HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. JPR Findings (with maps)RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
1
Project Information
Permittee: City of Lake Elsinore
Case Information: LEAP 2020-03 / Mission Trails at Lemon
Site Acreage:
17.21 acres (16.97 acres permanent and 0.24-acre easement
dedication1), of which 0.30 acres are located within the
Criteria Area2
Portion of Site Proposed for
MSHCP Conservation
Area3: 0 acres
Criteria Consistency Review
Consistency Conclusion: The project is consistent with both the Criteria and Other Plan
requirements with implementation of the measures presented in these Findings (including any
within the project information provided to the Regional Conservation Authority by the
Permittee for this JPR).
Applicable Core/Linkage: Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3
Area Plan: Elsinore Area Plan
APN Sub-Unit Cell Group Cell
370-050-019
370-050-020
370-050-032
SU3 – Elsinore Independent 5131
1 Approximately 0.24-acre of the project site will be dedicated as Victorian Lane right of way, of which 0.07-acre has been
identified as riparian/riverine and will not be impacted as part of this project; however, this area is located outside of MSHCP
Criteria Cells and is not further addressed in these Findings.
2 Joint Project Review (JPR) only occurs within MSHCP Criteria Cells. Any portion of the project that extends beyond the Criteria
is not included as part of this JPR review nor these Findings.
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
2
Project Information
a. Project Documentation. JPR submittal materials provided by the Permittee included JPR Application Form
(April 6, 2023); LEAP 2022-03/ Mission Trail at Lemon MSHCP Consistency Findings (July 2023); a
General Biological Assessment for APNs 370-050-019, -020, and -032 (Assessment) prepared by
Hernandez Environmental Services (July 2023); and GIS shapefiles.
b. Project Location. The proposed project is located is the City of Lake Elsinore, west of Mission Trail and north
of Corydon Street (Exhibit A). It is located in the southwestern portion of the MSHCP Area (Exhibit B).
c. Project Description. The proposed project involves the construction of multi-family residential
development, which includes the construction of residential units, open space areas, associated parking areas
and internal roadways. The proposed project does not include any off-site improvements. The project is
currently undeveloped. The proposed project’s elevations range from 1,259 above mean sea level (AMSL)
to 1,286 feet AMSL.
The approximate 17.21-acre proposed project includes development of 16.97 acres and 0.24-acre of road
easement dedication (of which 0.07-acre has been identified as riparian/riverine based on the elevation of
1265 feet AMSL). Of the 17.21-acre project, 0.30 acre is located within MSHCP Criteria Area, specifically,
Cell 5131. As such, only the 0.30-acre proposed development is the subject of these JPR Findings (hereafter
referred to as “project site”). It should be noted that the proposed project site overlaps with off-site
improvements associated with JPR 20-06-09-01 (Corydon Gateway Project), an undeveloped commercial
retail center project (Exhibit E). However, where the overlap occurs, there are no known MSHCP conflicts.
The project is not adjacent to any existing conservation area, and no fuel modification or weed abatement
zones are proposed. All equipment staging and construction materials will be located within the proposed
development footprint.
The proposed project is situated within the Lake Elsinore Back Basin, surrounded by Mission Trail and
commercial developments to the east, a construction site and commercial developments to the south, vacant
land to the north, and the Lake Elsinore Motorsports Track Park to the west. According to the Assessment,
vegetation communities within the 0.30-acre project site contain ruderal invasive species. MSHCP baseline
vegetation communities (1994) within the site consist of grassland and agricultural land (Exhibit C). Soil
series within the 0.30-acre project site predominantly include Waukena loamy fine sand, saline -alkali, with
a small portion of Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (Exhibit D). Some of these
soils can be associated with the presence of some species of narrow endemic and criteria area species plants.
However, the project site doesn’t occur within any MSHCP plant survey areas (refer to Section 6.1.3 and
6.3.2 below).
