trvilte 350 ne,CA 92614 0 15 30 60 120 O M E S • S C H U L T Z Voice:949-251-8821 PC)M B Z Sus a Corona Pointe Court PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS IN FEET ) CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Corona, CA 92879 1 inch = 30 ft. DATE.' NO. REWS/ONS (951 ) 428-4400 SHEET 5 OF 6 MDS Proj.Data:I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\Site Plan MDS File:89490-SITE-05.dwg Created:08.05.2021 03:54:25 PM Author:---- Plot Scale:1"=1" Dwg Scale:1'=60' Last Edit:08,05.2021 03:54:25 PM By:STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 10:33:58 AM By:STATION39 . � ���� •• liar i��:��i��t�• • ■� LME������ MIN ��� :: L_ ,k pit .�1. y �r ; !r .►�► �If� - _ � � .` • '� I . ll 9 11J1� • IS Mill 61 161 WWI CWMiami� - 1 Ca ' J� g '•r; �n �i*J■1�����7Cv�/:v'�'i�a-ar�.■I� � ,i■� i•i`•■rr � ! ■r��'�:�■'�!. ,. ■ 0 N i I ■ _ ■ ■ , • mill 1101 oil . ., ..I� �� =IG�-1 G71= •ICE _�I ' - 71 ^ P-Wft- _ _ POW1,110IMP EMU NS • _ � ` � - � ■ . :�[INS, I -�L1 . _ L1 nnl _ Ii\ -■i� . . -- -d�1i I■�I -I� . 1 — Ii\I i_�r�L1nn �. dun�G �� . �[f� �!•����� -i-] �G 'c.�-� �G[f�i IiG[-� � �■� ■�� ■�Ji u�i' ■dui/ �� u�i' ■u�r/ dui �J • ■uJ� ■u� ,,, •��i� f i • /� I/ %' �I�I OAF OAF • I I I I 1 • j.. . � _ ,��. .; � �% . III ►I■ I�� ► �� ♦ ,�: A - :. .�� I� 1 . i� ■ nip . . ■n n iJ■■ i n � I n �■n i n �� ■ ■ n � � n i ■n 1 / . 1 �� ♦ — ��ll L _ _ l� � o �1�� __ � �J L� �1� ��l�i�l ■L l@l�l �� . ;.I • ���•��'—� Ei'� I �-c■•ll� �l�l�:•�ryC•I .,�■ ��1a�1� �u■�1� llr•�I�IF•wa■IYIMnIa■1Y ��■■/��wa■l�l r■■l�fi75:����■/Y ■1/Y I,I MISS \1 7% -_4W,M IBM= W ,=. -- .6-M�— IMN 0 NIP�� �� , -��������_-�►�I�.�■�� �I 'ii ■�.�■ Orb�'' .►�1�■��I�i�i1►�1�.�1 ■��I�li 1�1�P■1�.��1 .� ♦ \ l.T �[��` ■��"�I _ � I� _ ����' ■�,[la �L�.��A � "�I ■rr 'll■1r� � -I�ri ��[ '� �I I� " •:' _� � �`��� � a • � � �I�I ' I�I ' �II� I�I �� I�I I�I .�I�I� �� I�I .�I� .���i �� I�I .�I� .�I� � � .� � i a. !I � I � � ��',��\- 0 .. `��' �\' I r i• r' I�I r Irl � r I,I '•' III Irl �U III , •r � t� r I,I r.• Irl ■�I�',� �i � � � � �/� ����� � _ � � � �I lil I�I �■�� ��J �■ � ��J I�I •■ // t�� •■�� l� I�I •■ �'I�i�d��i • �,� MOXW� • �y a v. -.�. imi �i .i �� � �i . I 1� n■■� Rik ly 'l 'J _�If, ��■■1[F��lJ _ �l�I' _d1�3 �!d■Il ME WIN �J11�171MR, V�i�u�li71�1 1!■Iv� ■■1■��iu� �Y l!■I■��ii■■1■�� ��Y 1!■I■��� _ �; ' I ► /lam .`jam 1 ••—��� \ � � ►'� `� _��"41 Mp-IN OEM � O . . �._■�Eaf..�Ti■ �._■�1'.I 11►:,��■�.��■►_��t��■►.■ ]MIENS\►.2N■POP.fu■�I►-� /I \ i �1 • i1 . . • '. Ie�� . i- - . . i -ii I � � �_ �I�[i11r'_ �1 •r�l� [l' _ O �'il� ��1� — 1 � � i®,17��1[. ��■If, I,�■��1[ A.I,_!m f-111 '�:�� -'r-1�■ 7� 7®!•Ir- �;7 /�1� i � i �ill■ - l ill r1�1■ - �I r �u�■ Ilr5��■ �i■ r.7ui i� Sums , ■ uC i� �u ■ �.� �► \�,/� �� � .�.� � I�I . I�I �� �� III . ■ ���� ■ . I�I �� , I� . j�l �� �� , I� . j�l �� �� I� . _ SOW Eno OWL 7;A ♦ '' „ � \ / .. •,. � ,� , � /I� � _� I � III � � � II� � � � III � � :tea� �� � � /i � /. �� _ N■���■I�� 1, Il, 1. , , " � OR, SEEM NINE INNER 1 r' •^ - \lip L � r a' f ►r Y � r y "1 MEN �R:` . . • • 1 •• H DS • CONSULTING • • _ . • � VAMBIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGEND THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: rj CONDOMINIUM UNIT NUMBER �F PARCEL 1 (APN 379-060-022): PAD ELEVATION qy BLOCK D OF A MAP OF A PORTION OF THE LA LAGUNA RANCH, IN THE CITY OF LAKE I I 1280.0 P s ELSINORE, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 1, PAGE 36 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. � � �+ � CONDOMINIUM UNIT LINE LAKE ELSINORE PROPOSED STREET LIGHT o� ��' EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED ` C�� PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT RECORDED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. CR AS INSTRUMENT N0. 92163 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF R°R� RIVERSIDE UNTY D < I , PROPOSED STORM DRAIN q �pF NATURAL OPEN SPACE I \ - I ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHWEST OF THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED NON-POTABLE WATER DESCRIBED LINE: PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER OI - - - - PROPOSED POTABLE WATER � PROJECT SITE BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 3090-2C �„� \ ON FILE IN BOOK 54, PAGE 49 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE - - - - EXISTING STORM DRAIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; I EXISTING SANITARY SEWER tigq�N THENCE NORTH 3702'20"EAST 383.77 FEET ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL EXISTING POTABLE WATER 3090-2C AND THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF TO A W IRON PIPE SHOWN SHEET 5 EXISTING GAS LINE AS FOUND ON LAST SAID MAP; THENCE SOUTH 52'5740"EAST, 773.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; �- 1.00 PROPOSED STREET GRADE THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20"WEST, 511.06 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT ��� III �..�..� TENTATIVE TRACT BOUNDARY CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 193.00 FEET, A RADIAL TO SAID ��� VICINITY MAP BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 61'31'38"EAST; � PROPOSED RETAINING WALL N.T.S. THENCE SOUTHERLY 220.67 FEET ON SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF (SEE PLAN FOR HEIGHT) 65'30'42; � 2006 THOMAS BROTHERS THENCE SOUTH 3T02'20"WEST 50.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61'20'49"WEST, 232.48 FEET; MAP BOOK, PAGES 865, GRID H6 ° PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT THENCE NORTH 52'57'40"WEST, 80.30 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 57-5740" EAST 760.00 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE, 60.00 FEET WIDE, AS ___ ___ ° ` 2:1 PROPOSED 2:1 SLOPE SHOWN ON FIRST SAID MAP; � PROPOSED 4:1 SLOPE THENCE SOUTH 3702'20"WEST 127.00 FEET; t °� LOT 2 j 4:1 THENCE SOUTH 52'5740"EAST, 122.00 FEET; s i j o I I / \ PRESERVED o THENCE SOUTH 3702'20"WEST, 291.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52'57'40"WEST, 743.98 FEET NATURAL OPEN SPACE �\� w 1 -��--------- °-- ° \_-- o PROPOSED CENTERLINE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE I w I _ A �• ;� STREET GRADE END OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED. _ \ T I 2 2 \ ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF THE LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 3090-2A ON SAID MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 54, PAGE 49 -WATER QUALITY BASIN - _;;_ --- 20"BASIN OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. I - __a �- --- --z------z----=__�___-=_�_==-==r--3=- �t�\ ' MAINTENANCE ABBREVIATIONS SHEET INDEX r -- -- \ ACCESS ROAD SPECIFIC LAN - LOT "G11 ' 138 1 1 137 1 I i ' I 1 125 1 120 i ' PARCEL 2 A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005 : E R N Y OPEN SPACE ------a. f_ y------a C3 fLOZyi-----a=Fy------1= `� r-1 I�, DELTA SHEET 1 TITLE SHEET ( ) RESIDEN IAL P O SE A C SS R I _ , ---- _ , im - , , THE NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES OF LOT 1, BLOCK C OF A MAP SHOWING SUBDIVISIONS IN =- - 1 ,W' _i_ r W, _i_ _i W __ ,W AC ACREAGE SHEET 2 STREET SECTIONS &CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN ELSINORE, IN THE CITY OF ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS J s 140 L 135 1 134 ;¢ 129 1 �28 1 o --- 1 122 i Lu I ! AVG. AVERAGE SHEETS 3-5 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGE 377 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO 'I �' �' ---� __ _ I '�' _ '�' '~' '~' n® BSL BUILDING SETBACK LINE STREET O ` 11 `=_=__=-ice -- - ' - - -- ' ' =ram i 1 COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 1 - -1 (PRIVATE) _ 100 '� ��1 fi I STREET "D" --- ---- ----_ � 11 ©1 DU DWELLING UNIT (PRIVATE) DW DOMESTIC WATERGENERAL INFORMATION SAID LAND IS SHOWN A PARCEL A IN LOT 1, BLOCK C OF RANCHO LA LAGUNA, ON FILE -'� � 5s ~�1 59 �„'= � '� ���;' - I I --- ---- --- I --- ---I--- I --- ---I--- I I I EX. EXISTING 2 l / Q , 102 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 11 IN BOOK 12 PAGE 4 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY =`�` = `�, 1 103 1 1041 1 5 1 1061 107 I " , - EXISTING LAND USE : VACANT �'\ - 7 a `�� ' /��QQ Z� ( 1 i 11 11 108 1 109 11101 111 1 112 11131 114 1 115 11161 117 w h� FL FLOWLINE CALIFORNIA. 3 ti' 60 , LO B I I I I I �= w 11 � G GAS Z-_- -- _ RE L I I I I I__ I 1 1 I " 11 ' ` \ % r `' -rs*- �z�-�-1 q1 w> 11 GB GRADE BREAK EXISTING ZONING : R3- HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4 $6 �^�: 61 %��� 1 98 i 97 ' i i i i i i i i1 i i 1 "w- LO D \ �� 1 96 1 95 1 1 93 1 92 1 91 1 90 1 89 1 88 1 87 1 861 85 1 84 , 83, _ a OPEN PACE HP HIGH POINT PARCEL 3 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005): I I :�, 5 ;' ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 I1 11 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK C OF A MAP SHOWING SUBDIVISIONS IN ELSINORE, IN & 5 �] `c' r. FFT 1 L LENGTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN : R3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL \ ;' .� `� ,t4 , `r_�qTF STREET LP LOW POINT THE CITY OF ELSINORE, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 377 OF MAPS, �- ,� � ' 6 64 ; __ (PRIVATE) MAX MAXIMUM PROPOSED ZONING : R3- HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: _ `• � � r T" r---T- --T----r--- ----�----r----r---�---- ---- ---�----r----� 1 7 / 65 ; 1 1 1 1 1 MIN MINIMUM Y /'52 �, 66 i 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I J PUD OVERLAY PROJECT DENSITY-23.33 DU/AC 67 1 1 1 1 1 73 1 74 1 75 1 76 1 77 78 79 1 801 81 ' `� " �:' 'OT 1 I 6 1 691 01 711 72 "All I I I I I I ' 1 N0. NUMBER BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES OF SAID 1 ;'8 q�`.1 1,51 1,50 , - -ti__ 1 1 1 I LO A �0T11 i 1 1 ' LOT 1; _ e `< `,�Aq�`FT �<,,` lay ?I-__]_jT__ *-- �- T-- T--T �l TEC L T --- 4-- ' �___ __ J___ 1 1 , I PA PLANNING AREA PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN : R3- HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THENCE SOUTHEAST 60.00 FEET ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; o �x� 9 : ��'>rF %�48 a7 1 1 1 1 1 L 3 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 I PI POINT OF INTERSECTION `` 10 ,/ T` ._�,``i_ 46 i 45 i 4 i 43 i 42 1 -_- 41 i 40 i 39 i 38 1 37 1 36 1135 1 34 i 33 I R RADIUS ADJACENT LAND USE : NORTH: PRESERVED NATURAL OPEN SPACE, THENCE NORTHEAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES 11 >., _ � _;- - , -[ -►�-- --, RCW NON-POTABLE WATER / -- -L---y- --L----L--- ----L----L----- --- ----L- TRAILER PARK TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; `r' /12 / ?