HomeMy WebLinkAboutTech Report 10 - Elsinore Heights_Visual Analysis_2024-02-29
Visual Report for the
Elsinore Heights Project
FEBRUARY 2024
Prepared for:
Prepared for:
Talha Chaudhry
V22 Investments LLC
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Josh Saunders, AICP
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
15864 iii FEBRUARY 2024
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ vi
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Visual Setting .......................................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 9
2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.2 State ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Local ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
3 Report Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 13
3.1 Photographic Field Survey .................................................................................................................. 13
3.2 Visual Simulations ............................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Visual Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 14
3.3.1 Contrast Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 14
3.3.2 Significance Determination Thresholds ............................................................................................. 14
4 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 15
4.1 Visual Character and Key Views ......................................................................................................... 15
4.1.1 Key View 1 .............................................................................................................................. 16
4.1.2 Key View 2 .............................................................................................................................. 16
4.1.3 Key Views 3 and 4 ................................................................................................................. 16
4.2 Scenic Vistas ........................................................................................................................................ 17
4.3 Scenic Highways .................................................................................................................................. 17
4.4 Light and Glare .................................................................................................................................... 17
5 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 17
5.1 Project and Key View Contrast Analysis ............................................................................................. 18
5.2 CEQA Significance Determinations Analysis ...................................................................................... 20
6 References Cited ............................................................................................................................................... 27
TABLES
Table 1. Project Components ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Table 2. Criteria for Degree of Contrast ........................................................................................................................ 14
Table 3. Key Views .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
15864 iv FEBRUARY 2024
Table 4. Visual Contrast by Key View ............................................................................................................................. 18
Table 5. Consistency Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 23
FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 2 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 3 Preliminary Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................... 33
Figure 4 Exterior Materials ................................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 5 Project Renderings .............................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 6 Key Views ............................................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 7 Key Views 1 and 2: Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 41
Figure 8 Key Views 3 and 4: Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 43
Figure 9 Key View 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 10 Key View 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 11 Key View 3 ........................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 12 Key View 4 ........................................................................................................................................... 51
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
15864 v FEBRUARY 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
15864 vi FEBRUARY 2024
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym or Abbreviation Definition
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Lake Elsinore
County County of Riverside
GSF Gross square feet
Interstate 15 I-15
Project Elsinore Heights Project
SF Square feet
GSF Gross square feet
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
15864 vii FEBRUARY 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 8 FEBRUARY 2024
1 Introduction
This report provides an analysis of potential impacts to views and visual resources associated with the proposed
Elsinore Heights Project (Project) located off Dexter Avenue in the City of Lake Elsinore, California.
This report provides an introduction, a project description, a summary of the pertinent visual resource regulations
and policies, the project setting, survey methods, an assessment of existing visual character and an assessment of
project implementation. The project impacts and avoidance and minimization measures are discussed in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and more specifically, aesthetics questions from
the Environmental Checklist Form contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
1.1 Project Location
The project is located in the central portion of City of Lake Elsinore (City) and more specifically, within the City’s
Business District and Lake Elsinore Hills District that are generally located north of Interstate 15 and in the vicinity
of Highway 74. See Figure 1, Location Map. The project site consists of approximately 61 acres covering three
parcels: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 377-110-045 (6.1 acres), 347-250-010 (22.9 acres), 347-250-011 (32 acres).
The western 29 acres of the project (APN 377-110-045 and377-250-010) are located within the Business District
and currently designated Business Professional and zoned Commercial Office. The eastern 32 acres of the Project
site (APN 347-250-011) are located within the Lake Elsinore Hills District and designated Hillside Residential. The
parcels are partially located at 18870 Camino Del Norte and 19085 Wason Canyon Road.
1.2 Visual Setting
The project contemplates the development of four (4) warehouse buildings, including one (1) 247, 980 square foot
building, one (1) 239,700 square foot building, one (1) 27,600 square foot building, and one (1) 39,780 square
foot building on 48.5 acres, as well as one (1) 5.1-acre parcel with the potential development of up to 61 attached
dwelling units at a density of 12 dwelling unit per net acre. The project site is mostly comprised of vacant, vegetated
lands that partially wrap around and encircle an existing, two -story warehouse style building located atop and
elevated pad at 29910 Ohana Circle that is accessible via Camino Del Norte (a two-lane frontage road that parallels
Interstate 15). A recent battery energy storage project consisting of two rows of lightly colored, rectangular, single-
story trailers on a cleared site surrounded by a chain-link fence occurs to the south of the existing warehouse and
north of Camino Del Norte.
The Project site is mostly undeveloped and vacant, however, there is an existing residential structure on APN 377 -
110-058, which will be demolished prior to grading. The Project site consists of generally hilly, low chaparral and
sage scrub shrub-vegetated terrain. The westerly portion of the Project site is bound by Ohana Circle on the south
and east, sloped terrain and an unnamed wash on the west (outdoor billboards supported by a tall, cylindrical pile
are located within the wash area), and Dexter Avenue on the north. Industrial designated lands are located west of
the referenced wash and a portion of the lands appear to be used for the storage of aged vehicles, truck trailers,
and shipping containers. The remainder of the Project site consists of residentially zoned,. undulating terrain
located to the east and northeast of the existing warehouse at 29910 Ohana Circle and the project terrain is crossed
by a series of informal trails. Moderate to steep sloped terrain is located to the east of the Project site and in
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 9 FEBRUARY 2024
addition to the referenced wash, the Elsinore Hills RV Park is located to the north of the Project site. Accessible
from 2nd Street, the concrete and dirt covered site includes full hook up RV sties and sites for RV storage as well as
amenities including laundry facilities, restroom and showers, swimming pool and jacuzzi, tennis courts and a fitness
center.