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
3
Relation to Reserve Assembly
a. Reserve Assembly Summary. As stated in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, “Proposed Extension of Existing
Core 3 (Lake Elsinore Soils) consists of two blocks of land extending from the southern border of Existing
Core E (Lake Elsinore). The northern portion of the proposed extension is also connected to Proposed
Linkage 8. Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 conserves soils of the Traver series, which is important
to the maintenance of several species of Narrow Endemic Plants. The northern portion of the extension also
provides for movement of species along the lower San Jacinto River to Proposed Linkage 8. Together with
Existing Core E, Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 provides Habitat for shorebird use. Since
surrounding land uses include city (Lake Elsinore) and community Development, management of edge
conditions in this area will be necessary to maintain high quality Habitat in this area. Guidelines Pertaining
to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and
domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1 of this document [MSHCP].”
The project site is located within Cell 5131. As stated in Section 3.3.3 of the MSHCP, “Conservation within
this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3. Conservation within this Cell
will focus on grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to grassland habitat
proposed for conservation in Cell 5137 to the west. Conservation within this Cell will range from 30% to 40%
of the Cell focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell.”
Cell 5131 totals 167 acres. Using the low-range goal (30%), approximately 50.1 acres are described for
conservation within this Cell. To date, approximately 160.3 acres have been developed or are approved for
development in this Cell, which includes the 0.3-acre proposed project acreage and 11.8 acres of MSHCP
covered roads. There are no conserved acres within the Cell. Therefore, to achieve the low-range conservation
goal. 50.1 acres are still needed for conservation. There are approximately 6.7 undeveloped acres available
within the Cell, located within areas described for conservation. In summary, with no acres conserved to date
and only 6.7 undeveloped acres available that would functionally contribute to Proposed Extension of Existing
Core 3, Cell 5131 could not achieve the low-range goal of 50.1 acres.
Cell 5131 and Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 are within the Lake Elsinore Back Basin – East Lake
Specific Plan boundary. Cell 5131 is not able to reach its Reserve Assembly goal due to the presence of Skylark
Airport and Lake Elsinore Motorsports Park that already account for the majority of development within this
Cell. The project site is located in the northeastern corner of Cell 5131, outside of the area described for
conservation and separated from the Lake Elsinore Back Basin by Skylark Airport, Lake Elsinore Motorsports
Park, and a shopping center along Corydon Street. Furthermore, the site is not located in the 770-acre East Lake
Specific Plan (ELSP) conservation proposal. In 2003, prior to the adoption of the MSHCP, representatives of
the County of Riverside (County), the Wildlife Agencies, the City of Lake Elsinore and others conducted a
series of meetings to discuss conservation measures within the ELSP to provide consistency with the MSHCP.
The East Lake Specific Plan MSHCP Consistency Analysis dated October 9, 2003, prepared by
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
4
Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. on behalf of Laing-CP Lake Elsinore and the City described
approximately 770 acres of proposed conservation sites within the ELSP (the “770-acre ELSP conservation
proposal”) and described its consistency with the MSHCP conservation goals and objectives. The 770-acre
ELSP conservation proposal was approved by the County of Riverside as a “suitable framework for
determining consistency with the MSHCP” for the Back Basin and it is under this framework, MSHCP
conservation within the back basin has occurred.
The proposed project would not result in habitat fragmentation of live-in habitat for the target planning
species for the Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3, which includes Riverside fairy shrimp,
Quino checkerspot butterfly, western pond turtle, Bell's sage sparrow, American bittern, mountain plover,
northern harrier, white-tailed kite, southwestern willow flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, black-crowned night
heron, osprey, double-crested cormorant, white-faced ibis, least Bell's vireo, bobcat, Munz's onion, San Diego
ambrosia, and smooth tarplant. In summary, because of the location of the proposed project site outside of the
area described for conservation and would not contribute to Existing Core 3, and because the goal for the
Lake Elsinore Back Basin is still possible to achieve, development of the proposed project would not impede
the conservation goals for this core or cause fragmentation issues.