��__ STREET "B" R/W RIGHT OF WAY EAST: FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, THENCE WESTERLY ON SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID ,,� ��,� 13 ; -T_ 1 (PRIVATE) - RW RETAINING WALL 14 / ( r'--r-- ----�- --r---�- _ ----T----r---T----T---- T----r- ��' VACANT NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES; , 15 , , 1 1 1 1 1 --- 1 SD STORM DRAIN I I 1 I I I I W I I I I I I I I THENCE SOUTHWEST ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 4.00 ACRES TO THE `\ q ` , 1 1s 17 1 1 1 19 1 0 1 21 1 22 ¢ 23 1 24 1 25 1 26 1 27 1 20 1 291 30 131 1 32 SOUTH: GRAND AVENUE (HWY 74), '�< 1 I > SS SANITARY SEWER COMMERCIAL I I I I I 1 ---L --1- 1- _ '- - d I I STREET POINT OF BEGINNING. ` -� -_ � - _ � _ ST -tT WEST: RIVERSIDE DRIVE, EXISTING S.F.R. SF SQUARE FEET EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL �.� �41 11 1r _ TIC TOP OF CURB AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 07, 1970 AS _ _ OPEN SPACE Gil �A ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER INSTRUMENT NO. 77806 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. _ , PARCEL 1 (APN 379-060-022) PARCEL (APN 379-060-027):2 . 3 SITE COVERAGE SUMMARY PARCEL 2 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005) PARCEL 2 OF THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO 89-13 RECORDED JANUARY 30, PARCEL 3 (A PORTION OF APN 379-060-005) 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90-037878, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, TRACT 32585 OMME 1 R L COMMERCIAL 1 LOT LAND USE AREA AC PERCENT % PARCEL 4 (APN 379-060-027) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: R 1 .� � � „� a� C,I/CIF ��, I �� ( ) D 1 CONDOMINIUM UNITS 10.94 31.4% THAT PORTION OF BLOCK D OF RANCHO LA LAGUNA AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK III` o 2 PRESERVED OPEN SPACE 15.65 45.0% BENCHMARK. 8, PAGE 377 OF MAPS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDS, ALL IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, "A"-"B": RECREATION LOTS 0.77 2.2% DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 1 IC" BIO-DETENTION BASIN 1.39 4.0% ELEVATION: 1281.62(NGVD 29) � I D - G : OPEN SPACE 0.65 1.9/0 DATE: DEC. 1994 LEVEL SUMMARY FILED MAP FILES 261838 TO REACH INFORMATION COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF AND SHOWN AS PARCEL PRIVATE STREET EAEMENTS: 4.60 13.2% DESCRIPTION: BM-13-B-93-SET CALDOT BRASS DISK IN WILY CURB RIVERSIDE DR. (RTE 74) OPP FH 3090-2C ON SHEET 3 OF THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 54, PAGE 49 OF RECORDS OF GRAND AVENUE (RW TO TB) 0.81 2.3% 29'N'LY OF A 40'DRIVEWAY(31461) RIVERSIDE DR.AND 365'N'LY OF JOY ST. + SURVEY, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER WITH THE SOUTHEAST RIGHT OF WAY RIVERSIDE DRIVE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING 6 TOTAL: (GROSS ACREAGE) 34.81 100% BASIS OF BEARINGS: COURSES; SOUTH 3702'20"WEST, 350.93 FEET; THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE OF GRAND AVENUE SHOWN AS N THENCE NORTH 52'57'40"WEST 20.00 FEET; SHEET INDEX MAP 52°52'57"W PER TRACT NO 33267 M.B.471/11-13. THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20"WEST, 276.35 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 30'02'05"WEST, 81.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SCALE: 1"=150' EASEMENTS NOTES APPLICANT/DEVELOPER SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 665.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02'03'19", A DISTANCE OF 23.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, TO WHICH RADIAL LINE OF SAID PROPOSED ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES TRI POINTE HOMES 1250 CORONA POINTE COURT, SUITE 600 CURVE BEARS NORTH 62'01'14"WEST; �2 PROPOSED 20'SD ESM'T CORONA, CA 92879 THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY ❑3 UTILITY ESM'T IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TO BE QUITCLAIMED (951) 428-4400 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23'15'31"A DISTANCE OF 269.95 FEET; CONTACT: CHRIS WILLIS THENCE SOUTH 52'5740"EAST, 743.98 FEET; ® UTILITY ESM'T IN FAVOR OF CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY& THENCE NORTH 3702'20"EAST, 291.00 FEET; CALIFORNIA WATER AND TELEPHONE COMPANY TO BE QUITCLAIMED THENCE NORTH 52'57'40"WEST, 122.00 FEET; OWNER ENGINEER THENCE SOUTH 37'02'20"WEST 34.20 FEET; 5 UTILITY ESM'T IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN SIERRAS POWER COMPANY TO BE QUITCLAIMED TRI POINTE HOMES MDS CONSULTING THENCE NORTH 532624"WEST 716.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. UTILITY ESM'T IN FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 1250 CORONA POINTE COURT, SUITE 600 17320 REDHILL AVENUE, SUITE 350 © TO BE QUITCLAIMED CORONA, CA 92879 IRVINE, CA 92614 PURSUANT TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 89-13, RECORDED JANUARY 30, 1990 AS ❑7 UTILITY ESM'T IN FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (951) 428-4400 (949) 251-8821 INSTRUMENT NO. 90-37878 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. z CONTACT: CHRIS WILLIS CONTACT: ED LENTH UTILITIES GRAPHIC SCALE W WATER ELECTRIC RECYCLE WATER TELEPHONE 0 75 150 300 600 F___ EVMWD SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON EVMWD SPECTRUM 31315 CHANEY ST. P.O. BOX 6400 31315 CHANEY ST. 31500 GRAPE STREET, SUITE 9 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 95530 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 95530 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92532 J (951) 674-3146 (800) 655-4555 (951) 674-3146 (888) 406-7063 ( I N FEET ) 38116 Q 1 inch = 150 ft. TENTATIVE TRACT NO . C) SEWER GAS TRASH CABLE / INTERNET z EVMWD SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY C.R.& R COX COMMUNICATION 31315 CHANEY ST. 7000 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 105 P.O. BOX 1208 C/O. TEL-PATH COMMUNIATIONS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES LAKE ELSINORE, CA 95530 RIVERSIDE, CA. 92506 PARRIS, CA 92572-1208 34350 BLOSSOMS DRIVE V (951) 674-3146 (800) 427-2200 (951) 943-1991 LAKE ELSINORE, CA. 92532 w (619) 992-2994 i PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: MDS CONSULTING �pe�� EJ S��N9l T 17320 REDHILL AVENUE, SUITE 350 `� F r � IRVINE CA 92614 Q�P �� � � -try Rinte� - M17320 Redhill Avenue 'PHONE: (949) 251-8821 �, No. 052496Suite 3 A CONTACT: EDWARD J. LENTHIrvine,CA 92614 � Exp. 12-31-22 � O ME S S C H U L T Z Voice:949-251-8821 *�T CIVIL 1250 Corona Pointe Court FOF \F z Suite 600 PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS CAL CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Corona, CA 92879 EDWARD J, LENTH RCE 052496 1 1 1 DATE° NO. REI/ISIONS (9 5 1 ) 4 2 8-4 4 0 0 EXP. DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2022 SHEET 1 OF 5 MDS Proj.Data:I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\Concept Grade MDS File:89490-CGP-01.dwg Created:11.15.2021 01:02:43 PM Author:---- Plot Scale:1"=1 Dwg Scale:1'=60, Last Edit:11.10.2021 08:51:48 AM By:STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 11:03:01 AM By:STATION39 EX.N'LY ' w I I WILY i E'LY R/W PR R/W LY S'LY ® x I I I I I I R/W 781 R/W R/W 100' I, I o 7 10' 8' 10' 80'(EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY) 40' TRACT BOUNDARY 40' 5' 5' 24' 10' 24' 5' 5' 1 I yx I I I I I SIDEWALK MEDIAN SIDEWALK 1 48 12 II I II 18' 221± 1 6' 6' I I I I 2%. 2%° .2% OVEMEN (EXISTING r'HOVEMENTS) (PROPOSED IMPRT 2% 2% S) 2% I1IIII dIIIII IIII IIlII 7' % 2/ PROPOSED PROPOSED 6"CURB&GUTTER WATER Q SEWER 6"CURB&GUTTER STORM Q 7 DRAIN 31 61 STREET "A" (PRIVATE PROPOSED GRAND AVENUE (PUBLIC) ° — I I I I w (MODIFIED LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET) SCALE 1"=10' SCALE 1"=10' 17 I I I I II � I I 55 77 I I° I I I I I x RM/ (ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES) R/W I I I I II II I II I RESIDENTIAL 22.5' 22.5' RESIDENTIAL LOT'G' LOT 4.5' 18' T 18' 4.5' LOT UNIT 12.5' 26'EMERGANCYACCESS I I TRACT BOUNDARY TENTATIVE I I w I I CO ��—►I 5 IDEWALK SIDEWALK, 5 1 TRACT BOUNDARY RESIDENTIAL '2' 20' 2 VARIES �LOT'G' PAD ELEVATION I I I I 12%. 2% 2% �%I I PROPOSED PROPOSED 6.0' Oe�� PER PLAN % 2,M RETAINING WALL PERIMETER WALL S� 1.5% EXISTING I (5.5'MAX) 2% 2� 2.yM �� D GROUND--) PROPOSED , �Qc PROPOSED QWATERROLLED CURB \ "ROLLED CURB Q SEWER —6 CURB �_ PROPOE 6 CURB Q 7 STORM 3' 6' Q ONLY 3.5'MAXI 1 6"CURB&GUTTER ONLY y� 4D x RET.WALL I I � STREETS "B" - "D" (PRIVATE) ACCESS ROAD (PRIVATE) PROPOSED 26' EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD (MODIFIED LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET) FOR WATER QUALITY BASIN (PRIVATE) SCALE 1"=10' NTS NTS 1❑ ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES I � Ll I I 50.5' CONDO LINE/ R/W (ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES) Q R/W BLOCK WALL RESIDENTIAL t 4V OPEN SPACE Qz 31' LOT 10'-17' I. 0 1 (ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURP)SE) 1 STREET 2 VARIES 2' RESIDENTIAL 4.5 18 18 0.5 m 0' 6' LOT 1 5 SIDEWALK 5, i 2 5' 26' 2.5' j�cr BLOCK WALL I ° i PAD PER PLAN I m 2 2O� % I t r— 2/o MIN. 2% P 2% PROPOSED a 2% 2. I I DRIVEWAY PROPOSED PROPOSED QWATER PROPOSED PROPOSED DRIVEWAY SLOPE SHALL BE LANDSCAPED PER ROLLED CURB STORM Q SEWER ROLLED CURB 0"CURB PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLAN DRAIN 3 O ROLLED CURB' 6' AND MAINTAINED BY HOMEOWNER. I � II T TYPICAL SIDE-YARD SLOPE SECTION I � W I STREET "E" (PRIVATE) STREETS "F" "G" "H" & "I" (PRIVATE) w I � , , x - - - - - (MODIFIED LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET) FOR LOTS 120 AND 138 AT STREET CORNER LOT SCALE 1"=10' NTS NTS V 1❑ ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES 1❑ ESM'T FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES CID I CONDO LINE/II � � FENCE I I 1276.Z I RESIDENTIAL *VARIES 2 RESIDENTIAL yx I LOT 2' 12 LOT 40 1� I I / 1 Q LOT"G" 2' 4.5' 18' Q LOT"G" 2' LOT 100 Q LOT"G" 4.5' 18' PROPOSED 6.0'FENCE 1277.E o OPEN SPACE SIDEWALKSTREET"A" OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL OPENSPACE SIDEWALK STREET"D" N I PAD PER PLAN + m m m 27 z J I Q Q Q 2�MP ¢ PROPOSED m Ir Ir PAD PER PLAN ' RETAINING WALL I PAD ELEVATION ILL 1281.1 ' x I j S 2%► �/� EXISTING PER PLAN 2%► 2% SLOPES UNDER 5'SHALL BE + EXISTING J w o ' GROUND 2�EXISTING IS��e a a.. GROUND 2�S��Q GROUND 2\Se� ~.a a LANDSCAPED&MAINTAINED w _____ BY HOMEOWNER. SLOPES OVER ————— PROPOSED ————— 5'SHALLBELANDSCAPED PER j w 1 79.3 PROPOSED 6"CURB&GUTTER PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S PLAN Lj,� 12777 PROPOSED AND MAINTAINED BY HOMEOWNER. + + CONC.V-DITCH CONC,V-DITCH CONC.V-DITCH 1281.8 r``]J U L 12112 I I SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION C-C TYPICAL REAR-YARD SLOPE SECTION �1 I NTS NTS NTS NTS z V 1280.3 q IMF LP 11/t J o I W 130111Cn + • I v) ,2 EM GRAPHIC SCALE J (SEE SHEET 4 0 15 30 60 120 V TENTATIVE TRACT NO . 38116 ( IN FEET ) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES 1 inch = 30 ft. U LLI i Cfl PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: r ■ • co tri O I M 0 R S E Suite Redhill Avenue ` J . Suite 350 H O M E S S C H U L T Z Voice:9 9 Irvine,CA 251 8821 614 O z 1250 Corona Pointe Court Suite 600 PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Corona, CA 92879 DATE. NO. REV/S/ONS (951 ) 4 2 8-4 4 0 0 SHEET 2 OF 5 MDS Proj.Data:I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\Concept Grade MDS File:89490-CGP-02.dwg Created:11.15.2021 01:02:43 PM Author:---- Plot Scale:1"=1" Dwg Scale:1'=60' Last Edit:08.06.2021 08:53:43 AM Bv:STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.202111:03:36 AM Bv:STATION39 ' II____ -� -- _ �� �' _ - JAI' _ _ ����� • IY a p 11 ��EE Vr"' .