1.3 Project Description
The Project consists of the construction and operation of four industrial buildings and associated site improvements
and ancillary facilities, along with a residential parcel with the potential of developing 61 attached dwelling units
on the three parcels within the Project site. Specifically, the Project applicant is proposing the development of a
combined 555,060 gross floor area of industrial building area within four buildings (referred to as Industrial Building
1, 2, 3, and 4). Located in the southeast corner of the site, Industrial Building 1 would consist of 247,980 gross
square feet with 12,500 square feet reserved for two office/mezzanine spaces to be located in the northern corners
of the rectangular building. Building height would generally be 40 feet although the parapet would bring total height
to 50 feet. Building 1 would be surrounded by surface parking stalls on the west, north, and east (35 7 total stalls
would be provided) and on the south, 72 stalls would be provided for trailers (two drive in doors and 46 docks would
be located to the south and on the southern façade of Building 1) beyond a secured sliding gate.
Located to the north of Industrial Building 1, the Industrial Building 2 would consist of 239,700 gross square feet
with 12,500 square feet reserved for two office/mezzanine spaces to be located in the northern corners of the
rectangular building. Building height for Industrial Building 2 would be the same as for Industrial Building 1 (40 feet
to roofline, 50 feet to parapet) and surface parking stalls would surround the building on three sides (325 total
stalls would be provided). Two drive in doors and 35 docks would be located to the south and on the southern
façade of Building 2) beyond a secured sliding gate.
Industrial Buildings 3 and 4 are proposed on the westerly portion of the Project site, to the west and north of current
Ohana Drive. Located atop sloping terrain near the intersection of Camino Del Norte and Ohana Drive, Industrial
Building 3 would consist of 27,600 gross square feet with 1,500 square feet reserved for office space to be located
in the northeast corner of the building. Building height would 32 feet and 37 total parking stalls would be provided
for the building. Separated by parking stalls and interior access ways, Building 4 would be located to the
north/northeast of Building 3 (the buildings would be located on the same constructed building pad) and would
consist of 39,780 gross square feet of building space with 1,500 square feet reserved for office space. Sixty-eight
total parking stalls would be provided for the building and a five-foot high retaining walls would be constructed in
the northeast corner of the building pad, adjacent to a new access road that would be an extension of Dexter Avenue
that would link the roadway to Ohana Circle.
Lastly, the Project includes a 5.1-acre parcel with the potential to develop up to 61 attached dwelling units at a
density of 12 dwelling unit per net acre. While design plans for this component have not been prepared and no
approvals beyond site preparation (i.e., grading), and changes to General Plan land use designation and zoning are
currently being sought for the residential component, the introduction of attached dwelling unit residential uses is
qualitatively assessed in this report.
The Project’s site plan is included as Figure 2, Site Plan and Table 1, Project Components, below lists the primary
project components addressed in this report and summarizes development size and building height.
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 10 FEBRUARY 2024
Table 1. Project Components
Component Use Size (GSF) Height
Industrial Building 1 Light Industrial 247,980 40/50
Industrial Building 2 Light Industrial 239,700 40/50
Industrial Building 3 Light Industrial 27,600 32
Industrial Building 4 Light Industrial 39,780 32
Attached Dwelling Units (5.1
acre parcel)
Residential 61 units (12
dwelling
units/acre)
-1
1. As development plans have not been prepared for this component, specific design details including height of
structures is not known at this time.
Development of the Project site would also include implementation of a robust landscape plan that includes tree
and shrub planted slopes along the site boundaries, sedges, grasses, and rush within detention basins along the
site’s southern boundary (an additional planted detention is proposed in the northern portion of the Project site),
and tree plantings lining building exterior and within parking lot islands. Targeted tree species include honey locust
(24-inch box), coast live oak (15 gallon to 48-inch box), crepe myrtle (48-inch box), Brisbane box (15 gallon), Afghan
pine (15 gallon), western redbud (24-inch box), and Australian willow (15 gallon). The Project’s preliminary
landscape plan is presented on Figure 3, Preliminary Landscape Plan.
In order to facilitate the development, the Project applicant is requesting that the City rezone parcels 377-110-045,
347-250-010, and 347-250-011 from Commercial Office (CO), CO, and Rural Mountainous Residential (RMR),
respectively, to Limited Manufacturing (M-1) to accommodate proposed Industrial Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4.
While colors and materials incorporated into building materials may change during processing and the
preparation/finalization of construction documents, initial design includes building materials such as painted
cement panels (tan/beige coloring), spandrel and clear vision glass, mullions, metal canopies. Exterior project
materials are presented on Figure 4, Exterior Materials, and renderings of the Project are included on Figure 5,
Project Renderings. In regard to lighting and consistent with Section 17.112.040 of the City’s Municipal Code, site
lighting would be directed or shielded to prevent light from trespassing off the premises and onto adjacent
properties.