b. Rough Step. The proposed project is within Rough Step Unit 8. As stated in Section 4 of the MSHCP 2021
Annual Report, “Rough Step Unit 8 encompasses 50,408 acres within the west-central region of western
Riverside County and includes the cities of Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake, the Alberhill Area, the San Jacinto
River, Horsethief Canyon, and Temescal Wash (see Figure 4-9, Rough Step Unit #8). This Rough Step Unit
is bound by the Santa Ana Mountains to the west, Interstate 215 to the east, Bundy Canyon Road to the south,
and Rough Step Unit 7 to the north. Only that portion within Criteria Cells is tracked by Rough Step and not
all vegetation or land cover within a Rough Step Unit has acreage goals. In Rough Step Unit 8 there are nine
vegetation/land cover types, but only four have Rough Step acreage goals; coastal sage scrub; grasslands;
riparian scrub, woodland, forest; and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Rough Step acreage goals are
provided for each of these habitat types. Table 4-11, Rough Step Unit 8 Acreage Totals provides the losses and
gains and resulting allowable development acreage for each of the four vegetation communities with acreage
goals. Through 2021, a total of 3,473 acres of conservation has occurred for the four tracked vegetation
communities within Rough Step Unit 8. Losses to this unit total 960 acres, with remaining development
allowance as follows: 611 acres of coastal sage scrub; 13 acres of riparian scrub, woodland, forest; and 4 acres
of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. At the end of 2021, the vegetation category of grasslands remains “out
of Rough Step.”
Although the 2022 Annual Report has not been finalized, the remaining development allowance as of the end
of 2022 is preliminary for Rough Step 8 as follows: 553 acres of coastal sage scrub, -166 acres of grassland
(out of balance), 13 acres of riparian scrub, woodland, and forest, and 2 acres of woodlands and forests. As of
the end of 2022, grasslands vegetation category is out of Rough Step in Unit 8 by a balance of -166 acres. The
grassland vegetation category has been out of Rough Step in Unit 8 since inception of the MSHCP due to
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
5
pre-MSHCP developments and associated mitigation that resulted in lands slated for reserve assembly (and to
be classified as Additional Reserve Lands (ARL)) coming into the MSHCP reserve under the
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) classification. Lands classified as PQP do not count towards Rough Step.
Baseline vegetation (1994) for the area of the project site located within Criteria Cell 5131 consists of
agricultural land and grassland, agricultural land is not tracked for rough step (Exhibit C). This project would
permanently impact approximately 0.07 acre of baseline (1994) grasslands in Rough Step Unit 8 and increase
the negative balance of this vegetation community. Although this is a MSHCP land classification issue, there
are 404 acres of pending grassland conservation in Rough Step Unit 8 as follows: (1) completed JPR projects
but which have not yet conveyed conservation lands (168 acre), (2) Summerly Back Basin mitigation areas
that has not been conserved (139 acre), and (3) Cottonwood Canyon Conservation Area that has not been
conserved (97 acre). While the timing of conveyance of development-related conservation is unknown, both
the Summerly Back Basin and Cottonwood Canyon conservation can be expected within 1-2 years.
The Rough Step Unit 8 development allowance may have changed by the time this project submits for a
grading permit. As such, the RCA provides the following required Measure to ensure the City does not exceed
Rough Step allowances:
ROUGH STEP MEASURE. In accordance with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.7, it is the Permittees
responsibility that [i]f the rough step rule is not met during any analysis period (performed annually by
the Regional Conservation Authority [RCA]), the Permittees must conserve appropriate lands supporting
a specified vegetation community within the analysis unit to bring the Plan back into the parameters of the
rule prior to authorizing additional loss of the vegetation community for which the rule was not achieved.
The Permittee is encouraged to consult with the RCA on current rough step allowances prior to working
with project applicants developing grading plans. The Permittee must not cause additional loss of any
rough step vegetation that is out of balance. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Permittee will
confirm with the RCA that the Project will not impact out-of-balance Rough Step vegetation in the
applicable Rough Step unit.
Other Plan Requirements (MSHCP Volume I)
Section 6.1.2 – Was Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pool Mapping or Information Provided?