�I_� . . _ mow.-- ��� - �■ � I� �«iu� ��■•,MAN 1001�-'m� 10 Ll 1EE!El ion_ ..� , J78.J .�► ©�D14 Y •• C44) M�■ �M # ' r • • ' • • • • • �• ' • ' : : �, i • NPAP WRIN - • BsL t\ — ice_ ■ ■■ ai71111° �n1\ ■ ��ii1� ■ MINE ■aIrdHIM • •BSL ., �I BSF • i • i i , , I D e4 A►I► ' •© . � , ► _ , r : = Ir ' :• . . % • I %' 40 • WIN 34 rD 31� • �� (@�Do ►,� 288.4 12: . !BSL ;s 12; , iff _ L0■ — -- ■ — _ — —� -- —ram— ii•■t�—�— EMI ME � � � . • - ., %% �. � � • � -'3� _ fir � - - '• � - I ' • ® Mill M ■III - � � OW-A+ PROP00-11ATA ® �. BUS STOP MINE MEN EWA �� ��� '1 ® i 111 1 1 1 1i�'(1�U 1] ►I1A11:11U111►if;aWiti;t1111111Ja1 — - •1 1 — . . CEMOVED AND 1' � 1 1 • • ' 651 6p01294.6 �- • • • : • • �r O . • Suite ' • CONSULTING 949-251-8821 h h 12°81.4 L ` 11d J(`1�? ��81277. 1 1276.3 o s NryryJ��JO�J I rJJ ?? ?�° o� �2�8s �� �� �� 1�79 ` �� � . r) I �r O ENSPACE C +N �s'9e ''h `€s oo. '°ti ati o0 0� �'oti r � » ,° �c 10, 08 ,c - o° I 0 I V .`�� .`�� 0.45 AC F00 I N52 55 29 W 716.85 ----- - -- --- ----- --- -----------LO I oo cv o� PROPOSED 26' �es L �41 _ _� ----�1-- W � 8.0 A �T o h"' h h 1 80. 1 I �� ` 5 59 _ 127 i 1281 .3 + 12714 RUSH ��,.� 128 `\/'� 1 Q 0.5 1'L "Jill Co 5 o 1.0% _ EE - STREET - II N \�,Q3� + �I I _ T ►p►, N I - -� R L W �2es TE $»W \ i� 1 1 / 0 1 �/AT *� l' qbw TM W Mlgk 37 2.5 %WO / BSL � TC Ob 59 , 99 ,, J SR" � r/ � •�i N. � � 2 � + II l 1284.2 9 \ 1283.8 r/ � / 1 I I I y \ \ M ITT \ / \ Or� Q 1021-1 I 'II 1280.` c� \ 7.4 \ ��� /=/ \ \ �.o \ \ , r r0 I 103 I 12cc 1 104 I+ 105 107 I 1281 . I 112 \ �,��^ \ \es r / r\\/ 1281.3 1 I 1281 .4 I 1281 .2 1 12� I 1 80.8 1284.7 \� 57 \ / ~ka�. r� I I 8 + ��� 1287.9 \ 60 / �� 2 rr�/ I LOT 1 3 o \ O /' \ \ QI`y`ti, -_� / ' / I 10.71 AC I I + �s� \\ 2 3.3 r-✓�/ l I 1280.4 1287.E 1284.4\ � R 0 GTE + �\ o R=25 /�� \ \ \ �/ \\/ �/ \\ \\s9� / / 1 i---------i------ --- 1281.E-I --------- C O N Y A(� 12 .4 - \\ 12 4.4 \/ / �� c A \ \, ' / + $ , 1282.4 I\ I + ' C \ +\ 8.2 �'� �Y / \� 2'g �83.2 1283. / 97 1 + I I I 128�6 \\ \• / N / I 96 282' I282� 9 I I \ 83.9 95 I 7 I 92 1287.8 \ I I \� O ' �� �`�Q /�� \ \ \ / 1284.2 I 1284.4 +� 1284.2 I 1284.0 /' E N TL Y/fi � r'� �� �\ ,' +\,�\ � � 28� \ \ \ l 1 O I O I O O 5 8" �Sf 128.E 5 \ \ \� /,i �� � /� / \\ ^N• s � / � II 1• �-- I I 128 280 88.4 , / \\ \ 84. �' - _ I -1� I BSL \12osy - - - � - - - 17N, 12 \ 1288.0 + o \ \ �\ ,LOT 1 ,// 63 / \��\ 8„ \\ 9 \ \ 54 ��T .71 AC / - s \85 6 y \ // 12 �83.3 ,/ \ \ �_ o.s�; 8„S 283.E - -�_- aD .5% M a12 3.6 0_5,' 8 \ //' \ \ �X 1288.E // �\ / + ,' "''85.5 / \\ \ 8»w - - o ^ _ --- - - o N� - -- 6 \ \ ,\ 64 -- -�-� / \ 8 1289. � ��` /' 1288.2 /� ���\\ ' 1283.5 i/ +128J�\\\ 1- s \ \ 53 0 _ - _ s. \ - I T - - -Li U � - - � ��36. �, \ 8 �,� \ �� 1288.9 /' / 65 i Ix128 s - - Li �- - - - \ 1 O , 1z''85 - - - - - -I - BSL \ \ 128E / r / 1 / I + I I I 1293.8 '\j \�\ /' \\ ,/ 52 I I I REOENTLY TILLED I I 7 I I 69 '285..I 7 1 5.4 71 n 285 I 68 0 1284.1 I I I I 128 1287/2 \\ l O 1 1284. I 1284.4 I 1284.2 1284.0 I + 1283.8 I i \ \� \ \ , 51 / 1286. O I O O I 1291.4 \ � ,/ 8 \ �\ �A \ \ + / / � ���_ + 1 1286.5 \ /, 1287 " ///\ \ '4�/i \ \ /� 1289.4 �' I + I I I I i + 1288.E / \ \ �, \/,\ 12�7 50 / 1287.4 \` �� - \ 91.4 49 -- - ---- r----- -- ^ ---- r-�286-6----, \• ,2s. 128�.3 \ I I 1294.7 � ` 1288.8 3 °S 88 y \ 1289.9 i + + os O / \ \12 l O 48 1 1292.4 / \ \ // 10 \\ r hh47 �8 S l 1288.3 1 1290.4 �I- 46 45 1 44 1 W 43 \ 12 4.6 ° / / \ \ \l l 1 O I W o //� 1 1 I 1290.7 �2:90.9 I 1291 .1 �91 .3 I 1291 .5 I �' 9 / / \ \� -� 1 1288. O I O I 1 1 / \ � � + _ 1288f 4 I I I 1291.E � 129.5 11 / \ -\, I - - - + - - - - - �- - BSLI 10 "19 1288.9 \� s sue\ 1 3.3 \ / / \ \ 8" -�- 12 9. 1 ,�Q , 1289.2 29 Q - \ \ w -� o. 1293. \ \ 13 , 89.E j l \ `I 8 W 1295.5 \ 3 4, / / �- 1� - -1- - O.�r- - - T= - -BSL+ J�Ci g4.8 l291. 1289.8 / 15 1 1 I -�� t - 9 .6 /1294.8 / / \ +/ / I 1 1 I I 1290 I GRAPHIC SCALE / /��/,. \ \��„o ss 12g / 1290.0 16 I 1 1 + 1 1290-4 0 15 30 60 120 / + PJ / �k�\ t� ' ; I 1290.3 ; 17 1291.� 18 19 I 20 21 1290. 22 / 1294. \ O I I I � r � I ► 1290.5 I 1290.7 I 289. I 1291 .1 i 291 .3 I 1291 .5 1 I 1291. O T �e IN FEET / 1292.4 / I I O ( ) / � 1297.2 J� +I I I I 1 inch = 30 ft. z 1291.4 yc 1 01 _ 58 / 1292.4 1 I I I 1291.5 I I Q 55 9 I I \ / 1292.3 1295.4 � �\ / 1 I �; PROPOSED RTA 0 ftA 1I / 1295.3 95.5 \ �� 931 tc 1 '--BUS STOP _-- ----- BU STOP + LI /� - - --- EX-4° &--------- l7TICITYP I \��9J� ����\ .5 :1 J 1294.5 TENTATIVE TRACT NO . 38116 _ EX. + 1295.3 S� pp -------- - TELE / ---- �� �h$S4�,_ �__�-_-------- - FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ---- - ----- - - -- ---- ------ ____ _ 6-T- --- - --- -- -� 0.00 4 '36 W= 9�2 - 11s,brHlnnx�/ - - - - - - Us HIM - - - 0310 - NDUNDERGRU 1295. p J 11S��bl 11S.V1 Him X3- Us��bl HIM X3- 11S llb l H X3- 11S.V[H1M X3- 11S��b l 3--- 1�6 H1M'X}-- 11S��b1'�_M� - - 11 -- ---- LIJ 12 g �- (10 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: 100 T trio' ointe� M 0 R S E Suite Redhill Avenue co . Suite 350 HOME 5 S C H U L T Z Irvine,CA 92614 O Voice:949-251-8821 z Sus e Corona Pointe Court PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE , COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE , STATE OF CALIFORNIA Corona, CA 92879 DATE. NO. REVISIONS 1 (951 ) 4 2 8-4 4 0 0 SHEET 4 OF 5 MDS Proj.Data:I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\Concept Grade MDS File:89490-CGP-04.dwg Created:11.15.202101:02:43 PM Author:---- Plot Scale:11 1" Dwg Scale:1'=60' Last Edit:08.06.2021 08:53:55 AM By:STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 11:04:50 AM By:STATION39 • + ���\5�y/\/61\/.1/1��?-_J J +__ •-1 i�I MjE 5'9E-' 1T 2•-8�1 I I'-'I'III IIII-+��O0'1-28 1 .7 •rtII -IiIII / //=�`��' /,7�,/=--/s N/„�1 iI/1 a�//III/•T2_8/0.5 T W 1 1'0i -2- `I\��` 12-61y .�-2_y_ - 1221-'26 2 7.4-9 I/8 V5 yII 1.0y31wa ti3/ 21_-7 7 9-9II -$-1 W` - s I I� I1 QW Qs�r�Io `I , II.I I 1iII I-\1 12 1�I6II I►I4II I 'I I. - - �E - III Ifz Ocw\1 vI / l N4 9° 0 77 '�1. 2 71 2" . 4 \O �C U R_ED 1261.5 + 24.87' 1271.3 +1270.7 + + 12574 - 1259.7 + + RECENTLY TILLED 1260.2 +125J 1261.9 1259.3 1259 1258.5 1264.4 1270.6 1266.3 + L T2 RVED + + 30NC + 2 NATUR PEN SPACE 1271.7 + 12s 156 1263.3 + 6� 1262.6 1214 1259.5 12677 1260 1266.5 1260.3 1265. 1260.5 1259.7 + 1�1 1270.E + 77E4.3 1263.3 64.4 + 1263.5 z rn � 1268.2 1262.4 123.5 + 1261.4+ 1266.6 MB MB + 1=16 1271.5 + 7 1271.3 70.5 05' + 1 263.5 30, 1266.2 JIL --------------- -------------- --- 1270.4 _-_--------------------1---------- --4_1 � � _ OPOSED 1266.3 007 J Jto AIN T 2.1 M 1266.5+STO M BOTTOM ELAT� S� PROPOSED , NJ0 BJIr IJ h Jr' EASEE 20'OT II II TORMA 4:1 1�73 5 SPACE t> ----- EASEMENTI 4:1 4:1 PROPOSED 1281.0 TW 08.2 1279.0 TW3 1279.4 W 21 - 3 -8-TW STORM DRAINT 1279.5 F ]1 1-5 461 0 1276.7 F I� 1276.5 F ITI 1275.5 Tf ---- SEMENT----- 2 . - � 7-TF ---�1. 0 AC +1268.4 126 + 12 12-6 120I 1269.5I Y 3138 I 2137 1280.2 125 1 1279.4)BSC w b 1280. .5 - CURED A w 2764 12758 ---- ---- � _ + LO LU I ACCESS ROAD12 1264. - -6 L 1 2F3 0 121I -------- 36 7 1Lq I 1 8 0.0 .5 128 1276.9+ T- 1276. - ---- 26 + --+-- --+------N52055'29"W 716.85' + °° O °° 1140 00 1275.6 1 134 129 28 0 0 18 2. 12714 I 127� 283 280 28 . +128 .9 N L If 1272.5 1273.5 1273.6 1272.4 � 11 + RUSH -�5 8 S 8S S I +N 0,5% o o.. o.s� 127 4 N 5 1 1274. 7 8 W 8 W 8„W E + BSL EE SHEET ULJ j- - - - T - - - - - - - DEBRIS178.3 es 280. 1 + 1, 1 2 3 1274.81 1 1 1276.5 1 1 I 28 I RUIN LOT 12 1 1 '103 104 f05 10 ACE288p 1 1 1 12 113 s 1 1114 1 1116 1275 .12 AC 1275.781 .4 1281.3 12 2 79.3 9 1 1278. 787 I 1278.56�8 1 1 1 1279 1278.E12 .5 1 1 +8 LOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 10'I I L I + I 1276.510.71 AC + I 1278.8 1 0.71 A1280.41 1280 -I + I I 12I7.5 zOT I 1281.E S r . � Q1282F 1 1 I 7 + C LOT 1177.2 1 I 1 197� + 0.33 AC + W96 1282. 95 11282.39 1 192 91 12819 i2 NO . UzUw C/) TENTATIVE TRACT 38116 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES (.0 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: OFF. J�_JQ_2zCID17320RedhillAvenue GRAPHIC SCALE co ointe: M O R S E Suite 350 30 0 15 30 60 120 O S C Irvine,CA 92614 HOME 5 Voice:949-251-8821 s Corona Pointe Court 0 Suite PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS IN FEET ) CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE , COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE , STATE OF CALIFORNIA Corona, CA 92879 1 Inch = 30 ft. DATE. NO. REVISIONS (951 ) 4 2 8-4 4 0 0 SHEET 5 OF 5 MDS Proj.Data:I:\89490\PLANNING\Plans\Concept Grade MS File:89490-CGP-05.dwg Created:11.15.202101:02:43 PM Author:---- Plot Scale:11 =1" Dwg Scale:1'=60' Last Edit:08.05.2021 03:48:22 PM By:STATION39 Plot Date:12.16.2021 11:05:17 AM By:STATION39 - - - - -- - - - - ROOF PLAN A ROOF PLAN B ROOF PLAN C PITCH: 4:12 18 PITCH: 4:12 1e" PITCH: 4:12 RAKE: 12" RAKE: TIGHT RAKE: 12" EAVE: 12" EAVE: 12" EAVE: 12" ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE FLAT TILE t7r - Im _ - t.=-,_ - _ _ .. ram- -.--',•-- .:------•.. ., ���.._-_-,r� -� � .. . -....-t-L-�_.�--_`-'-_-�-.,__-�-�-�.�-._-wt.v,_.1--._-1.-ti_-....-ti= � -- -...r._-.�._-.�-,_-�..t--._ -. �--'�- -^-- �-----•-- ---� �--�----- �----'--r --T .•-_..-.- -T-..T -. -�...-�...-L-t�.,�,-_.^+-�1.--�-z.^}...�r--�-s.^R..1--��1.-"'�-'L^1-^�^-•-LiT� � `- `'�-'v�...^r--�.%+.. t"`�. -. .-� - -.-+ � - .. -•--v—T - � __• _•. l i INNER Ai. Y LE 17 , AAKIL n . i 1 - 'o+ rj 7 r '.tiY ' e .t r rri•a..--F.� �,-. •�,t — •:ir! 1i I , Y ..CC ' � ' _ � � •.-ply- �}yF �}, F;., � �� �i a y ' ' ,x C. s • ♦ ♦ ♦ Bassenian I La9 oni CONCEPTUAL STREET SCEN E ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E — T R A C T 3 8 1 1 6 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 Lake Elsinore Ca tri p OI���� 1 0 2 4 a 023 . 21069 i • • • • • • • • • • • A A • IV .,tl , • l �\Y; �.`•� � t yr rrr �I.��.,I R _..L.JY.�.:IY.�..LIAM..sl..r�..�..� .l Asrrrrrrrrrrrrr —_� ; ;� rrrrrrrr�rrrrrrrrrrrr '�'� - rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - - - ® � - ��' rrrrrrr���rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr , - — rrrrr�r�� � r rrr�rrr��rrrrr�rrr�� �� - _ f r IIII,- r: t r - M1 4 v.ht ..Yp. , �-\t •�, ._ ,' , , - � t ' `� 2�k .' N4 y - ,ry �•� �,•.' a lY M. M1� '7 l y.V. t!(��• •� . >. r ` � � v ,.,} � t �, Mo lk C_ i l PLAN I B PLAN 2C PLAN 3A SANTA BARBARA CRAFTSMAN SPANISH COLONIAL NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHTS SHOWN 2031 Orchard Drive,Suite 10 Newport Beach,CA USA 92660 tel.+1 949 553 9100 • • fax+1 949 553 0548 �— , , • r - - - - - - I I I I I I I ^ - - � I I I I ROOF PLAN C ROOF PLAN A ROOF PLAN B PITCH: 4:12 18" PITCH: 4:12 18" PITCH: 4:12 RAKE: 12" RAKE: 12" RAKE: TIGHT EAV E: 12" EAV E: 12" EAV E: 12" ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE FLAT TILE ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE -�_�L�v1--1.