Lastly, construction of the project would take approximately 4 years to complete.
2 Regulatory Setting
2.1 Federal
There are no specific federal visual regulations that are applicable to the Project site or Project.
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 11 FEBRUARY 2024
2.2 State
California Scenic Highway System
Created by the Legislature in 1963, California's Scenic Highway Program is intended to preserve and protect scenic
highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The state
laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq.
The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic
highways or have been so designated. The status of a state scenic highway changes from eligible to officially
designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that
the highway has been designated as a State Scenic Highway.
Interstate 15 and Highway 74 are identified by Caltrans as Eligible State Scenic Highways (Caltrans 2023). However,
in order for a route to be designated as a State Scenic Highway, it must first be nominated for designation by the
County and/or City. Neither Interstate 15 nor Highway 74 have
not been nominated for designation by the County or City for State Scenic Highway status.
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on aesthetics. Specifically, Appendix G of
the CEQA Guidelines establishes issues/criteria that may be used to evaluate and determine the severity of project
impacts to aesthetics including the following:
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In nonurbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
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) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
2.3 Local
City of Lake Elsinore General Plan
Community Form Element
The Community Form Element of the General Plan contains the goals and policies focusing on (among other topics)
urban design and community character. Like many communities, the City strives for an orderly and attractive
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 12 FEBRUARY 2024
physical form and appearance (City of Lake Elsinore 2011). Relevant policies contained in the Community Form
Element that relate to aesthetics and more generally, development, are identified below.
• Policy 1.1: Promote innovative site design, and encourage the preservation of unique natural features,
such as steep slopes, watercourses, canyons, ridgelines, rock formations, and open space with
recreational opportunities.
• Policy 3.2: Encourage new commercial and/or industrial developments incorporate buffers which
minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility, or activity and vehicular traffic on residential uses and
MSHCP conservation areas.
Resource Protection and Preservation Element
This element of the General Plan addresses resource protection and preservation issues, related to biological
resources, open space, water resources, cultural and paleontological resources, and aesthetic resources within the
City and the Sphere of Influence. According to the City, local and regional scenic resources include the lake,
Cleveland National Forest, rugged hills, mountains, ridgelines, rocky outcroppings, streams, vacant land with native
vegetation, buildings of historical and cultural significance such as the cultural center, bathhouse and military
academy, parks, and trails (City of Lake Elsinore 2011). Further, the visual character of the City is dominated by the
lake and in the consideration of aesthetics, the General Plan is primarily focused on availability of view to the lake
from surrounding areas. Also, regarding light and glare, the General Plan notes that light and glare from existing
development is minimal. Light and glare during the day and night is created from various residential, commercial,
and industrial uses throughout the city. Examples of these sources include street lamps, accent and security lighting
on buildings, parking lot lighting, and vehicle headlights at night. Substantial sources of night lighting include the
existing ballpark and public parks. Sources of glare during the day result primarily from parked cars located in large
parking lots and from sunlight reflected off of window glazing on buildings (City of Lake Elsinore 2011).
Relevant policies contained in the Resource Protection and Preservation Element that relate to aesthetics and more
generally, development, are identified below.
• Policy 3.3: Development on steep slopes in public or private property shall require contour grading.
• 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.
• 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.
• Policy 13.3: Require grading plans for any hillside development to include specifications for revegetation
and new planting to minimize hillside scarring.
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
Chapter 17.112 contains select development standards for nonresidential uses including industrial. Standards for
lighting, landscaping, and fences and walls are established in Section 17.112.040, 117.112.060, and 17.112.070.
Since the landscaping regulations state that all required landscaping shall be installed prior to time of occupancy
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 13 FEBRUARY 2024
and utilize City compliant irrigation systems, the standards are not particular relevant to aesthetics and thus, are
not described further.
Lighting Regulations
Pursuant to Section 17.112.040, Lighting, of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, All outdoor lighting fixtures in
excess of 60 watts shall be oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing
through the luminaire and prevent any glare or direct illumination on adjacent properties or streets. Due to the City’s
proximity to the Mount Palomar Observatory, the use of low pressure sodium lighting shall be encouraged.
Lighting regulations are also provided in Chapter 17.148, Parking Requirements, and specifically, Section
17.148.110. Specifically, adequate and maintained parking lot lighting for security purposes is required to
effectively illuminate the parking area of all developments, except for single-family and duplex dwellings. Lighting
shall be located and designed so as to preclude the direct glare of light shining onto adjacent property, streets, or
into the sky above a horizontal plane passing through the luminaire.
3 Report Methods
Data regarding visual resources present on the Project site and surrounding area were obtained through desktop
review of the site through publicly accessible mapping applications including Google Maps and Google Earth, and
a photographic field survey. Regarding existing conditions, the characterization of the landscape setting is informed
by review of aerial imagery and by observations and photographs of the site gathered during the field survey .