Yes. There are no riparian/riverine resources on the portion of the 0.30-acre project site within Criteria
Cells (i.e., within the impact footprint in Criteria Cell 5131); however, riparian/riverine resources
have been identified by the applicant to occur within the proposed project outside of the Criteria
Cells. There are no vernal pools on the project site, and the soils and topography present on the site do
not support habitat considered suitable for fairy shrimp. There is no suitable riparian bird habitat on the
project site.
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
6
Section 6.1.3 – Was Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Information Provided?
Yes. The project site is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area.
Section 6.3.2 – Was Additional Survey Information Provided?
Yes. The project site is not located in a Criteria Area Species Survey Area for plants. The project site is not
located in Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Areas for amphibians or small mammals. The project
site does not support Delhi sands (Exhibit D) or in areas that would trigger additional review for Delhi
sands flower-loving fly. However, the project site is located in an Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures Area for burrowing owl.
Section 6.1.4 – Was Information Pertaining to Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines Provided?
Yes. The project site is not located adjacent to existing or proposed conservation areas.
Comments on Other Plan Requirements:
a. Section 6.1.2. The following discusses each requirement under this policy.
Riparian/Riverine. According to the Assessment, the project site was assessed for riparian/riverine
features on November 2, 2021, and February 3, 2023. It was determined that the project site did not contain
riparian vegetation or definable riparian/riverine features. However, according to the Assessment, the
northwestern corner of the proposed project that occurs outside of cells supports approximately 0.07 acre
of land located below 1,265-foot AMSL, which can be considered a riparian/riverine resource4. However,
this area is located outside of the Criteria Area, and therefore, is not further discussed in these Findings.
Vernal Pools/Fairy Shrimp. According to the Assessment, the project site lacks the soils and hydrology to
support vernal pools. There was no on-site evidence of clay soils, hardpan, bedrock or other impermeable
soils observed that support vernal pool features. No evidence of vernal pools, seasonal depressions,
seasonally inundated road ruts or other wetland features that would support fairy shrimp were observed on
site. Due to the absence of suitable fairy shrimp habitat, focused surveys were not warranted.
Riparian Birds. According to the Assessment, vegetation present on the project site consists of ruderal
vegetation. Therefore, due to the absence of suitable habitat that would support riparian birds, focused surveys
were not warranted.
Based on the information provided in the Assessment , the project demonstrates consistency with
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
b. Section 6.1.3 NEPSSA Plants. The project site is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Area.
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
7
Based on the information provided in the Assessment, the project demonstrates consistency with
Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.
c. Section 6.3.2. Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The project site is not located in a Criteria
Area Species Survey Area for plants. The project site is not located in Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures Areas for amphibians or small mammals. The following describes Additional Survey Needs
and Procedures applicable to the proposed project:
Burrowing Owl. The project site is located within the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for
burrowing owl. In accordance with the County of Riverside’s Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the
Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (County of Riverside 2006), a Step I
Habitat Assessment was conducted on February 3, 2023, within the project site and within an additional
500-foot buffer around the site. According to the Assessment, suitable habitat was detected within the project
site in the form of non-native grasslands with low growing open vegetation and suitable substrate. Due to the
presence of suitable habitat, a Step II-A Focused Burrow Surveys was conducted on May 1, 2023, however no
suitable burrows for nesting (i.e., features with openings four inches or greater in diameter) were present. The
project site lacks potentially suitable manmade structures such as earthen berms, cement, asphalt, rock, or
wood debris piles, or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Therefore, Step II-B Focused Burrowing
Owl Surveys were not conducted.
However, because suitable habitat for burrowing is present on the site, and owls could colonize the site prior
to the start of construction, the following measure is applicable to the project:
BURROWING OWL MEASURE. Due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat, a 30-day
pre-construction survey for burrowing owls is required prior to initial ground-disturbing activities
(including vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment
staging, grading, etc.) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding
the ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the
initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately inform the
Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Wildlife Agencies, and will need to coordinate
further with RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing
Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. 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 burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If
burrowing owl is found, the same coordination described above will be necessary.