-�_-1...z � �^\.--vim_-t_�L.�N�---Z.�v1-'v?�l-'-�._v1.--z_--��_�/'F�^_-^�-lvZ-^_-�'--4._Z�-�Vz_t-t, -.-�-ram-.-t�-�-�v�-^.--�-.mot-+.-..-z�-,_-�v+--� �v+-t-� �-..-.--�.z�-N.--� r.--•--� �-z-v.-�r.--•--� - -�.�.�..z-t-.- �.-.�� 1-v._1. - — � � --L..--_.-z_-t—_-1-v_-i--�_-t-u-�_-�_.-t.-vt---�.--._v�^_.�`--�_-'-4_--v�_-�--�-i----•__--��z--z.-z.uvL-t..t.�.--�_ -`--_-�-� -'_--`-� -`-"'-"-�-�-�-� --�-�.� --..-._� -.v-��.�u.�--�-�-� �-�.��--�- --_.�u.�--�--._-��-� �.�-..� ' _ 'v-v'�,-^-'v-�.l'T.- ^'+��--�.. ^-�+�.r+-- 1...'u+_- '_?��-'v- +'.- -rt_'v-u--r�l.-vvti---•--.-ti.r'o-. -r_"1.`?_`.`.r_�.`, _"T_•_i.'I�T-_^"Y` _ _ vim- _-}- -�.�.�- v� �.� v.--•_- 1 t _ �1. �Y�• T� � � A t �� r r .., b.:� Q 'y� l f '� r� �%. - /-. 1 r iL iZ a .e ♦ J I ! X a k Ile '•i . � t. '�r } t• ~�Zj 1 / "9Y�'... -..> • t.. . fiM;vocpp{ t ..r;. � �S �• �,..t� a�t• i 'r fi y� r` \r € ,..'G. t,.� r tom. ������ .;ti, .; ,- "v.y / r•. ���.: n°w' �r.". r! __ .I c w , Bassenian I La9oni CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 3 8 1 1 6 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 Lake Elsinore Ca tri pointe® J „ 0 2 4 a 023 . 2 1 069 c I u .n• — I b I + � N n \^ F• h _-�-v'-wvwvv-•- �-.-�� - Rti:..:l / .1yV Lr AI p it 1 • ♦ • • ♦ Bassenian I La9 oni MODEL STREET SCEN E ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E — T R A C T 3 8 1 1 6 03 1 9 . 2 1 Lake Elsinore Ca 024 pointe� 1try 023 . 2 1069 v > 0 W da IE = 0 00 C) CN _ > 00 i� Nil - FRONT A - SPANISH COLONIAL NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1'-0" Ok ,4a • 1 1 I - - r` ' w w w CIO CIO 0 "Y r �c7 -�v 0 41 E is CID CID y• '4� J s J •ti� � n*t ,,r r3s rsr Q ,j z I, � �� a + I• �� w n t w O _ O TL:1 CO 00 TT FRONT B - SANTA BARBARA FRONT C - CRAFTSMAN NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=11_0" NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"-1'_Q" Bassenian I La oni PLAN g Front Elevations ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E — T R A C T 3 8 1 1 6 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 ' .• ' ' Lake Elsinore Ca tri polnte� . „ 0 2 4 8 023 . 21069 4'-0" 32'-019V 4'-0" —_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � Z— � I - - - - - - - - - - - - - I H II I O II O II II — II II II II I II II I 5040 SL. 2040 S.H. I 6040 SL. 6068 SL. GL. DR. 4036 SL. L — I„I� OPT., - ° SH E ° N � I'� 100 � � R D.W. o o II / v CD CD �� � � I OWNERS� OWNER'S BATH OWNER'S WALK-IN � BATH - CLOSET 0 010 8'-1" CLG. 8'-1" CLG. 25 L.F. DINING OPT. ISLAND - BEDROOM r 13� X153 I 8'-1" CLG. 8x33" - - J ° 010 8'-1" CLG. I KITCHEN — GREAT 8'-I° CLG. I ROOM t — — — t 22— X14— 11 8'-1" CLG. REF. _ � � �� � BA.- II / v � BA. 2 II / v I �------4 PANTRY 8' 1" CLG 8"1" CLG ---- fi----rt _ TANKLES,S W/H - W. D. NO u1iI \/ PDR A/C Ln AU. 3 8'-1" CLG. \ / OPT. SHOWER z � - - 8' " CLG. N U � 7-8 CLG. / o — oQm \ / /will1will141; I 1/4-1'-0" J III AT OWNERS BATH LINEN O T. 15" SHELVES _ ------ Lu Q t 1% ,GARAGEi Zce� m Q -------- Z X 29 4 BEDROOM 2 D 8-I��G. J /\ LL C> 120 X 152 / \\ 8'-1" CLG. 20'x20' A ENTRY // NOBSTRUCTED BEDROOM 3 I // CLEAR SPACE \V I PLAN 132 X122 \ \ 1793 SQ , FT. Lu I / \ w U P TARGET: 1 ,789 SQ. FT. v=i / \ N I 15 R 3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2 - CAR GARAGE 4040 SL. 5040 SL. I 2040 F.G. I 16070 SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR II II II II PORCH I I FLOOR AREA TABLE 8'-1" C LG. I ST FLOOR 714 SQ. FT. z 2ND FLOOR 19079 SQ. FT. I I TOTAL LIVING 1793 SQ. FT. oo 2 - CAR GARAGE 422 SQ. FT. 0 0 C) PORCH 99 SQ. FT. • I O I NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION M �O WINDOW SCHEDULE 4 0 . 0 0 ' M I N 2040 S.H. 4 2040 F.G. 2 SECOND FLOOR F I RST FLOO R 2640 F.G. 1 4036 SL. 1 4040 SL. 1 5 040 SL. 2 6040 SL. I TOTAL 13 LINEAR FEET OF KITCHEN CABS BASE CABINETS 17'-2" Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN I A UPPER CABINETS 14'-4" ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Reflects Spanish Colonial Elevation Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 I ' Lake Elsinore Ca 0 2 4 s tri ointe 023 . 21 069 -1 u M L S F -- -- II II II II II II I II II I I I II II I 4"; I II II I I II II II I 00 00 7 L---- �_�JLti 00 ------------------- = M J I m J -r Q FENCE HEIGHT ; II _ _ - O I I 00 ' II I L 00 I I II I I II I I ----------- LEFT FRONT A - SPANISH COLONIAL NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1'-0" I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I ROOF PLAN A PITCH: 4:12 RAKE: 12" EAVE: 12" ------- _�� ------ _�, ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE E — ------ I IF Ilr_ �r-__III I ICEL I I I I I I II II I I I I II II II II I I I I II II II II I I I I I II II I I I I II II II II I I I I II II II II I I I I I II II I I I I II II II II I I I I II II II II I I I I I II II I I I I II II II II I I I I II II II II I I I I I II II I I I I II II II II I I I I II II II II - I II II I I IC - I ----- ---- -1L� JL_�I===JJ -----J ��-�LJ -- -1L� ------- -------------------� ------------------ T 7'-0" HDR.AT I I KITCHEN FENCE HEIGHT WDW ONLY - FENCE HEIGHT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ���� I TE.NTJ I I 7 -1 I I I I CA TV I I I II B I I ---- Ir � RIGHT REAR NOTE: DASHED LINE REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION (SHUTTERS, POTSHELF, AND/OR WINDOW BREAK-UPS) AT LOTS THAT ARE VISIBLE TO PUBLIC Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN I A Sanish Colonial Elevation ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS p Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects LA K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 '�` Lake Elsinore Ca port Beach,CA USA 92660 0i 04; 0 2 4 8 tri 023 . 21069 i () M �_ S 4'-0" 32'-011V 4'-0" r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I H H I - II II I O II II O II II — II II II II I II II I 5040 SL. 2040 S.H. I 6040 SL. 6068 SL. GL. DR. 4036 SL. II bPT! � - - �SH ER � v=i' I D.W. ° o I I I ��� OWNERS WALK—IN OWNERS BATH — CLOSET o 010 0 BEDROOM 8'-1" CLG. 25 L.F. ININ OPT. ISLAND - r 13 0 x 15 3 I 8'-I" CLG. 8 x16' J ° 010 8'-I" CLG. I4 KITCHEN I GREAT 8'-1° CLG. O - - - Fr ROOM 22� t------t x143 I I 8'-1" CLG. REF. /\ PANTRY 8"I" CLG - - - - uu - ---- fi----rt \ / ' - W I I I TAN KLESS W/H �i . I v/ L A/C PDR. /"v AU. 8'-1" CLG. 1 — — - _ O T-8" CLG. Z 8'- " CLG. V; J \ / "' Q m - LINEN O T. 15" SHELVES Q � _ ------ I / Q _� GARAGE/ / m -------- 20° x 29± XNBEDROOM 2 s-1�QLG. J /\ LL � 123 x 153 eq 8'-1° CLG. �� ENTRY 20'X20' +— UNOBSTRUCTE \ CLG. PLAN 1 BEDROOM 3 I // CLEAR SPACE �\ 130 X120 8'-I" CLG. 19793 SQ , FT. w J TARGET: 1 ,789 SQ. FT. UP 15R ' I 3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS `V I - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - CAR GARAGE 4040 SL. 5040 SL. I I 2040 F.G. I I 16070 SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR II II II II II PORCH I I I FLOOR AREA TABLE I ST FLOOR 714 SQ. FT. z 2ND FLOOR 19079 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1793 SQ. FT. 00 0 2 - CAR GARAGE 422 SQ. FT. 0 o PORCH 99 SQ. FT. • I O I NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION M NO WINDOW SCHEDULE 4 0 . 0 0 ' M I N 2040 S.H. 4 2040 F.G. 2 SECOND FLOOR F I RST F LOO R 2640F.G. 1 4036 SL. 1 4040 SL. 1 5040 SL. 2 6040 SL. I TOTAL 13 LINEAR FEET OF KITCHEN CABS BASE CABINETS 17'-2" Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN I B UPPER CABINETS 14'-4" Reflects Santa Barbara Elevation ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 I Lake Elsinore Ca Newport Beach,CA USA 92660 0 ' '` 0 2 4 s 023 . 21069 tri P ointe � U m � s ----- 7-C r---- :]T-E: W _17-Ir`I `JL-IrJI II II I I == II II I II II II II II II 4-; II nn II II II II II 00 2 �JI__IL� �JLJL�I - Z L JILi 00 M _ICJ _ICJ '^ T 00 Q --— ----� �L/ V = M J_ + I m I I J ——— FENCE HEIGHT W — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - I 4-' Q I 00 ' II ' L 00 ------------ II I I I I I I II I I LEFT FRONT B - SANTA BARBARA NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1'-0" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ---- ---- --- ROOF PLAN B PITCH: 4:12 RAKE: 1-1/2 " EAVE: 12" ----- Fr ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE ==fir=_--� ��_� --- =>c� 711 II II I IC717-IF I I I I I I II II I I I I II II II II I I I I II II II II I I I I I II II I I I I II II II II I I I I II II II II I I I I I II II I I I I II II II II I I I I II II II II I I I I I II II I I I I II II II II I I I I II II II II I I I I I II II I I I I II II II II I I I I II II II II I JI__IL I JI__IL III I I I JII �JI__IL I E �I IIL L I I I IC I I _ICJ _ICJ IL --�____J_I I L�_ J L=J ---- ---- ---- ---- 7 � T-0" HDR. AT I KITCHEN FENCE HEIGHT WDW ONLY — FENCE HEIGHT — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I II TE..T. II I I 7 —1 I I CATV II I I FE3 11 I RIGHT REAR NOTE: DASHED LINE REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION (SHUTTERS, POTSHELF, AND/OR WINDOW BREAK-UPS) AT LOTS THAT ARE VISIBLE TO PUBLIC Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN I B Santa Barbara Elevation ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 ' Lake Elsinore Ca 0 2 4 8 tri ointe 77111 023 . 2 1 069 -1OmLS 4'-0" 32'-011V 4'-0" r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I H H I - II II I O II II O II II — II II II II I II II I 5040 SL. 2040 S.H. I 6040 SL. 6068 SL. GL. DR. 4036 SL. II bPT! � - - �SH ER � v=i' I D.W. ° o I I I ��� OWNERS WALK—IN OWNERS BATH — CLOSET o 010 0 BEDROOM 8'-1" CLG. 25 L.F. ININ OPT. ISLAND -- r 13 0 x 15 3 I 8'-I" CLG. 8 x16' J ° 010 8'-I" CLG. I4 KITCHEN I GREAT 8'-1° CLG. O - - - Fr II / ROOM 22� t------t x143 I I MumI 8'-1" CLG. REF. PANTRY uu 8"I" CLG I - - _ - - I I I I TANKLESS W/H I v/ A/C PDR. Lf) 1 — — - _ O T-8" CLG. Z 8'- " CLG. Vi J \ / "' Q m 9 P LINEN OfT- 1 SHELVES Q � _ - �, Q _� GARAGE/ / m -------- 20° x 29± BEDROOM 2 D s-1�QLG. J /\ LL d � 123 x 15 2 eq 8'-1° CLG. �� ENTRY 20'x2o' +— UNOBSTRUCTE \ CLG. PLAN BEDROOM 3 I / CLEAR SPACE �\ 130 x120 8'-I" CLG. ` ` 19793 SQ , FT. V) / \ V) ` w TARGET: 1 ,789 SQ. FT. UP 15R i 3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - CAR GARAGE 4040 SL. 5040 SL. I I 2040 F.G. I I 16070 SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR II II II II II PORCH I I I FLOOR AREA TABLE I ST FLOOR 714 SQ. FT. z 2ND FLOOR 19079 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1793 SQ. FT. oo 0 2 - CAR GARAGE 422 SQ. FT. 0 o PORCH 99 SQ. FT. • I O I NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION M NO - - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - WINDOW SCHEDULE 40 . 00 MIN 2040 S.H. 4 SECOND FLOOR F I RST F LOO R 2040F.G. 2 4036 SL. 1 4040 SL. 2 5040 SL. 2 6040 SL. I TOTAL 13 LINEAR FEET OF KITCHEN CABS BASE CABINETS 17'-2" Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN I C UPPER CABINETS 14'-4" Reflects Craftsman Elevation ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 3 8 1 1 6 03 . 