3.1 Photographic Field Survey
A photographic field survey of the Project site and surrounding area was conducted in February. During the survey,
local conditions were sunny and clear with temperatures ranging from 60 degrees to 65 degrees. The purpose of
the field survey was to photo document existing visual conditions and views toward the Project site available from
public locations in the surrounding area. Specifically, an assortment of public viewpoints was identified via a
desktop-level survey prior to the field survey to focus efforts on publicly-accessible locations (e.g., roadways) from
which viewer groups in the area (e.g., motorists and recreationists) might experience Project site views. Field
photographs are incorporated into the Key View discussion (see Chapter 4, Key Views) to support the descriptive
narrative.
3.2 Visual Simulations
Visual simulations were prepared to demonstrate potential project visibility and to assess related visual effects to
existing views and visual character. The appearance of project elements shown in the photo-simulations is based
on the conceptual site plan and design models prepared by Ware Malcomb and the preliminary landscape plan
prepared by Colleen M. Nolan. The conceptual site plan and preliminary landscape plan are presented as Figures
2 and 3 to this report.
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 14 FEBRUARY 2024
3.3 Visual Analysis
3.3.1 Contrast Analysis
The construction and operation of the project would result in the contrast experienced by viewer groups in the
surrounding areas. For purposes of this report, the magnitude of contrast ranges from “None” to “High” and is
criteria is derived from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Visual Resource Contrast Rating system, as outlined
in BLM Manual H-8431 (BLM 1986). The level of contrast between the project and the existing landscape was
evaluated from the selected Key Views. This level of contrast determines the degree to which the project would
affect the intrinsic visual character and, in turn, the scenic quality of the landscape. While the BLM has no
jurisdiction over the project and the consideration of the Visual Resource Contrast Rating System is not required or
recommended by the City of Lake Elsinore, the system is widely accepted throughout the industry as an appropriate
and supported methodology for determining the severity of visual changes associated with a development proposal.
Table 2. Criteria for Degree of Contrast
Degree of Contrast Criteria
None The element contrast is not visible or perceived.
Weak The element contrast can be seen but does not attract
attention.
Moderate The element contrast begins to attract attention and
begins to dominate the characteristic landscape.
Strong The element contrast demands attention, cannot be
overlooked, and is dominant in the landscape.
Source: BLM 1986
3.3.2 Significance Determination Thresholds
As further detailed in Section 5, Impact Analysis, below, the Project is evaluated for potential impacts to aesthetics
(views and visual character) through the context of aesthetics questions from the Environmental Checklist Form
contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines that are as follows:
1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
2. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3. In nonurbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
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?
4. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 15 FEBRUARY 2024
4 Existing Conditions
4.1 Visual Character and Key Views
The visual character of the Project site and surrounding area was described generally in Section 1.2, Visual Setting.
Visual character of the Project site and quality of views to the Project site is further explored through the use of Key
Views, the location of which is presented on Figure 6, Key Views. These views are from representative public vantage
points in the surrounding area from which the Project site and surrounding lands are visible .
Four key views offering views to the project site from Interstate 15 and Camino Del Norte were selected for further
study and analysis. The key views are located to the northwest, west, and southwest and offer relatively clear views
to portions of the Project site from within foreground distances (i.e., within 0.5 mile or closer to the Project site).
Table 3, Key Views details the distance of Key View to the project site, viewer type and rationale for selection as a
key view and photosimulation vantage point.
Table 3. Key Views
Key View
Number
Name/Location Viewer Group
Approximate
Distance to
Project site
Rationale for Inclusion
1 Southbound
Interstate 15
Interstate motorist 600 feet Sensitive viewer group; visual
change in western portion of
Project site (site of Industrial
Building 3) would be apparent
from interstate due to
proximity to Project site and
lack of visual screening
2 Northbound
Camino Del Norte
near Ohana
Circle
Local road motorist 200 feet Sensitive viewer group; visual
change associated with
development of Industrial
Building 3 would be apparent
from road due to proximity to
Project site and lack of visual
screening
3 Northbound
Camino Del Norte
Local road motorist 600 feet Sensitive viewer group; visual
change associated with
development of Industrial
Buildings 1 and 2 would be
apparent from the road due to
proximity to site and lack of
visual screening
4 Northbound
Interstate 15
Interstate motorist 900 feet Sensitive viewer group; visual
change associated with
development of Industrial
Buildings 1 and 2 would be
apparent from the road due to
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 16 FEBRUARY 2024
Table 3. Key Views
Key View
Number
Name/Location Viewer Group
Approximate
Distance to
Project site
Rationale for Inclusion
proximity to site and lack of
visual screening
4.1.1 Key View 1
Located on the southbound travel lanes of Interstate 15, Key View 1 is situated approximately 600 feet to the
northwest of proposed Industrial Building 3) and looks across the interstate travel lanes towards the existing
industrial warehouse building off Ohana Circle and local and more distant hillsides to the south and southeast. In
the foreground and beyond the interstate, advertisement signage is presented on trailers and other structures
stored on a fenced site off Camino Del Norte. Beyond this site, a single billboard and a cluster of tall and mature
trees are visible, as are multiple electrical lines that parallel and run perpendicular to the interstate. A densely
vegetated yet relatively low slope rises towards the existing warehouse that appears to be two-stories in height with
tan and grayish colored concrete paneling and letter signage on its western façade. Site landscaping appears
minimal and consists primarily of tall queen palm trees clustered along the visible southern and northern site
boundary. Several recreational vehicles are parked within an unseen parking lot located atop an elevated pad near
the existing warehouse property’s southern boundary. A series of tall and mounded, prominent hills rise above the
foreground landscape and presents visual variety to and higher relief in the landscape.