Based on the information provided by in the Assessment, the project demonstrates consistency with
Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
d. Section 6.1.4. Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. Although the project site is not adjacent to or
connected to any MSHCP Conservation Areas, the guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 related to
controlling adverse effects for development adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area should be
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
8
considered by the Permittee in their actions relative to the project. Therefore, the Permittee should include
the following measures as project conditions of approval, as applicable:
SECTION 6.1.4 MEASURE.
i. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the
MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge
of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation
Areas. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to prevent the release of
toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might
degrade or harm downstream biological resources or ecosystems.
ii. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or
generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect
wildlife species, Habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that
application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area.
The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff.
iii. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area and the
avoided area on site to protect species from direct night lighting.
iv. Proposed noise-generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area, including
designated avoidance areas, shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects
of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations,
and guidelines related to land use noise standards.
v. Avoid use of invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP in approving
landscape plans for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation
Area, including avoidance areas. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall
include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas and designated avoidance
areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP
Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed
dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features.
vi. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers,
where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access,
domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into existing and future MSHCP
Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing,
walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms.
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
9
vii. Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the
MSHCP Conservation Area.
viii. Weed abatement and fuel modification activities are not permitted in the Conservation Area,
including designated avoidance areas.
e. Appendix C. The following best management practices (BMPs), as applicable, shall be implemented for
the duration of construction:
APPENDIX C MEASURE.
i. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a
training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a
description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the
Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the
general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they
relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the
project activities must be accomplished.
ii. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance
with RWQCB requirements.
iii. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to
sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.
iv. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of
disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and
reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.
v. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the
stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by
target species of concern.
vi. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive
habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian species identified in
MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7.
vii. When stream flows must be diverted, the div ersions shall be conducted using sandbags or