1 9 . 2 I Lake Elsinore Ca Newport Beach,CA USA 92660 0 ' '` 0 2 4 s 023 . 21069 tri P ointe � U m � s ILI uyl Y �yy 1%, :1 :1 W � 71 1 1 E: E: 4-; 00 - � 00 - Z L:2�4 *_.0 -0 Q - L 00 — F IL = M J_ + I m I -------------------- ------------------ -------------- FENCE HEIGHT II _ - Q I I II 00 II ri 2 � II LEFT FRONT C - CRAFTSMAN NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1 1-O" ------ 1--------- I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - ROOF PLAN C PITCH: 4:12 RAKE: 12" EAVE: 12" �I ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE FLAT TILE car= fir= 1 CI I] CI ] I I III II III I I I I I I III II III I I I I III II II I I III �'I 'III I I I I I I III II III I I I I I I III II I I I I I I IIL II �'Il I I I I ---- ------------------- -- 7 � T-0" HDR. AT I KITCHEN FENCE HEIGHT WDW ONLY — FENCE HEIGHT I� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �i`' TEUONT.i I II °SF_ -1 I CATV rEl) RIGHT REAR NOTE: DASHED LINE REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION (SHUTTERS, POTSHELF, AND/OR WINDOW BREAK-UPS) AT LOTS THAT ARE VISIBLE TO PUBLIC Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN I C Craftsman Elevation ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 ' Lake Elsinore Ca 0 2 4 s tri ointe 023 . 2 1 069 -1 U M L S _.-✓�--�.`-.�-».-`.v '`.-.r �- -t.--.�--z.-�_-�-�.- -_-.mot- �.^1vv�---.rt��v.^ a. I k�!• r,, W 7 y , Q N — �,' +I CD J rVc LLI 4-; _ > L oo 2 FRONT A - SPANISH COLONIAL NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1'-0" Nei: _�9 9 .7:..t:.,.���� _,...�:.,.:._,r...,.�.�.._.i. �-t^q"•-r-^- t-t-t-�-- z.-t-t.- ---_ — 0 i e W S I W i . R CO M Q 00 M Q �n Li Li CD C0 --- Ilk 11 Ilk Jt . 1 Iu > 1 1 > LJ !. - - - it I i QO CO \ o0 QO ����� L r` y, n � . FRONT B - SANTA BARBARA FRONT C - CRAFTSMAN NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"-1'_0" NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1'-0" Bassenian I La oni PLAN 2 g Front Elevations ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E — T R A C T 3 8 1 1 6 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 ' M. Lake Elsinore Ca tri pointe� � „ 0 2 4 8 023 . 21069 4'-0" 34'-0" 4'-0" F_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Z � H H I - II II II II O II II — II II II II I II II I 5040 SL. 2040 S.H. I I 4036 S.L. 6068 SL. GL. DR. 6040 S.L. J L 'Qp° f r — — 1EIE11 I D.W. SH IE / \ --------- o� KITCHEN — — --------- WALK-IN 8'-1" CLG. \� CLOSET I ------- - 23 L.F. � — ININ � GREAT Olo o ROOM OWNERS OWNERS 0100 - OPT. ISLAND I6 x138 128 x 14? j — L49"c36 8'-1" CLG. 8'-I" CLG. BATH ° BATH O FF071 E] I 8'-1" CLG. 8'-1" CLG. LL �j ISECTION OWNERS I � � BA IA A 2 I I BEDROOM I I iiL:1 8'-1° CLG. I fi------t 0 I —REF.— — AT STAIR OVER PORCH (3068 ENTRY DOOR SHOWN) 14"''°" 14� x l 4 4 A/C _ _ i � I _ 8'-1" C LG. — I I PANTRY -------4 -- OPT. 15 SHELV S — — — LINEN0fl I LINEN \ -- T— \ / LA6. 1 I I UP ` I 8'ZI"\CL6. I I - I 15 R `\ TAN �ii / \ 1 I \ / L, �O c� r v M ii I I o I I OPT SHOWER � �_--�� _- ,- _--- \ --- ENTRY \ GARAGE / __-- 200 x204 / AT OWNERS BATH 14" -0" -- \ 8'-1" CLG. / \ / o� I 7-9 CLG. 20`x20 NQ�STRUCTED LEAR SPACE LOFT I �3 I O /' \\ I PLAN 2 I 'to I / \ 0 120 x I I I 1 = I / \ 8'-1° CLG. II o�� PDR: / v �o I OPT. BA. 3 / ` 2 021 SQ * FTO BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 — J $ 1 // \\ L tFF 105 XII10 105 x 12 I II `\ I TARGET: 2,000 SQ. FT. 8'-I" CLG. 8'-I" CLG. I DEN / OPT 3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS + LOFT + DEN / OPT. _ _ _ _BEDROOM 4�_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4040 SL. 4040 SL. 4040 SL. 1 1 2 X 102 IT 16070 SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR BEDROOM 4 AND BATH 3 8'-I" CLG. 2 - CAR GARAGE II II I FLOOR AREA TABLE z I I I ST FLOOR 869 SQ. FT. 5040 S.L. O I 2N D FLOOR 1 , 152 SQ. FT. oo - TOTAL LIVING 2021 SQ. FT. 0 C:) - 2 - CAR GARAGE 421 SQ. FT. • 1 0_ I PORCH 16 SQ. FT. M NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - WINDOW SCHEDULE 42 . 00 MIN 2040 S.H. 2 SECOND FLOOR F I RST F LOO R 4040F.G. 1 4036 SL. 1 4040 SL. 3 5040 SL. 2 6040 SL. I TOTAL I I LINEAR FEET OF KITCHEN CABS BASE CABINETS 17'-4" Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 2 A UPPER CABINETS 14'-4" ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Reflects Spanish Colonial Elevation Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 Newport Beach,CA USA • ..I Lake Elsinore Ca '4' 553 9100 14; 0 2 4 8 tri ointe 77111 023 . 2 1 069 H U M .ice. W 4 =_ 00 = - Z :o v M 0 J ----------- --- = N _ �. +1 D m I ® J I -r Q I F- oC I I FENCE HEIGHT L\JJ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �l ILJI / T4 0 00 2 bo II I *10 2 ------------ I I LEFT FRONT A - SPANISH COLONIAL NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1'-0" r------------------T------------------l I I I j F_ + - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I � I � — — — — — — — — — — ROOF PLAN A PITCH: 4:12 18"-''4' RAKE: 12" EAVE: 12" rr-F, ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE I IL I`��-IrJ I F=== i===�Tr r]I- J LEI-�� II II ■ I III I I III I II r II II II I II II I III I I III I II II II II I II II I III I I III I II II II II I El L �l—1C J III I III II II III II III IC�i__ice� -------------------� ---------------- 7—� 7'-0" HDR. AT I I KITCHEN FENCE HEIGHT FENCE HEIGHT WDW ONLY — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - I `-' I TE..T.I II I II I I ° �F_ -1CATV 7E) RIGHT REAR NOTE: DASHED LINE REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION (SHUTTERS, POTSHELF, AND/OR WINDOW BREAK-UPS) AT LOTS THAT ARE VISIBLE TO PUBLIC Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 2A Sanish Colonial Elevation ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS p Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects LA K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 Lake Elsinore Ca Newport Beach,CA USA 92660 '4' 553 9100 04; 0 2 4 8 tri 023 . 2 1 069 -i () M �_ S 4'-0" 34'-0" 4'-0" r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I H H I - II II I O II II O II II — II II II II I II II I 5040 SL. 2040 S.H. I I 4036 S.L. 6068 SL.GIL DR. 6040 S.L. r - - L1. O , D.W. -JI V S,H[ E / WALK-IN 1 KITCHEN 8'-I" CLG. � CLOSET I 23 L.F. GREAT 010 F - - - - E'.DINING. ROOM MRJI OPT. ISLAND 1 6 X 13 8 OWNERS O10 �4 '_ _ 8'-1" CLG. 12$ x 14? BATH O F_7-,�� L] 8'-1" CLG. J L jj A / ' \/ A LJ OWNERS BA. 2 111 %� 8'-I" CLG. I /\ BEDROOM I l i \ t___t 142 X 141 A/C i REF. 8'-I" CLG. I OPT. 15"SHELVES PANTRY 4-___---4 LINENS I LA J � UP r,7 A / I 8' "\CL . I I I I 15 R TANK LES,IYW/H N IFr - - r LL: D.1 ---- ENTRY _- --- � s'-I" CLG. \\ GARAGE / - - / -- \ 8'-1" CLG. / Z I I 8R­CF4-' " I I Ln T-9" CLG. 20�x'20' N STRU\CTED LEAR SPA61E\ / \ LOFT I 1 /' \ I PLAN 2 0 6 I I Qo II � 122 XIIA SIN PD / \ 8'-1 CLG. PD I i� 10 1 0 PT. /9A. 3 2�021 SQ * FTO / \ w BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 8' ' I I 105 x l l !� 105 x 122 / \ J TARGET: 2,000 SQ. FT. I I s'-1" CLG. 8'-I" CLG. I DEN / OPT,. i= BEDROOM \ I 3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS + LOFT + DEN / OPT. 4040 SL. 4040 SL. 4040 SL. 1 1 2 X 102 16070 SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR BEDROOM 4 AN D BATH 3 8'-I" CLG. 2 - CAR GARAGE 11 11 I FLOOR AREA TABLE z I I I ST FLOOR 869 SQ. FT. 5040S.L. O I 2ND FLOOR 1 , 152 SQ. FT. oo TOTAL LIVING 2021 SQ. FT. 0 - 2 - CAR GARAGE 421 SQ. FT. • I o_ I PORCH 16 SQ. FT. M NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION - - , -MIN- - - - - - - - - - - - WINDOW SCHEDULE 42 . 00 2040 S.H. 2 SECOND FLOOR F I R S T F L O O R 4040 F.G. 1 4036 SL. 1 4040 SL. 3 5040 SL. 2 6040 SL. I TOTAL I I LINEAR FEET OF KITCHEN CABS BASE CABINETS 17'-4" Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 2 B UPPER CABINETS 14'-4" Reflects Santa Barbara Elevation ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E — T R A C T 38 1 16 0 3 . 1 9 . 2 1 211131 1 krive,buite 111111Lake Elsinore Ca Newport Beach,CA USA 92660 9100 04; 0 2 4 8 tri 023 . 21069 � U m �_ S O 0 W 00 L 00 M z *_.0 -0--- I + � m J ----------------- J ------------------ Q I FENCE HEIGHT �Jj W j bo _ L 00 ---------------- I I I 2 I I I I I I --� LEFT FRONT B - SANTA BARBARA NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1'-0" l i l l i l i t i l i ii I i I -- ---- - - - Y I - - - - - - i - - - - - I I I I Y I I I L- - - - - - - - - - ROOF PLAN B PITCH: 4:12 1/8"=1'-0" RAKE: TIGHT EAVE: 12" ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE ----� rr---____—� ------ — IL- -17 Ili �i---ill IL_11--iFJ `7i-IF l II II ❑ I III I I III I II II II II I II II I Ill I I III I II II II II I II II I III I I III I II II II II I I�J'--'L� I II II Ill II III I II II II II I LLI- J I Ill II III I II II II II l rAIL-L �-ICJ ----------------- I I I I I ---------------- T-0" HDR. AT I l I KITCHEN FENCE HEIGHT FENCE HEIGHT WDW ONLY — — — — — — - I `-' I TE..T.I II I II I l ° �F_ -1CATV B RIGHT REAR NOTE: DASHED LINE REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION (SHUTTERS, POTSHELF, AND/OR WINDOW BREAK-UPS) AT LOTS THAT ARE VISIBLE TO PUBLIC Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 2B Santa Barbara Elevation ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 Lake Elsinore Ca Newport Beach,CA USA 92660 '4' 553 9100 04; 0 2 4 8 tri 023 . 2 1 069 _­I () M �_ S 4'-0" 34'-0" 4'-0" r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I IF_ - - - - - - - - - - - I H H I - II I O II O II II — II II II II I II II I 5040 SL. 040 S.H. I 4036 S.L. 6068 SL. GL. DR. I 6040 S.L. I r j D.W. \ r KITCHEN WALK-IN 1 I 8'-I" CLG. � CLOSET I GREAT 23 L.F. 010 0 DINING ROOM I OWNERS 010 OPT. ISLAND 1 6 X 13$ x 14? �48��'_ — 8'-1° CLG. 12$ ° " CLG. BATH El r> ��� 8'-I8'-1" CLG. _J� IA 1 OWNERS I f BA. 2 BEDROOM I rrr 8'-1° CLG. r II 142 X 141 A/C REF. 8'-1" C LG. OPT. 15" SHELV S PANTRY LINEN , --�— \ / LA61 I II UP A / I 8'/ 15 R I- - I TANK ESS W/H / \ W \ t---t i I M N - __ ENTRY \ GARAGE / --- i 8'-I" CLG. \ 202 X204 / I \ 8'-1" CLG. / i \ / 05! 6R-C 14 P I T-9" CLG. 20`x'20' N/PiSTRUCTED LEAR SPACt LOFT I w'w � 1 0A. 3 I r/ `\LuI (:DPLAN 2 0 6 I Q IO I 1 122 x 1 1 _ o�1 1 PD 8-I CLG. ~10 � 12�021 SQO FT. \ "�o ; I O PT. r \ __ 8' 1" / v w BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 = tF= / \ 105 I I !o 105 x 12 2 I 11 `\ I TARGET. 2,000 SQ. FT. <) 8'-1"�CLG. 8'-I" CLG. DEN / OPT. / _ _ _ _BEDROOM_4 — - — 1 3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS + LOFT + DEN / OPT. 4040 SL. 4040 SL. 4040 SL. I I 0 X 10 0 16070 SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR BEDROOM 4 AND BATH 3 8'-I" CLG. I i' 2 - CAR GARAGE 11 I II 1 FLOOR AREA TABLE I z I ST FLOOR 869 SQ. FT. 5040S.L. O 1 2ND FLOOR 1 , 152 SQ. FT. 00 - TOTAL LIVING 2021 SQ. FT. 0 C) 2 - CAR GARAGE 421 SQ. FT. • I o_ 1 PORCH 16 SQ. FT. M NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION - - , -MIN- - - - - - - - - - - - WINDOW SCHEDULE 42 . 