A photograph from Key View 1 towards the Project site is included on Figure 7, Key Views 1 and 2.: Existing
Conditions.
4.1.2 Key View 2
Key View 2 is situated on Northbound Camino Del Norte near Ohana Circle and looks to the northeast towards a
rising slope dotted with scattered shrubs the top of which may have previously been graded and leveled. The slope
is traversed by unmaintained chain-link fencing that is falling down and in a state of disrepair. The dark green
foliage of several mature trees peek over the foreground slope. Ohana Circle extends east from Camino Del Norte
and provides access to an existing, unseen warehouse. Several streetlights are installed along Ohana Drive and
Camino Del Norte and a series of electrical and communication lines supported by tall wood poles are installed
along Camino Del Norte.
A photograph from Key View 2 towards the Project site (specifically, the site of Industrial Building 3) is included on
Figure 7, Key Views 1 and 2.: Existing Conditions.
4.1.3 Key Views 3 and 4
As Key Views 3 and 4 are located near one another, present a similar view to the Project site, and visible landscape
and built environment elements are similar, a singular view description is provided for the two locations. The
foreground landscape is initially flat, transitioning to an unseen ditch/creek, prior to comprising mounded, hilly
terrain. A relatively flat, cleared, and fenced site supporting a long metallic storage container, a single-story, flat
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 17 FEBRUARY 2024
exterior surface trailer, several rectangular storage containers, and various other structures occurs in the
foreground. The existing warehouse building is visible atop and elevated pad above the storage container site to
the northeast. Lastly, mounded and undulating, chapparal shrub covered terrain occurs to the northeast and a
single distribution line supported by wood poles crosses the undeveloped hills.
Photographs from Key Views 3 and 4 towards the Project site are included on Figure 8, Key Views 3 and 4.: Existing
Conditions.
4.2 Scenic Vistas
As previously stated in Section 2.3, local and regional scenic resources in the City of Lake Elsinore include the lake,
Cleveland National Forest, rugged hills, mountains, ridgelines, rocky outcroppings, streams, and vacant land with
native vegetation. In addition and according to the City General Plan, views of the lake, urban areas around the
lake, and the rugged vacant hills in the northern and eastern portions of the City comprise scenic vistas.
4.3 Scenic Highways
Interstate 15 and Highway 74 are identified by Caltrans as Eligible State Scenic Highways; however, neither
Interstate 15 nor Highway 74 have
been nominated for designation by the County or City for State Scenic Highway status. No roadways in the City of
Lake Elsinore have been formally designated as scenic.
4.4 Light and Glare
The Project site is mostly undeveloped and vacant and contains no sources of potential light and glare. In the
immediate surrounding area, street lights are installed along Ohana Drive, one streetlight is installed at the
northeast corner of Camino Del Norte and Ohana Circle, parking lot lighting is installed at the existing warehouse
off Ohana Circle, and the warehouse features exterior mounted wall pack lighting common of industrial
development. Located approximately 175 feet to the west of the Project site, Interstate 15 (and more specifically,
the headlights of motorists’ vehicles) is a source of regular light and glare during nighttime hours. A small, 5 building
industrial/business park development is located approximately 500 feet to the north of the Project site near the
pronounced curve on Camino Del Norte/2nd Street contains parking lot and wall pack lighting. Other sources of light
and glare in the surrounding area include commercial and industrial uses to the west of the site and west of
Interstate 15, residential development in Rosetta Hills (1.5 miles to the northeast of the Project s ite), a car
dealership and other retail uses include department and home improvement stores to the west and east of
Interstate 15 and off Highway 74 (approximately 2,000 feet away).
5 Analysis
The purpose of Chapter 5 is to describe the anticipated contrast associated with implementation of the project and
to evaluate the project against the City’s CEQA Significance Determinations which are described in this section.
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 18 FEBRUARY 2024
5.1 Project and Key View Contrast Analysis
Visual contrast related to existing visual resources was determined through an evaluation of photo-simulations and
the visual change and contrast with the existing landscape that would result from the construction and operation
of the project. The contrast analysis for the four key views is provided below in Table 4, Visual Contrast by Key View
and visual simulations of development as experienced from the four key views are presented on Figures 9, 10, 11,
and 12. It should be noted that due to the proposed height of industrial buildings and the lower elevation
relationship between building pads for Industrial Buildings 1 and 2 and the future building pad for attached dwelling
units in the northern portion of the Project site, potential future residential dwelling units on the Project site would
not be visible from Key Views 1, 2, 3, and 4. More generally, the 5.1-acre parcel on which attached dwelling units
may be developed has little to no visibility from local public roads or other public vantage points in the Project area.