other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping
materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
10
transport of sediments off si te. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned
out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be
exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from
returning to the stream.
viii. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal
risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated
areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive
habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic
substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported
to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and
CDFG [CDFW], RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils
removed to approved disposal areas.
ix. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other
similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks.
x. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the
project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental
disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.
xi. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated
with appropriate native species.
xii. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently
removed from the site to the extent feasible.
xiii. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean
of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and
regularly removed from the site(s).
xiv. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and
construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and
routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the
project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced
with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all
construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the
construction areas.
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings
JPR: 23-04-11-01
Date: 08/07/23
11
xv. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including
any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including
these BMPs.
CT/TC
Rough Step 5
Rough Step 6
Rough Step 8
Rough Step 9
LAKEELSINORE
LAKEELSINOREL
A
K
E
ELSIN
O
RE
G
R
A
P
E
S
T
MALAGARD
LEMON ST
BUNDY CANYON RD
WALNUT ST
VINE ST LOSTRDSYLVESTER ST
MISSIONTRLOLIVE ST
VICTORIA N L N
GRAND AVE
H I D D E N TR L EL B ER TA RD
SORAYA DIAMONDDRLAKEVIEWTE
R
WOODS LNPALOMAR ST CORYDON STALMONDSTM ALAGA RDORANGE STM
E
S
A
D
R
ALBERT ST
S E D C O H E IG H TS D RALMOND STHICKORYLNWAITE ST
JENNIFER DRORCHARD STVI L L A G E P K W YLOQUAT STTRAILWOODCTSAMUEL DR BENT GRASS
SUNFORESTBATTERSBOXCOSMOSBORCHARD RDT O K A Y RD
STONEMAN STWINNIPEG PLSTONEMAN STS
C
A
R
L
E
T
OAK
CASHEW ST
BRYANT ST
W
IND
WOODLNCANYON DRBATTERSCIR
MEADOW
FREDERICKSTONTARIO WAYSPUR BROOK DR
HOLT
W
AYWIND
FL
O
WERELENA DR VILLAGEPKWYQ
U
AIL
CREEKLNGARDENIABASEBALLSILVE
R
W
OODDR
WAITE STHAWTHORNSWORDFERN GAFFORDRD
OAKVIEWLNMORRISON PLSELLERSRDVALLEY VISTA CIRS U G ARBUSH L N
INFIELDUNION ST CANYONRANCHRDDOROFCTSOUTHE
RNESSL
A
R
C
H
GREAT FALLS RDWHITE STMASC O TCOMO ST VIEWPOINTDRTAMERRON WAYORCHARD STMAJORLEAGUE
CHERRY STALMOND STSALTBUSHOLDCO
A
CH
RD
SUMMERLY
PL
CAPE DRONORATO DR
G R A N D SLAMROYALABERDEENSUNNYBROOKDRLAKE
V
I
E
WDRVIEWCRESTDRAPPLEWOOD WAY WILDOMARRDLINKSBEECHER STTANOA K
CLOV
ISWAYCROOKEDARROWDROAK KNOLL LNTURTLE DOVE DRSYCAMORESTANDREWS
ROME HILL RDWINDINGWAYGROVE STSEDCO BLVDMONTE VISTA DRFIRSTGREENORANGE STSYLVESTER R D
LEWIS ST
BRECKENRIDGE TRLSUM M ER S AGE WAYWINDTREEAVE CRAB HOLLOW CIR
AUTOCENTER
D
R
ARBOLADO LNRAYNOR LN
BLONDON CT
SKYLARK DRJULIET WAY
LIME ST WOODCREEKLNRAWLINGSWAYME
S
A
D
R
JARO DRMORRELLDRDIAL RDLUCERNE STCRE
S
C
E
N
T
A
V
E
CHERRY STBOGGS LN
GARDEN ST
UNION ST
GUFFY LN BONNIE LNBATSON LNNAVAJOSPRINGSRDVISTA D ELA G U AHIDDENTRL
KOUES RDMILO AVEFAIRMONTLNG L ASGOWDIAMONDDRVALLEY TERCRABAPPLEPETELEHRDR
BRECHTEL STGILL LNONEAL
R
DSIMA CIRM A R IPO SA RD
VIACARNAGHIAPRICOT LN
S TORY RD
SEDCOVIEW
D
R
ELS INOREHE
I
GHTSDR
BIRCH W OOD D R
LO
QU
ATST
SCALES WAYGREGORY PLSAU
ERRDCOMO ST
VICTOR ST
H
E
MP
E
L
S
T
CEREAL ST
City of LakeElsinore
City ofWildomar
48384843484448454846 4847 4848 4849
493749394940 4945 4946 4951
503350365038 5044 5045 5049
513151375140 5149
5240
5342
§¨¦15
Cell Group E'
Cell Group F'
Cell Group G'
Cell Group H'
Cell Group I'
I