00 2040 S.H. 2 SECOND FLOOR F I R S T F L O O R 4040 F.G. 1 4036 SL. 1 4040 SL. 3 5 040 SL. 2 6040 SL. I TOTAL I I LINEAR FEET OF KITCHEN CABS BASE CABINETS 17'-4" Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 2 C UPPER CABINETS 14'-4" Reflects Craftsman Elevation ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 3 8 1 1 6 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 'w �port Beach,CA USA , ,.� Lake Elsinore Ca 40 0 2 4 8 tri ointe 023 . 21069 12 _V Ly� L 11 L L y 1 11111111 y 2 1 V 00 L 00 rn z ----------- --- ;O = + m ------------------- JJ -r Q i r- oC w I FENCE HEIGHT f �� ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O 4-; 00 LEFT FRONT C - CRAFTSMAN NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1 1-0" -------------------I ----------------- i t i l i l i l i I I l i l i l i l -- --- - - - - II � I � I � I � I � I � - - - - - - - - J ROOF PLAN C PITCH: 4:12 18"-1'-0" RAKE: 12" _ EAVE: 12" _ _ _______________ ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE FLAT TILE — I I III II III I I I I III II III I I I I III II III I I I I III II III I I II II I I _____� III II III I I II I I I ------------ ------------------ ------------------- 7_ 7'-0" HDR. AT � I KITCHEN FENCE HEIGHT FENCE HEIGHT WDW ONLY — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — IO��� � I I 11 `-' I TE..T.I II I II I I ° �F_ -1CATV 7E) RIGHT REAR NOTE: DASHED LINE REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION (SHUTTERS, POTSHELF, AND/OR WINDOW BREAK-UPS) AT LOTS THAT ARE VISIBLE TO PUBLIC Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 2C Craftsman Elevation ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 1 9 . 2 1 Lake Elsinore Ca Newport Beach,CA USA 92660 '4' 553 9100 04; 0 2 4 8 tri 023 . 2 1 069 _­I () M �_ S M. .i -17 Lu Fj ,A _ Z .w s .-Co M — i +I Z) � J a �c W i > L J 4—+ O 00 = 1 — 1 L 00 / c _ FRONT A - SPANISH COLONIAL NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"-1'_Q" 14 --_-�-..t--_-��-t-.��--..�-�-`--�--�-•�-_-� �-_�--�-�-�-��--��-�.v-� --�---'�--�--._�-�-��--.��--�-�-�-��--�--._-.,���--.-�.��-._-vim �� .. .� �. � �. -_.t..r �.� .� �.�..� .�.-�..�.�-�.... .�1-�,.. .. -.��.�.�. -..-_- _Z�-� w� -.-+--`-� �.�.� vim-'-. �-�-- -` _'__^-_- �-•--•--.�. .--T __-_-..--.--��.r_ __�-.-� _�_•_T _, ...--�--T _^------r- •-�---�-.-•--r--... I I W W _ _ 1"yn _ _ CIO (r7 L L1 1 1 .. r a LY +I +I D • 'r"�.RC �,,a 00 i 00 3R r � Lu Lu — _ — 1 O — ' O 00 - FRONT B - SANTA BARBARA FRONT C - CRAFTSMAN NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=11_0" NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"-1'_Q" Bassenian I La oni PLAN 3 g Front Elevations ARCHITECTURE ' PLANNING ' INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A X E S f D - — T R A C T 3 8 1 1 6 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 ' „' .,• ' ' � , ; .,� Lake Elsinore Ca tri pointe� 0 2 4 a 023 . 21069 4'-0" 36'-0" 4'-0" H H II II I O I I II II � I I II II — I I II II I I II II CENTER TO I BELOW 5040 SL. 2040 S.H. 5040 SL. I 6040 SL. 6068 SL. GL. DR. I 4036 SL. \ / J L — — — 0 T. 0 = t D.W. 0 SF[OVVER/X. . i vi O I OWNERS OWNERS OWNER'S GREAT ININ ° 010 BATH E] BATH BEDROOM ROOM 8'-1" cLG. 72�30,ISLAND - u 0 C J � � 8'-I" CLG. 8'-I" CLG. 0 5 I 0 3 14— x 15— 23— x 16— I 8'-1" CLG. I s'-1° CLG. KITCHEN ri BONUS / OPT. - s'-1° CLG. BEDROOM 5 II II t___t \\ 12 4 x l 6 6 \\ , \\ I I 8'-1" CLG. \\ I I I REF. ------4 PANTRY I WAK�IN A/C v i k I - i CL SEI I - _ - - - - - - \\ TANKLESS W/H 11� OPT. SHOWER -- - 1UP M LINEN WALK-IN 15 AT OWNERS BATH 14" °" CLOSET 21 L.F. \ / DN \\ GARAGE �15 R11� i \200 x204i/ 8",1" CLG. -------------- \/ ---- fi----rt &x\20' UN�STRU1\CTED I I I I '" /CLEAR SPACE II I � --W. --D. I p R / o I OPT. A. 3 ENTRY LAU.;' � �I BA. 2 o 8,_1, a'-1° CLG. / \ I PLAN 3 8'-1" CL a'-1° CLG. BEDROOM 2 N 152 x108 / \ OPT. 15" SHEL ES 8'-I" CLG. / \ 2� 288 S . FT. / \ w / \ -77 TARGET. 2,203 SQ. FT. - I I 4 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS + LOFT / OPT. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BEDROOM 5 + OPT. DEN I (2) 4040 SL. BEDROOM 41 I 1607 SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR I 2 - CAR GARAGE OPT. DEN PORCH 1 1 $ 10 2 8'-1" CLG. 8'-1" C LG. BEDROOM 3 FLOOR AREA TABLE 124 x 104 Y11 8 , CLG. z ST FLOOR 944 SQ. FT. 4040 SL. I 5040 SL. 0 I 2ND FLOOR 19344 SQ. FT. oo TOTAL LIVING 2288 SQ. FT. 0 O o 2 - CAR GARAGE 422 SQ. FT. • I o_ I PORCH 41 SQ. FT. M NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION WINDOW SCHEDULE 44 . o o ' M I N 2040 S.H. 3 2040 F.G. 2 SECOND FLOOR F I RST F LOO R 4040 F.G. 1 4036 SL. 1 4040 SL. 3 5040 SL. 3 6040 SL. I TOTAL 14 LINEAR FEET OF KITCHEN CABS BASE CABINETS 181 - 1 0" Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 3 A UPPER CABINETS 151- 10" ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING - INTERIORS Reflects Spanish Colonial Elevation Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 I " '- ' Lake Elsinore Ca Newport Beach, • 0 2 4 8 ointe 023 . 21069 HUM I- .ice. � � C L7' -'7J I I I quill II I ® 4-; II II II ' i 00 rn - rJl L 00 z L---------J L____ L�l_1L� ILA I I *_.0 -0 F------------ --- +1 m J ------------------- J -r Q I F- oC I I FENCE HEIGHT w' - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - O 00 o0' I L ------------ I LEFT FRONT A - SPANISH COLONIAL NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1'-0" r-------- -------------------i I I r - - - ---- ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ROOF PLAN A PITCH: 4:12 RAKE: 12" EAVE: 12" -------------- ------------- ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILErrF__ = F===�Tr ram—IC -- II - � r _1i7 _1iC I II II II II I I I III I I III I II II II II I I II II II II I I I III I I III I II II II II I I II II II II I I I III I I III I II II II II I I II II II II I I I III I I III I II II II II I I II II II II I I I III I I III I II II II II I I AI__I � r�l__I I III II _ I I I III I�--- IIII ICE LEI-LJ -- -�J - L--- ----J L�-T Lj -- -------------------� ------------------ T 7'-0" HDR. AT I KITCHEN FENCE HEIGHT WDW ONLY FENCE HEIGHT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ITE.NT.I 11 I I I I I °SF_ -1 I I CATV II I I 7E) RIGHT REAR NOTE: DASHED LINE REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION (SHUTTERS, POTSHELF, AND/OR WINDOW BREAK-UPS) AT LOTS THAT ARE VISIBLE TO PUBLIC Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 3A Sanish Colonial Elevation ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS p Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects LA K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 Newport Beach,CA USA 92660 Lake Elsinore Ca '4' 553 9100 04; 0 2 4 8 tri 023 . 2 1 069 -i () M �_ S 4'-0" 36'-0" 4'-0" r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - I I � - - - H H I - I O O — I CENTER TO BELOW 5040 SL. I 2040 S.H. I 5040 SL. I 6040 SL. 6068 SL. GL. DR. I 4036 SL. t t L - - v=i D.W. 0 0 SHOWER \ o o I I- - � N I N I I OWNERS OWNER'S GREAT ININ OPT. ISLAND 0 0l0 BATH BEDROOM ROOM 8'-1" CLG. 72"x3o" 8'-1" CLG. 0�0 to 142 x155 I 23� x163 »>------��� 8'-1" CLG. I 8'-1° CLG. KITCHEN 8'-I" CLG. BONUS / OPT. - BEDROOM 5 h4l 124 x1668'-1" CLG. REF. PANTRY WALK-IN A/C \ i �� CL SEf - - - - - - `\ TANKLESS W/H �, - 15 j Ln UP \ / M LINEN WALK-IN 15 R CLOSET 21 L.F. 4�j \ / l i i DN v v GARAGE / 15 RWAUMEn i `2�00 x204// i 8�1" CLG. v/ I ---- fi----rt 2C�X'm' - - I I - - -I o w �I UN STRU\CTED CLEAR SPAC�\ r I l �/O III DR OPT. A. 3 ENTRY / \ o l l 8'-1" CLG. PLAN 3 N LAU. �I BA. 2 8'-1' V_ 8'-1" CLG. BEDROOM 2 I ,/ \ NCD 152 x108 / \ OPT. 15" SHEL ES 01 8'-I" CLG. / \ 2 288 SQ * FT. / \ Lu L JL TARGET: 2,203 SQ. FT. \ D C I 4 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS + LOFT / OPT. - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — BEDROOM 5 + OPT. DEN 2030 F.G. 5040 SL. BEDROOM 41 I I 1607 SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR I I 2 - CAR GARAGE / OPT. DEN PORCH I I 1 1 8 102 8'-1" CLG. 8'-1" CLG. BEDROOM 3 I I FLOOR AREA TABLE 124 X 104 8'-I" CLG. z I ST FLOOR 944 SQ. FT. 5040 SL. I 5040 SL. 0 I 2N D FLOOR 11344 SQ. FT. oo TOTAL LIVING 2288 SQ. FT. 0 0 2 - CAR GARAGE 422 SQ. FT. • I o_ I PORCH 41 SQ. FT. M NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION WINDOW SCHEDULE 4 4 . 0 0 ' M I N 2040 S.H. 1 2040 F.G. 2 SECOND FLOOR F I RST FLOOR 4040 F.G. 1 4036 SL. 1 2030 F.G. 1 5040 SL. 5 6040 SL. I TOTAL 14 LINEAR FEET OF KITCHEN CABS BASE CABINETS 18'- 10" Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 3 B UPPER CABINETS 151- 10" ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Reflects Santa Barbara Elevation Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E — T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 '`„' char ' ," Lake Elsinore Ca New USA 92660 it 04; 0 2 4 8 tri 023 . 21069 _� U m �_ S Ilk O FrI FrI 0 Lu I I I Iuilll II II u II 00 f� — rJIIL I Z L -1C *_.0 -ip ' Q m J ————————————————— J ------------------ Q W FENCE HEIGHT - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I +-; - O I 00 ' II ' L 00 I *_.0 -v II I I = I I I I II I I --� LEFT FRONT B - SANTA BARBARA NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1'-0" i t i l l i t i l i — — — ———— -——— — — — — — — V - - - - - - - - - - - ROOF PLAN B PITCH: 4:12 RAKE: TIGHT EAVE: 12" ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE ��-� ------------- -�� ----� rrF=--��=��� ---------- IC C - �i-ICJ Lei-ICJ II -� J T_T� I II II II II I I I III I I III I II II II II I I II II II II I I I III I I III I II II II II � I II II II II I I I III I I III I II II II II I I II II II II I I I III I I III I II II II II I I II II II II I I I III I I III I II II II II � L____J III ----------------- I I I I I ---------------- ----------------- 7'-0" HDR. AT I � KITCHEN FENCE HEIGHT WDW ONLY FENCE HEIGHT — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ITE.NT.1 °SF_ -1 I I CATV II I I B II I RIGHT REAR NOTE: DASHED LINE REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION (SHUTTERS, POTSHELF, AND/OR WINDOW BREAK-UPS) AT LOTS THAT ARE VISIBLE TO PUBLIC Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 3 B Santa Barbara Elevation ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 Newport Beach,CA USA 92660 Lake Elsinore Ca '4' 553 9100 04; 0 2 4 8 tri ointe 023 . 2 1 069 � C) M S 4'-0" 36'-0" 4'-0" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - H H I = o � � II O CENTER TO BELOW 5040 SL. I 2040 S.H. I 5040 SL. I 6040 SL. 6068 SL. GL. DR. I 4036 SL. 0 N D.W. 00 SF[Ow�R o o / \ o o I OWNERS OWNER'S GREATDINING- OPT. ISLAND 0 010 BATH BEDROOM ROOM 72"x3o° El 8'-1" CLG. ���142 X155 I 23� X163 s'-1" CLG. I 8'-1" CLG. KITCHEN BONUS / OPT. - s'-l" CLG. BEDROOM 5 12 4 X 16 6 8-1 CLG. ,i I REF. _ ------4 PANTRY WA fiK-IN � A/C \ �� CL SETj - - - - - - - - \\ TAN KLESS W/H �O Ln \ M LINEN WALK-IN 15 R CLOSET 21 L.F. \ / T I IDN GARAG E / fI5R 202 X 20 4i/ i 8',1" CLG. \/ I ---- fi---- r 2C'x2O' UN�STRUCTED 1 l III /CLEAR SPACi W 'I __ D 1�I DR / \ o I OPT. A. 3 ENTRY N LAU. 0 -1I BA. 2 0 8'_1, 8'-1" CLG. 8'-1" CL 8'-1° cLG. BEDROOM 2 I / \ N PLAN 3 15� XI08 / \ 1 OPT. 15" SHEL ES 8'-1" CLG. / \ - - - _ \\\ J 2 288 SQ , FT. - - I TARGET: 2,203 SQ. FT. — — — — 1607 SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR — — — — 4 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS + LOFT / OPT. �2�ce1sL. BEDROOM 4 / OPT. DEN I I BEDROOM 5 + OPT. DEN 112 102 PORCH I I 2 - CAR GARAGE 8'-I" CLG. BEDROOM 3 �- 124 x 104 8'-1" CLG. z FLOOR AREA TABLE 5040 SL. I 5040 SL. CD I I ST FLOOR 944 SQ. FT. 00 I 2ND FLOOR 1 �344 SQ. FT. — o - TOTAL LIVING 2288 SQ. FT. o • I o_ I 2 - CAR GARAGE 422 SQ. FT. M PORCH 41 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WINDOW SCHEDULE 44 . 