Table 4. Visual Contrast by Key View
Key View
Primary Project Element Visible
Level of Contrast
Contrast Analysis
1 Industrial Building 3
Moderate
Level of contrast would be moderate.
Views of the Project (specifically, Industrial Building
3) from this Key View would be mostly unblocked
with the exception of an existing billboard. The light
exterior color and boxy form of the building would
be similar to that of the existing warehouse off
Ohana Circle; however, due to closer proximity to
Interstate 15, the scale of the proposed building
would appear greater. Further, Industrial Building 3
would be partially skylined (i.e., would extend
above the undulating line of background
ridgelines) and would temporarily block
background terrain. See Figure 9. Skylining and
blockage of terrain in views would attract the
attention of motorists and their passengers at Key
View 1.
From this key view, new slope plantings would be
less dense than existing shrub vegetation and the
installation of orderly trees would visibly contrast
with the clustering of existing trees to the north of
the Project site. Tree plantings would; however, be
compatible with the installation of trees at the
existing warehouse facility in the view.
2 Industrial Building 3
Weak-moderate
Level of contrast would be weak-moderate
Despite the proximity between Key View 2 and the
Project site (specifically, the sites for Industrial
Buildings 3 and 4), resulting contrast associated
with development of the vacant sites with 32 foot
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 19 FEBRUARY 2024
Table 4. Visual Contrast by Key View
Key View
Primary Project Element Visible
Level of Contrast
Contrast Analysis
high industrial buildings would be weak-moderate.
See Figure 10. The introduction of boxy, lightly
colored forms to the sites would introduce mass
and scale where none currently occurs in the view.
While the degree of visual change between existing
and future conditions would be high as
experienced from Key View 2, overall contrast
would be moderated by the presence of a similarly
scaled industrial warehouse located to the
southeast of Key View 2. Specifically, northbound
Camino Del Norte motorists would experience the
existing warehouse in the landscape prior to
viewing proposed Industrial Buildings 3 and 4 and
as such, landscape contrasts and effects would be
tempered. Despite the introduction of building
mass and scale and a varied planting palette that
would bring a variety of color to slopes that are
currently dotted with drab colored plantings,
proposed buildings would present a familiar,
orderly appearance and would improve the existing
distressed character of the site that is typified by
scattered plantings and a dilapidated chain-link
fence.
3 Industrial Building 1
Moderate
Level of contrast would be moderate.
As experienced from Key View 3, seemingly distant
yet relatively clear views to the long, west façade of
Industrial Building 1 and nearby grading and
landscaping would be available to passing
motorists on Camino Del Norte. See Figure 11.
Alteration (i.e., removal) of existing onsite
mounded hills would also be apparent and
following construction, the Project site terrain
would appear less visually interesting and
generally, flat as opposed to mounded and hilly. As
proposed, the long, rectangular form of Industrial
Building 3 would rise from the flattened site and
would present a similar general form and mass as
the existing warehouse visible in the Key View 3
view. As a result, overall contrasts associated with
site development would be softened due to the
presence of existing warehouse development in
the landscape and the new building would be
somewhat softened by the installation of slope and
site parking lot landscaping.
4 Industrial Buildings 1 and 3
Moderate
Level of contrast would be moderate and generally,
similar to that as described above for Key View 3.
However, as experienced from Key View 4 that is
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 20 FEBRUARY 2024
Table 4. Visual Contrast by Key View
Key View
Primary Project Element Visible
Level of Contrast
Contrast Analysis
situated at a slightly lower elevation than nearby
Key View 3 on Camino Del Norte, the building pad
for Industrial Building 1 would appear higher and
steeper. See Figure 12. As a result, the Industrial
Building 1 site would visually appear to rise over
the nearby existing warehouse. Still, the form,
mass, and color of proposed buildings would
appear somewhat similar to that of the existing
warehouse (Industrial Building 1 would be
longer/larger than the existing warehouse) and
overall contrasts would be softened. The new
industrial buildings would be mostly compatible
with the existing warehouse and character of
visible development in the landscape; however,
terrain contrasts would be difficult to overlook and
thus, overall contrasts would remain moderate.
5.2 CEQA Significance Determinations Analysis
1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
While the City’s General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report do not identify specific non -lake
orientated vantage points or vistas, the General Plan does describe select available views in the City (including
views of rugged vacant hills in the northern and eastern portions of the City) as scenic vistas. As the area
surrounding the Project site include rugged vacant hills, mountains, and ridgelines (these features are located to
the east of the Project site), the potential for development of the Project site with four buildings ranging in heights
from 32 feet to approximately 50 feet (i.e., to parapet on Industrial Buildings 1 and 2) to adversely affect views to
area rugged vacant hills, mountains, and ridgelines from is evaluated below. Specifically and based on orientation
to local mountainous terrain, effects to views to area hills, mountains, and ridgelines is evaluated from southbound
Interstate 15 near the Project site.