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2023; County of Riverside 2023; Esri Basemap 2023. Map created on 4/18/2023.
EXHIBIT AJPR Log No. 23-04-11-01 - Regional01,000 2,000Feet
r14518Permittee: City of Lake ElsinoreLEAP 2020-03 / Mission Trails at Lemon G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2023\JPR23041101\JPR23041101-ExhibitA_Regional.mxdOrangeCounty
San DiegoCounty
San Bernardino County
EasternRiversideCounty
WesternRiversideCounty
JPR Proposed Project Boundary
Area Not Within Criteria Cell
Private Development
Public Development
Proposed/Future MSHCP Conservation
MSHCP Conserved ARL (Land)
MSHCP Conserved ARL (Conservation Easement)
MSHCP Conserved Public/Quasi-Public Land
Non-MHSCP Conservation Easement
MSHCP Covered Road
Rough Step UnitCell Group
Criteria Cell
City Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Water Body
Highway
Centerline
!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!·|}þ17
!"#$51
!"#$51
!"#$51
!"#$512
·|}þ06
!"#$10
!"#$10
·|}þ47
·|}þ247
·|}þ243
·|}þ47
·|}þ19
·|}þ19
!"#$51
·|}þ47
·|}þ97
·|}þ06
·|}þ173
·|}þ47
·|}þ243
·|}þ97
!"#$512
!"#$512
·|}þ06
·|}þ97
·|}þ47
!"#$51
16
20
3
21
65
8
1
15
6
6
20
18
1
14
8
4 5
21
17
9
7
1
21
22
10
15
11 14
4
11
1
17
13
11
24
19
18
14
7
7
16
9
12
10
12
3
4 23
13
8
D
D
K
B
EB
EA
L
MA
I
A
A B
A
K
C
F
A
LG
H
D
J
B
K
C
B
B
C
1
2 3
4
3
5
4
7
1
2
6
1
2 4
7
65
3
5 6
7
7
JPR Log No. 23-04-11-01 - Vicinity Map with MSHCP Schematic Cores and LinkagesEXHIBIT B
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRC-RCA). Map created on 4/18/2023
r14518Permittee: City of Lake ElsinoreLEAP 2020-03 / Mission Trails at Lemon G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2023\JPR23041101\JPR23041101-ExhibitB_MSHCP_SchematicCoresLinkages.mxdJPR Log No. 23-04-11-01
Proposed Link age s
Constrained Linkage
Linkage
!!!!!!Existing Channel
Existing Cores & Linkages
Constrained Linkage
Core
Linkage
Noncontiguous Habitat Block
Proposed Cores & Habitat Blocks
Core
Proposed Extension of Existing Cores
Noncontiguous Habitat Block
I 0 2 4Miles
ROUGHSTEP 8 MISSION TRLCORYDON STWILDOMAR RDLEWI S ST
VICTORIAN LN
LEMON ST
JARO DRAPRICOT LN
5131
JPR Log No. 23-04-11-01 - MSHCP 1994 Baseline VegetationEXHIBIT C
SOURCE: WRC-RCA MSHCP Baseline Vegetation (1994). Map created on 7/26/2023.
I 0 150 300Feet
r14518Permittee: City of Lake ElsinoreLEAP 2020-03 / Mission Trails at Lemon G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2023\JPR23041101\JPR23041101-ExhibitC_Vegetation.mxdJPR Proposed Project Boundary
Area Not Within Criteria Cell
Vegetation Ty pe s
Agricultural Lan d*
Coastal Sage Scru b
Developed or Disturb ed Lan d
Grassland*
Rough Step Unit
Criteria Cell
Centerline
*Vegetation types that occur within the JPR Proposed Project Boundary
MISSION TRLCORYDON STWILDOMAR RDLEWI S ST
VICTORIAN LN
LEMON ST
JARO DRAPRICOT LN
5131
JPR Log No. 23-04-11-01 - SoilEXHIBIT DI0150300Feet
r14518Permittee: City of Lake ElsinoreLEAP 2020-03 / Mission Trails at Lemon
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2023; County of Riverside 2023; USDA/NRCS Soils 2017 G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2023\JPR23041101\JPR23041101-ExhibitD_Soil.mxdJPR Proposed Project Boundary
Area Not Within Criteria Cell
Soil Type s
Greenfield san dy lo am, 2 to 8 percen t slo pes, erode d
Hanford coarse sa ndy lo am, 2 to 8 percen t slo pes
Ramona very fine sa ndy lo am, 0 to 8 percen t slopes, e rod ed*
Visalia fine sand y loam, 0 to 2 pe rcent slop es
Water
Waukena loamy fin e san d, saline -alkali*
Criteria Cell
Centerline
*Soil types that occur within the JPR Proposed Project Boundary
City of LakeElsinore
City ofWildomarWildomar RdMission TrlLewis S t
Victorian Ln
Lemon St
Corydon StJaro DrApricot Ln
5131
JPR Log No. 23-04-11-01 - Project DetailEXHIBIT E G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2023\JPR23041101\JPR23041101-ExhibitE_ProjectDetail.mxdI0150300Feet
r14518Permittee: City of Lake ElsinoreLEAP 2020-03 / Mission Trails at Lemon
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2023; County of Riverside 2023; Esri Basemap 2023. Map created on 7/12/2023.
JPR Proposed Project Boundary
Area Not Within Criteria Cell
JPR's Overlap ping Are a
Avoidance Area
Developm ent Im pact
On-Site Permanen t
MSHCP Covered Road
Criteria Cell
City Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Centerline
Overlapping with JPR 20-06-09-01