00 ' MIN 2040 S.H. 3 SECOND FLOOR F I RST F LOO R 2040F.G. 2 4040 F.G. 1 4036 SL. 1 5040 SL. 5 6040 SL. I TOTAL 13 LINEAR FEET OF KITCHEN CABS BASE CABINETS 18'- 10" Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 3 C UPPER CABINETS 151- 10" Reflects Craftsman Elevation ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 3 8 1 1 6 0 3 • 1 9 . 2 1 Lake Elsinore Ca Newport Beach,CA USA 92660 '4' 553 9100 0 2 4 8 tri 023 . 2 1 069 � U m l�_ s IN���IL ii I I I w I I I I I I I 4-; I 00 rn — I I I _ L c---------- ------� �O - � C) r ----------- --- J_ + D m J ------------------- J -r Q -------------- oC I I FENCE HEIGHT w' — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Ti = ' II 0 I 00 L 00 FIFIEZ]FIE171 El El r] I II I LEFT FRONT C - CRAFTSMAN NOTE: OPTIONAL COACH LIGHT SHOWN 1/4"=1 1-0" --------- ------------------- i t i l i I I i II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - J I I I .ice. L - - - - - - - - - - � ROOF PLAN C PITCH: 4:I2 18"-10" RAKE: 12" EAVE: 12" _______________ ______ _____ ____ _____________ ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE FLAT TILE - I I I I jjr=-�r-=-�� I I I I I I III II III I I I I I I III II IIII I I I I I I III II III I I I I I I III II III I I I I I I III II I I I I I I III II III I I I III IIL III C----------------- C------71 -------j C-------------� I I I I I ------------------ ------------------- T 7'-0" HDR. AT KITCHEN FENCE HEIGHT WDW ONLY — FENCE HEIGHT — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I T&./ONT.I I III I 11 I I I II ° �7 II CA TV 7E] I I II I ------- --� RIGHT REAR NOTE: DASHED LINE REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION (SHUTTERS, POTSHELF, AND/OR WINDOW BREAK-UPS) AT LOTS THAT ARE VISIBLE TO PUBLIC Bassenian I Lagoni PLAN 3 C Craftsman Elevation ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - INTERIORS Copyright 2017 Bassenian I Lagoni Architects L A K E S I D E - T R A C T 38 1 16 03 . 1 9 . 2 1 Lake Elsinore Ca Newport Beach,CA USA • ..I '4' 553 9100 14; 0 2 4 8 n 023 . 2 1 069 U m �_ S HEMEROCALLISITYBRID DAYLILY CONSTRUCTION LEGEND CONCEPTUAL PLANT PALETTE LEGEND HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON LEUCOPHYLLUM F. 'GREEN CLOUD' TEXAS RANGER SYMBOL ITEM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME LIGUSTRUM TEXANUM TEXAS PRIVET PHORMIUM TENAX 'DARK DELIGHT' NEW ZEALAND FLAX 18' X 38' POOL AND 12' RADIUS SPA -'T ACCENT PALMS PITTOSPORUM "VARIEGATA" VARIEGATED MOCK ORANGE - - PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA DATE PALM RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' INDIA HAWTHORN RESTROOM, SHOWER AND POOL EQUIP. BUILDING - = - SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANUM QUEEN PALM RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA"MINOR" INDIA HAWTHORN • ROSA SPECIES SHRUB ROSE STREET TREES ROSMARINUS "TUSCAN BLUE" UPRIGHT ROSEMARY VEHICULAR ENTRY GATES AND PEDESTRIAN GATE PLATANUS A. "COLUMBIA" LONDON PLANE TREE RUELLIA BRITTONIA MEXICAN RUELLIA SALVIA LEUCANTHA MEXICAN SAGE PROJECT MONUMENT CONCRETE PLAQUE PYRUS "BRADFORD" BRADFORD PEAR XYLOSMA CONGESTUM SHINY LEAF XYLOSMA ULMUS PARVIFOLIA EVERGREEN ELM =_ 6' HIGH POOL FENCE ARBUTUS "MARINA" MARINA ARBUTUS ORNAMENTAL GRASSES 5 W MAGNOLIA "ST. MARY'S" SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCA �6 BARBEQUE AREA WITH COVERED EATING AREA h PYRUS "BRADFORD" BRADFORD PEAR HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS BLUE OAT GRASS I.�.. MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS PINK MUHLY OPEN PLAY AREA LANDSCAPE AND SLOPE TREES MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS PENNISETUM "LITTLE BUNNY" DWARF FOUNTAIN GRASS TOT LOT WITH PLAY STRUCTURES ARBUTUS "MARINA" MARINA ARBUTUS PENNISETUM "EATON CANYON" RED FOUNTAIN GRASS CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON GROUNDCOVERS Ej PRE FABRICATED SHADE STRUCTURE PINUS ELDARICA AFGHAN PINE BACCHARIS P. 'PIGEON POINT' DWARF COYOTE BRUSH 10 POOL PARKING PRUNUS "BRIGHT N' TIGHT" CAROLINA LAUREL CHERRY BERBERIS REPENS CREEPING BARBERRY SCHINUS MOLLE CALIFORNIA PEPPER COTONEASTER D. "LOWFAST" LOWFAST COTONEASTER 1 1 WATER QUALITY BASIN --- CISTUS SALVIFOLIUS SAGELEAF ROCKROSE % TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX GAZANIA SP. GAZANIA 12 PERIMETER BLOCK WALL - SPLIT FACE WITH CONIC CAP ACCENT TREES: MYOPORUM "PINK" PINK MYOPORUM , ROSMARINUS O. 'PROSTRATUS' PROSTRATE ROSEMARY 13 REAR AND SIDE YARD 5' 6" HIGH VINYL FENCE LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CRAPE MYRTLE ROSA 'FLOWER CARPET VARIETIES' GROUNDCOVER ROSE f, ,�� 1 1 PRUNUS CERASIFERA PURPLE PLUM `` _ 14 SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL AT CORNER LOTS (TYP) WATER QUALITY BASIN SHRUBS / PERENNIALS CAREX PANSA CALIF. MEADOW SEDGE AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS LILY-OF-THE-NILE CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSH ANIGOZANTHOS FLAVIDUS KANGAROO PAW MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS BUXUS JAPONICA JAPANESE BOXWOOD MARATHON II OR EQUAL TURF GRASS CISTUS PURPUREUS ROCKROSE . ,> _ ` .. •-- �' , �� _ CALLISTEMON "LITTLE JOHN" DWARF BOTTLE BRUSHY DIETES BICOLOR FORTNIGHT LILY ELAEGNUS PUNGENS SILVERBERRY VINES 138 137 132 r :. 131 126 i 125 120 EUONYMUS SPP EUONYMUS DISTICTUS BUCCINATORIA RED TRUMPET VINE L FICUS REPENS CREEPING FIG GREVILLEA NOELLII GREVILLEA N Ip LL1 $ N L p " � aa - ILLLa � I I I i � � LL MNII rllo MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI CAT'S CLAW VINE PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA BOSTON IVY LJ1 '_ W r W $' N WLL ��N v m 11 1 II mro N m N LJJ T II' �.. I OI tO i 0aD I I � �I _ r/^1 �// `�-I _ LL II❑ (n i '^ Q- 'MNII --- 119 I..L. LL Q I '� lILI y_i, 139 r� 136 133 LLLL � 130 127 124 121a `s m" 2 12 mm l 2 2 it - II 140 0 1 3 1 2 - N11 � 1 9 8 N - r. ^ r �.I 118 . -% •., ,. ..-a•: S N °a u i f. :-• ' �.. .` ;,_ LL .I..,, v` ' LLa ll4 .r STREE T B , 1 ENLARGEMENT SEE SHEET L-2 STREET 11C,1 9 STREE C • r,: .... II II r i 1- , i I _ • a 59 GF=1276.10 f1, ti ® AR ......-- LI ,1.37 r .I is - � 14 C, ' 2 R3=BRP = .97 1;80.77 A2D=A..R7.85.79 I 1CR . � FFAD=18 FF . FF 10257 ow ' _-7277.87 -_1 1C2ZR0,87. 3AR , �- I 104 105 106 107 1 108 - - - 1 9 -110_ 111 112 113 _ 114 - 115 - 1-16 117 ,. . ' Wr, 95 94 IF N .m ,....; •,..,. -.- Y:', \\\ v/ ,.N' -- ' 9 � \ :. t�C7� ' , \\ -\•,\.\-..-,O- - PF AFD=_-1 2,28633.6.o7 „V ® P. ,. 92 9 88 FF=1284.2- 78p 7 86 _ �,2q83.8Y`8 5 AD-1283.8 4 835 9 - 91 89 3B � 1284 Z6 3C 2B BFFJ FF-1284.57 FF=7284.87 =1284.87 � 4PAD=1283.5 P -1 83.9 PAD_ PAD=1283.2AD2 284.2 PAD=28 1283.8 .,.\/• . I-I - ,. PAD=1282.8 - - �y GF 1283.30 i GF 1283.70 GF 1283.90 GF-1284.20 ` GF=1214,40 _ _ _ _ _ GF=1263.20 GF=1283.00 - -� . I GF 1284 20 GF 1284.00 GF 1283.80 GF 1283.60 4� - I 10 5 1 STREET "B" 53 \ 72 6 pg0,2 \ •2e'r> - l A r � e6eso - I 7s l , ` I 6 , GF=1 G = 3.30 3.-70 GF=1283.90 \ GF=1284.20 - '••., GF=1284.30 r,. � �.. _ 2 L, •_ ....- .,,., i i -.50 GF=1283.30 I , 9 6 v 5 ® 2C F3CR.37 26R 1AR tea> fF i284 _ 3BR 1C 3BR` 1AR 2BR 1BR 2CR I ® FF I \ 37 S I 2es� P,o'2e3 67 68 69 70 71 72 - - - P � 73 74 �.I ' 8 T� / s, 3 49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -75 - - - 76 - - - - - - 77 78 I 79 81 Q - - - - - - - Lu �G,F\2B6 0 p T`o 7 _. _ - _ __ -__ ___ _ L - - _ ICI 0 ,.. � � _ � • 47 o o 41 37 35 34 fB 1 q p \\ ago_'?2 6> ® 46 45 44 43 42 , 40 9 33 1% - 38 36 ' ,I 1 AR 2CR FF=,26s.4 3BR 2AR a 1CR a \ \ - LJ ,� FF=1 FF=1291.27. FF=1292.17. FF=1292.97 9 \ PAD=1 \ FF=1292.47 1291.67 _; ?8 FAY' FF=1289:1 PAD PAD=1290. PAD=1291.51 PAD=1292.3 _ - - - - PAD=1291.8 PAD=1291.0 PAD-1290.2 PAD=7289.3 PAD=1288.5 PAD= PAD=1287.4 PA D=1287.2 PAD=1287.0 420iJ t I I I _ _ � a' -- i GF-1291.50 GF 1292.30 GF-1291.80 GF-1291.00 GF-- - GF=12B9.30 GF=1288.50 GF=7287.60 GF=1287.40 GF=1287.20 I , 1 -r -60 J2092) - 2 V / U P'9072g0 �. ,q STREET "All I O 29p 728g2> -1 r , P 12g ..,,..,ar 728 ➢ V . 129050 ,,.. : ..... -' J 1 " �/ ✓ GF-1291.20 GF- •~ -q i - - 1290.80 GF-128940 :' G ( r' rIxW H L Y _ 1 � PAD'��6 ® 3C 2B 1p t � Cr� � 3C 3C A 28 1A ® FF-129007 FF=,280.9' =y _. ® U) pr. 7� 1 i I1 f w C 17 L L 18 t. z<, 19 - 24 30 31- - - - 26 27 29 32 SHEET - - - - - - - - - - 23 25 �.� 28 - I OF 3 SHEETS LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN FOR : GRAND AVENUE (HWY 74) 0 40' 80' 160' David flEAULT tri pointe O ASSOCIATES Inc. Scale: 1 "=40' 951129613430 HOMES www.dncissociates.com DATE PREPARED: NOV. 5, 2021 "C" TOT LOT SHADE STRUCTURE GF=1279.90 - / GF=1277.90 GF=1. 2AR 1 CR 1 B 3BR FF=1280.57 FF=1280.37 ® FF=1278.57 FF=1278.37 PAD=1279.9 - f i -- PAD=1277.9 PAD=1277.7 L -J 106 107 ; 108 1 92 � -- 91 = OPEN PLAY 9c 2C 3A f 2C 1 A -F=1284.57 FF=1284.87 _ 285.07 _ 284.87 'AD=1283.9 PAD=1284.2 , \ PAD 111284.4 AD 11284 2 .f t 4 GF=1283.90 GF=1284.20 GF=1284.40 GF=128 r _ v t77� 12' SPA RESTROOMS/POOL EQUIP . r- GF=1283.90 GF=1284.20 GF=1284.30 PROJECT SIGNAGE ENTRY GATES PERIMETER SPLIT FACE WALL 7 } 2BR AR 1 - �- �, 3BR ,+, FF=1284.57 FF=1284.87 FF=1284.97 PAD= PAD=1284.2 PAD=1284.3 BBQ AREA 72 - _ 73 :k - FIN {, IIQ L = , 42 , , . , 43 � Q � 41 - i Q Q 3BR 2AR - ==1292.17 FF=1292.97 \ _ 4D=1291.5 PAD=1292.3 �. ' FF-1292.47 / f i ,14.. PAD-12 91.8 1.50 GF=1292.30 GF=1291.80 ¢: i. t F - i ti T L - - ` . . _. ..t "� r is`:.,"Y.i" /`.;; yw. 1' ;.; ;��'•. -` �, -� ::9s� -+A - -b- ���•-.E:. -z: RECREATION CENTER AND PARK ENLARGEMNENT ENTRY GATE ELEVATION n . t .s . SHEET ��' 0 20' 40' 80' � L-2 Scale: 1 "=20' OF 3 SHEETS LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN FOR : David nEAULT tri pointe ASSOCIATES Inc. 951 . 29613430 HOMES www.dnassociates.com DATE PREPARED: NOV. 5, 2021 1 SPLIT FACE BLOCK COLUMN 4 PRECISION BLOCK WALL CAP 2 Ol SPLITFACE BLOCK PILASTER @ MAIN ® P.I.P. CONCRETE PILASTER CAP O DOMED CAP WALL AND FENCE LEGEND O (WHERE OCCURS) O CORNERS, COLOR TO BE 'TAN' 1 O5 FINISH GRADE 0 FINISH GRADE O2 PRECISION BLOCK PILASTER CAP 3 O TUBULAR STEEL POST @ 8-0' O.C. MAX. 2 O2 2"X 7"TOP & BOTTOM RAILS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION 6X8X16 SPLIT FACE BLOCK (ONE SIDED) 4 TUBULAR STEEL PICKETS 4 O3 S"X 5"VINYL POST 2 --------------------------- ------------- C HIGH T.S. FENCE AT POOL AREA - SEE DETAIL 'B' 6"TONGUE & GROOVE �� O5 FINISH GRADE 6' SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL - SEE DETAIL 'A' - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6' PERIMETER SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL WITH CONCRETE CAP SEE DETAIL 'A' �.,...