An existing view from southbound Interstate 15 towards the Project site and existing warehouse located off Ohana
Circle is presented on Figure 7. As shown in the existing conditions photograph, southeasterly oriented views to the
undulating ridgelines of rugged hill and mountain terrain are available from the interstate but due the presence of
two billboards and electrical lines and support poles, ridgelines are regularly interrupted. It should be noted that as
experienced from southbound Interstate 15, the mature trees visible to the east of Interstate 15 and visible in the
foreground of Figure 7 effectively block the Project site (specifically, the westerly portion on which Industrial
Buildings 3 and 4 are proposed ) from view along the segment of the interstate to the north of Key View 1. Based
on review of aerial and street view imagery, and as informed by observations from the February site visit, the
westerly portion of the Project site is within the viewshed of southbound Interstate 15 for a distance of
approximately 0.21 mile (1,130 feet). Assuming travel at prevailing interstate speeds of 70 miles per hour, the
westerly portion of the Project site is within view of southbound motorists for approximately 11 seconds.
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 21 FEBRUARY 2024
A visual simulation of the Project as experience from southbound Interstate 15 near the Project site is presented
on Figure 9. Key View 1 is located approximately 600 feet to the north of the Project site and while located on the
interstate shoulder, is representative of views from the southbound travel lanes of the interstate to the Project site.
As proposed and shown in the visual simulation, Industrial Buildings 3 and 4 (and related site work and landscaping)
would be clearly visible from Key View 1 and due to proximity, views to the northern and western façades of
Industrial Building 3 would mostly uninterrupted (with the exception of an existing billboard that partially blocks a
portion of the north façade from view). Once constructed, Industrial Building 3 (approximate height of 32 feet) would
block background ridgelines from view and views to distant terrain to the southeast would replaced with views of
new industrial buildings located in the foreground of the interstate. As experienced from southbound Interstate 15,
distant ridgelines, and hilly and mountainous terrain to the southeast of the Project site would be partially blocked
by Industrial Building 3, however, the duration of ridgeline view block would be brief (lasting approximately 11
seconds) and upon passing the westerly portion of the site and Ohana Circle, ridgeline views would be available to
interstate motorists. Along with the existing warehouse off Ohana Circle, Industrial Buildings 1 and 2 would be within
the viewshed of southbound Interstate 15 motorists; however and as shown on Figure 2, Site Plan, Industrial
Building 1 and related site work would be pulled further back from Camino Del Norte (and Interstate 15) than
Industrial Building 3 and would not substantially affect views to distant mountainous terrain and ridgelines to the
southeast.
As with blockage of views to area ridgelines anticipated at Key View 1, blockage of higher elevation terrain due to
development of Industrial Buildings 1 and 2 (maximum height of 50 feet as measured to building parapet) would
be experienced briefly and new development would quickly be outside of the normal viewshed/view angle from
southbound Interstate 15 motorists. Industrial Buildings 3 and 4 would also be visible from northbound Camino Del
Norte and Interstate 15; but as shown on Figure 11, Key View 3: Northbound Camino Del Norte, and Figure 12, Key
View 4: Northbound Interstate 15, visible terrain is limited to lower, mounded hills as opposed to higher elevation
mountains and prominent ridgelines. As shown on Figures 11 and 12, site development associated with Industrial
Buildings 3 and 4 would alter and remove existing mounded terrain on the Project site; however, as the terrain is
of a comparatively lower elevation relative to higher terrain to the south and southeast, propos ed removal would
not result in a substantial adverse effect to a scenic vista. Rather, impacts would be less than significant as
proposed development would not block or interrupt existing available views to local or regional mountains or higher
elevation ridgelines.
As previously detailed in Section 5.1 above, due to the proposed height of industrial buildings and the lower
elevation relationship between building pads for Industrial Buildings 1 and 2 and the future building pad for
attached dwelling units in the northern portion of the Project site, potential future residential dwelling units on the
Project site would not be visible from Interstate 15. The 5.1-acre parcel on which attached dwelling units may be
developed has little to no visibility from local public roads or other public vantage points in the Project area and
while the form and scale of future attached dwelling units is not known at this time, the relatively flat terrain of the
5.1 acre parcel and proposed density of residential uses (i.e., 12 dwelling units/acre) suggests that residential
structures would not block or substantially interrupt available views from Dexter Avenue to local rugged vacant hills
in the area. As such, scenic vista impacts associated with future development of attached dwelling units would be
less than significant.
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 22 FEBRUARY 2024
2. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
While Interstate 15 and Highway 74 are identified by Caltrans as Eligible State Scenic Highways, neither has been
nominated for designation by the County or City for State Scenic Highway status. Also, the City has not designated
any local roads within its boundary or sphere of influence as scenic.
Development of the Project site as proposed would not remove or otherwise impact historic buildings (none are
located on site) and prominent rock outcroppings do not occur on site. While areas of the Project site support dense
chapparal vegetation, the distribution of onsite trees is limited and trees are not apparent as viewed from public
roads and other vantage points in the surrounding area. Industrial building sites encompass lower elevation slopes
and hills located in the central portion of the City and are visible from Interstate 15 (views of local hills and
mountains are also available from the interstate). As discussed in the General Plan Resource Protection and
Preservation Element, local and scenic resources in the City include rugged hills, mountains, and ridgelines and
while implementation of the Project and development of industrial buildings would alter the quality and character
of views to area hills and mountains as experienced from mobile vantage points on southbound Interstate 15 (see
Figure 9 for an example of temporary blockage of hills and mountain terrain and ridgelines due to presence of
proposed Industrial Building 3), physical damage to scenic resources would be less than significant. As presented
in Figures 11 and 12, development of Industrial Buildings 1 and 2 would be located on and require
modification/removal of lower, undulating terrain to accommodate building pads and buildings. While alteration of
terrain would be noticeable and alter existing visual character, prominent rugged terrain and ridgelines and other
local scenic resources would not be impacted. Therefore, impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway
would be less than significant.