�.�-77 - - - -- - --- --- 5 5-6" REAR AND SIDE YARD VINYL FENCE - SEE DETAIL 'C' A► I Lo ------- - - - ---� -�. C - VINYL FENCE 6" CONCRETE MOW CURB - �'-� 5 3 ❑� SPLIT FACE BLOCK PILASTER A - BLOCK WALL 2 7 _ _ 5 42 Q 1 1/2"xs 1/2" PVC TOP AND 3' SIDE YARD GATE - SEE DETAIL 'D' BOTTOM RAILS �2 2"X b"VINYL UPRIGHT MAILBOX CLUSTERS 2 -- �3 1" X b"T&G PVC BOARD B - T.S. FENCE p` A= (2) 16 UNIT CLUSTER © B= ( 1 ) 12 UNIT CLUSTER -J 3 ® T-HINGE TOP AND BOTTOM RIVETED ROUTED JOINT CONNECTION ______ ___ RETAINING WALL Q LATCH I - ----��------------�I- ---- ------ ---------- --- \ - PER CIVIL - ------� -�---- -�-- \\ \ 7 PLASTIC PLUG � III I I III III III T _ \ 5LO {,8 FINISH GRADE f= 138 137 132 131 126 125 120 m" Wo s� \ 8 1 oc mm oc o Q � ��� �m� o r II❑ N III T II❑ N III T II❑ o 4+ // \ I L`__ N LLa II U..I N LLd jl V..I N LLd II \\ LLQ D LLQ _ r� IID LLQ N � MN� TIiQ N \ LLd LLd v C LLQ LLd W LLd _ LL Q > D - VINYL GATE Ii- -- w -- Ij L�-2 o -- w w __ � o -- w II II 1 N W N N N� mm r� urc .I s" m .I W TLLa I I Q� VN� rN " LL � mNN LL Ir �rN CIO "'LLa rLLa MLL° Cn `� m ID "'LLa Cn ,r Ilo 119 Q LLa LLa 10 LLa LLaa LLa 136 133 130 127 124 121 I I ® ® ® ® ® II I 140 -- - 13 134 -- -- 129 128 123 122 �o -- QN� I m 1 1 fry r� it it �c a s it it n N n it N LL Q W LL LL LL LL � r LL LL �°'r (�N^ LL (J I - ---- -------- --------- --------------- ------ - �- ______ `�" Q o cc�� Q�� m N " LLa 118 ----=---- ------ ------ -------------� NLu Nam mom veil N�II II no I / ilo Nm� Nno II❑ II❑ I 1 _________ LLa LLa it o LLd LLa LLa LLd ® II I / 100 I ® \\� � ® ® ® ® ® u „ 101 I I A II�-------1- ---�I--------I�--- _ ---�I------- - ---�I--------I�---1- _____ RETAINING WALL _ _ STREET Cam_ I S = _ -- ----_--- -- _ -- -------- -- I ------�- (PRIVATE) - ,� \ h // -- --TREET I \ 1 - PER CIVIL '� �T �;,� �`'���" // /' Riv-D" %a „N P ATE II 11 ' ---- a 4 STREET D I 1 \ °� ® \\ � .O (PRIVATE) I r _ / I L/�\/ t�\w� / GF=7281.80 I 99 V` ` F=1281.60 GF=1281.40 I GF=1281.20 GF=1281.00 GF=1280.80 1 -\r GF=1280.10 GF=1279.90 GF=1279.70 GF=1279.50 GF=1279.30 GF=1279.10 GF=1279.00 GF=1278.70 GF=1278.50 GF=1278.30 I 1 I I 16R � 0 � �-•��'��/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I� `ter I I I 1 ' 1AR 2CR 3BR iCR 3AR II _ \ \ C! / / ® PAD=1287.6 FF=1282.07 3BR 2AR iCR \ , \ \59 \ � �. / , ® 2CR ` iBR 3BR iCR 2BR 3AR FF=1281.87 ® FF=1281.67 ® FF=1281.47 \ i-� ® FF=1260.77 ® FF=1280.57 ® FF=1260.37 ® FF=1280.17 ® FF=1279.97 ® FF=1279.77 ® FF=1279.57 ® FF=1279.37 N FF=1179,17 ® FF=1278.97 I I I I I I 1 Gar �A\ yy \\ PAD=1281.2 PAD=1281.0 PAD=1260.8 �, i PAD=1280.1 PAD=1279.9 PAD=1279.7 PAD=1279.5 PAD=1279.3 PAD=1279.1 I _W 57 \ q�T! a$ / �ik\!``-,�� \-�// / /� 98 \\ 102 I\ /% PAD=1279.0 PAD=1278.7 PAD=1278.5 PAD=1278.3 104 105 106 107 1280 3 N� \ \ ads, J��o / ® --- --- -- ------ - ------ ----108 ---- 109 ----110 - -- 111 - 112 ---- 113 ---- 114 ---- 115 ----116 ----- 117 95 94 9 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 Cn I I \ i I I II PAD=7283.9 ® 2A 3B 1A 2C 3A I I 2C 1A 3C 2B iC 3B 2A 1B 2C 1A I I I FF=1284.87 ® ® ® ® I I ® ® ® _ ® _ ® FF=1282.97 ® _ ® _ ® FF=1262.37 ® ® I I FF=1285.07 FF=1284.87 FF=1284.67 FF=1284.47 FF=1283.57 I PAD=1284.4 PAD=1284.2 PAD=1284.0 PAD=1283.8 A=1263.71 PAD=1282.9 PAD=1282.7 PAD=1282.5 PAD=1282.1 PAD=1281.9 PAD=128.4 PAD�1280.8 I PAD=1283.1 PAD=1282.3 PAD=1281.7 I I I �GJ 55 \1 ® +'.s0 / \ \r\ \ / GF=1284.20 GF=1284.40F12 GF=1284.00 GF=1283.80 II I GF=1283.10 GF=1282.90 GF=1282.70 GF=1282.50 GF=1282.30 GF=1282.10 GF=1281.90 GF=12.1.10 GF=1281.4 GF=1280.80 C 10 STREET "C°10 12 13 I I '9. (PRIVATE) I I I J �Y. 3 Wf 6 L q�/2 52 \ FF�7A GF=1284.10 GF=1284.30 GF=1284.40 GF=1284.20 GF=1284.00 GF=1283.80 GF=1282.90 GF=1282.70 GF=1282.50 GF=1282.30 GF=1282.10 GF=1281.90 GF=1281.70 GF=1281.40 GF=1280.80 I f R I I U 7 qo a�9 �'�,a �X // 2B92p FF lC/Q 51 \\\ 65 PAD'j 8°J H 3AR � � 0 � �- ----------- ----� � 0 0 I III p '/, \ \ \ Oe \ O 'Oqp�2,q0'• \ ® FF=128477 2CR iBR 3CR 2BR 1AR 3BR 1CR 2AR 3BR 1AR 2BR 3AR iBR 2CR I -� -� U 0) PAD=1264.7 FF=1285.07 FF=1284.87 FF=1284.67 FF=1284.47 ® FF=1263.57 ® FF=1283.37 ® FF=1263.17 FF=1282.97 ® FF=1262.37 ® FF=1262.07 ® FF=1281.47 I I I I\ \ Bg \\ ® AD=124.97 ® ® ® ® ® ® FF=1262.77 ® FF=1282.57 PAD=1280.8 � 2 4 ® SO \ PAD=1284.3 PAD=1284.4 PAD=1284.2 PAD=1284.0 PAD=1263.8 O PAD=1282.9 PAD=1282.7 PAD=1282.5 PAD=1282.3 PAD=1282.1 PAD=1281.9 PAD=1281.7 PAD=1281.4 1 O 3. 68 69 70 71 72 0 0 73 74 78 I I I I cc 06 ese -- I '� \ �,o ® 49 ----- ---- -- ------ ---- - \\ o o r28a ------ [L - ---- - 75 76 77 ----- --- 79 80 81 I � ~ LUL a -;rH w-+�-+;m j --- - ---- - -il U '28s� 72a9 sIll �� � � � \ �• / � ® FF 1CIq 47 46 45 44 43 42 I I o 0 41 40 g 8 6 35 I I I I II Nt \� \ \ >BB,r, \,2e90 \ ` GP\72ggso PAD'129pq ® FF 3AR ® 1AR ® 2CR ® 3BR ® 2AR ® �� o o �� iCR ® 3BR ® 2CR ® 1AR ® 3CR ® 2AR ® iBR ®285. 3CR ® 2BR ® I I I I I Q \ \\ 9 6 ® 0 / \ /l PAD=1290.7 PAD=12909 PAD=12911 PAD=1291.3 PAD=12915 I PAD=1290.0 PAD=1289.2 PAD=1288.4 PAD=12875 PAD=12867 PAD�1285.9 PAD=12850 PAD=1284.2 PAD=1283.3 I I I I O 1 84 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I \ AT dC ,z �ub' \ I zso.ao l ICI I I O 2e9, 8y GF-1290.70 - / GF=1290.00 GF=1289.20 GF=1288.40 rGF=12117.50 GF=1286.70 GF=1285.90 GF=1285.00 GF=1284.20 GF=1283.30 GF=129090 GF=1291.10 GF=1291.30 GF=1291.50 \� � � I -- - LL 8 - 9 10 _ 11 12 13 14 15 1 STREET B \ ,2g9� � (PRIVATE) I I 7 \ \ FF\3 I I oo I 13 S� , \ \ sB ® GF=1290.70 GF=1289.90 GF=1291.10 GF=1291.30 GF=1291.50 GF=1290.10 GF=1289.20 GF=1288.40 GF=1287.60 GF=1286.80 GF=1285.90 GF=1285.10 GF=1284.20 GF=1283.30 GF=1282.70 I I 1 I \\ \ \ \ \\ 14 \ PAD 729p 0> ® FF 3C / � / Q 0 \ 017 0 0 I II 72 I 3C 2B ip gC 1 w I \ 3A 26 1A 3C 2A iC 36 2C 16 3p I FF=1291.37 ® FF=1290.57 ® FF=1291.77 ® FF=1291.97 ® FF=1292.17 ® \ FF=1290.77 ® FF=1289.87 ® FF=1289.07 ® FF=1288.27 ® FF=1287.47 ® FF=1286.57 ® FF=1285.77 ® FF=1284.87 ® FF=1283.97 ® FF=1283.37 17 PAD=1290.7 PAD=1289.9 PAD=1291.1 PAD-1291.3 PAD=1291.5 I W Q \ PAD=1290.1 PAD=1269.2 PAD=1288.4 PAD=1287.E PAD=1286.8 PAD=1285.9 PAD=1285.1 PAD=1284.2 PAD=1283.3 PAD=1282.7 II \ _ > \ 18 19 20 /�J \ 29 30 31 32 '�sss - ------ - ---- - ---- 21 22 / / Cn �� 24 25 26 27 28 I ---- - ---- / \23------- --- ----- - ---- ------- ---- - ------ ---- ---- - I I� � \ SHEET L-3 OF 3 SHEETS 654 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- �- +- 653 652 651 650 649 648 647 646 645 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN FOR : 0 40' 80' 160' ��� David nEAULT tri pointe O ASSOCIATES Inc. Scale: 1 "=40' 951 . 296 13430 HOMES www.dnassociafes.com DATE PREPARED: NOV. 5, 2021 tri po*lnte LAKESIDE TRACT 38116 LAKE ELSINORE, CA COLOR SELECTION BOOK FEBRUARY 16, 2021 JOB #023-21069 Bassenian I Lagoni ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS tri p jr1t LAKESIDE Bassenian I Lagoni ARCH ITECRNRE•PLANNING•INRERIGRS TRACT 38116 JOB#023-21069 COLOR SELECTION CHART ROOF: EAGLE, BORAL MARCH 18, 2021 PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS GUTTER: CUSTOM BILT FAUX CLAY VENTS:SW 6096 JUTE BROWN WROUGHT IRON:SW 6990 CAVIAR SCHEMES 1-6 ARE FOR SCHEMES 7-9 SPANISH COLONIAL&SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS ARE FOR CRAFTSMAN ELEVATIONS SCHEME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 FASCIA, EAVES, SW 7520 SW 9171 SW 7032 SW 6172 SW 7515 SW 9091 SW 7566 SW 9090 SW 6166 BEAM, HEADERS, PLANTATION FELTED WOOD WARM STONE HARDWARE HOMESTEAD HALF-CALF WESTHIGHLAND CARAIBE ECLIPSE SIDE&GARAGE SHUTTERS BROWN WHITE DOOR FRONT ENTRY SW 2819 SW 7675 SW 6207 SW 7520 SW 6223 SW 6244 SW 6041 SW 6237 SW 9100 DOOR DOWNING SLATE SEALSKIN RETREAT PLANTATION STILL WATER NAVAL OTTER DARK NIGHT UMBER RUST SHUTTERS BASE STUCCO 10 3/4 A 872 '/z 413 '/4 31 '/2 A 516 3/4 418 'A A 948 1 '/4 A 790 '/2 429 (OMEGA) SW 7566 SW 6154 SW 7575 SW 7565 SW 6156 SW 9111 SW 7057 SW 6170 SW 6150 WESTHIGHLAND WHITE NACRE CHOP STICKS OYSTER BAR RAMIE ANTLER VELVET SILVER STRAND TECHNO GRAY UNIVERSAL KHAKI ACCENT TRIM 15 1 '/4 A 790 1 '/z A 85 2'/4 237 '/z 429 412 ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- AT 'B' ELEVATION SW 7541 SW 7542 SW 7530 SW 7543 SW 7546 SW 7535 OMEGA GRECIAN IVORY NATUREL BARCELONA BEIGE AVENUE TAN PRAIRIE GRASS SANDY RIDGE 'S' ROOF 3645 3773 3680 3816 SCC 8825 3636 EAGLE 'S' ROOF 1 BCCS6464 1 BCCS3940 1 BCCS7330 1 BCCS7954 1 BCCS6330 1 BCCS6169 BORAL CA MISSION CLIFFSIDE VERONA CLAY CAMELOT SALERNO CLAY CASA GRANDE FLAT ROOF ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- SCP 8805 SCP 8803 5634 (EAGLE) FLAT ROOF ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- 1 FBCJ4070 1 FBCJ3184 1 FBCJ4598 (BORAL) I I I ISEA PEARL RUSTIC FOREST GREEN GUTTERS BEAVER BROWN BRONZE BRONZE BRONZE BRONZE BEAVER BROWN WHITE BUCKSKIN BROWN BRONZE WINDOW FRAME TAN TAN TAN TAN TAN TAN TAN TAN TAN SCHEME 1 SPANISH COLONIAL & SANTA BARBARA ELEVATION `S' ROOF FASCIA, EAVES, BEAMS, HEADERS, SIDE & GARAGE DOOR FRONT ENTRY DOOR BASE STUCCO ACCENT STUCCO tri pointe LAKESIDE Bassenian I Lagoni TRACT 38116 ARCHITECTURE•PLANNING•INTERIORS SCHEME 2 SPANISH COLONIAL & SANTA BARBARA ELEVATION `S' ROOF FASCIA, EAVES, BEAMS, HEADERS, SIDE & GARAGE DOOR FRONT ENTRY DOOR BASE STUCCO ACCENT STUCCO tri pointe LAKESIDE Bassenian I Lagoni TRACT 38116 ARCHITECTURE•PLANNING•INTERIORS SCHEME 3 SPANISH COLONIAL & SANTA BARBARA ELEVATION 'S' ROOF FASCIA, EAVES, BEAMS, HEADERS, SIDE & GARAGE DOOR FRONT ENTRY DOOR BASE STUCCO ACCENT STUCCO tri pointe LAKESIDE .lF;<, r�l_a't Lagoni TRACT 38116 SCHEME 4 SPANISH COLONIAL & SANTA BARBARA ELEVATION Y YV] `S' ROOF FASCIA, EAVES, BEAMS, HEADERS, SIDE & GARAGE DOOR FRONT ENTRY DOOR BASE STUCCO ACCENT STUCCO tri pointe LAKESIDE Bassenian I Lagoni TRACT 38116 ARCHITECTURE•PLANNING•INTERIORS SCHEME 5 SPANISH COLONIAL & SANTA BARBARA ELEVATION t N.+> `S' ROOF FASCIA, EAVES, BEAMS, HEADERS, SIDE & GARAGE DOOR FRONT ENTRY DOOR BASE STUCCO ACCENT STUCCO tri pointe LAKESIDE Bassenian I Lagoni TRACT 38116 ARCHITECTURE•PLANNING•INTERIORS SCHEME 6 SPANISH COLONIAL & SANTA BARBARA ELEVATION `S' ROOF FASCIA, EAVES, BEAMS, HEADERS, SIDE & GARAGE DOOR FRONT ENTRY DOOR BASE STUCCO ACCENT STUCCO tri pointe LAKESIDE Bassenian I Lagoni TRACT 38116 ARCHITECTURE•PLANNING•INTERIORS SCHEME 7 CRAFTSMAN ELEVATION T _ FLAT ROOF FASCIA, EAVES, BEAMS, HEADERS, SIDE & GARAGE DOOR BASE STUCCO FRONT ENTRY DOOR tri pointe LAKESIDE .lF;<, r�l_a't Lagoni TRACT 38116 SCHEME 8 CRAFTSMAN ELEVATION 1' r s FLAT ROOF FASCIA, EAVES, BEAMS, HEADERS, SIDE & GARAGE DOOR BASE STUCCO FRONT ENTRY DOOR tri pointe LAKESIDE Bassenian I Lagoni TRACT 38116 ARCHITECTURE•PLANNING•INTERIORS SCHEME 9 CRAFTSMAN ELEVATION r, 0" FLAT ROOF FASCIA, EAVES, BEAMS, HEADERS, SIDE & GARAGE DOOR BASE STUCCO FRONT ENTRY DOOR tri pointe LAKESIDE Bassenian I Lagoni TRACT 38116 ARCHITECTURE•PLANNING•INTERIORS