As previously described, potential future residential dwelling units on the Project site would not be visible from
Interstate 15 and therefore, no impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur as result of
development of this component of the Project.
3. In nonurbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
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?
Pursuant to the definition of an “urbanized area” as established Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21071, the
Project site is located in an urbanized area. According to PRC Section 21071(a)(1), an urbanized area is an
incorporated City with a population of at least 100,000 persons or, if the primary City has a population of less than
100,000 persons, an incorporated city that combined with the population of not more than two contiguous
incorporated cities equals at least 100,000 persons. According to the California Department of Finance, Lake
Elsinore had an approximate population of 71,973 persons in 2023 and adjacent Murrieta had an approximate
population of 109,998 persons (California Department of Finance 2023).
Section 15387 of the CEQA Guidelines also defines an urbanized area as a “central city or a group of contiguous
cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population
density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile” (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15387). As
stated above and according to the State Department of Finance, Lake Elsinore had an approximate population of
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 23 FEBRUARY 2024
71,973 persons in 2023 and according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Lake Elsinore has a population per square mile
of 1,837 persons in 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau 2022).
By virtue of being located in an urbanized area, the Project is assessed against the second of the two thresholds
listed above (i.e., would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality).
Table 5, Consistency Analysis, present an evaluation of the Project against applicable aesthetics-related policies
from the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. As demonstrated in Table 5, below, the Project as proposed would
be consistent with all identified policies related to aesthetics and visual resources and therefore, substantial
conflicts with City regulations and policies are not anticipated. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Table 5. Consistency Analysis
General Plan Community Form Element
Policy 1.1: Promote innovative site design, and encourage
the preservation of unique natural features, such as steep
slopes, watercourses, canyons, ridgelines, rock formations,
and open space with recreational opportunities.
Consistent. According to Figure 3.3-8, Percent
Slope, of the City General Plan, most slopes
within the boundaries of the Project site are
between 0 and 25 percent. Portions of
Industrial Building 1 and 2 sites appear to have
slopes in the 25% and greater range.
Development of the Project would avoid grading
and other modifications to steep slopes to the
extent feasible and would avoid impacts to
canyons, significant rock formations, and open
space with recreational opportunities.
Policy 3.2: Encourage new commercial and/or industrial
developments to incorporate buffers which minimize the
impacts of noise, light, visibility, or activity and vehicular
traffic on residential uses and MSHCP conservation areas.
Consistent. As shown on Figure 2, Industrial
Buildings 4 and 2 would be located atop
elevated building pads that would be within view
of residences at nearby Elsinore Hills RV Park.
The proposed buildings would be 32 feet and up
to 50 feet, respectively in height and located
upslope of the RV Park. To aid in the partial
screening of new buildings as viewed from the
RV Park, the constructed slopes located along
the northern development site boundary would
be densely planted with trees ranging from 15
gallon to 48-inch box size. See Figure 3. While
the entirety of new buildings would not be fully
screened, views to new building exteriors would
be reduced to the extent feasible.
Potential future attached dwelling units in the
northern portion of the Project site may also be
visible from the Elsinore Hills RV Park; however,
Policy 3.2 is specifically applicable to new
commercial and industrial development. Thus,
the policy is not applicable to the Project’s
residential component.
General Plan Resource Protection and Preservation Element
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 24 FEBRUARY 2024
Table 5. Consistency Analysis
General Plan Community Form Element
Policy 3.3: Development on steep slopes in public or private
property shall require contour grading.
Consistent. Portions of Industrial Building 1 and
2 sites appear to have steeper slopes in the
25% and greater range; however, these steeper
slopes occur behind the industrial buildings and
associated convention slope grading would be
screened from public view. Development of the
Project would avoid grading and other
modifications to steep slopes and would
incorporate contour grading to the extent
feasible.
The 5.1-acre parcel in the northern portion of
the Project site on which attached dwelling units
may be developed in the future encompasses
relatively flat terrain.
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. While trees are located on site
(primarily in the western and northern portions
of the site) and would not be
retained/maintained, removed trees would be
replaced with extensive landscaping (including
trees) that would achieve a new increase in the
number of onsite trees. See Figure 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. Ridgeline view blockage resulting
from development of proposed industrial
buildings on the Project site would occur ;
however, occurrences of ridgeline blockage
would be limited, duration of view blockage
would be brief, and development would not
physical alter or modify significant ridgelines.
No blockage of ridgelines in public views
available in the surrounding area would occur
as a result of potential future development of
residential uses on the Project site.
Policy 13.3: Require grading plans for any hillside
development to include specifications for revegetation and
new planting to minimize hillside scarring.
Consistent. As demonstrated in Figure 3, a
robust preliminary landscape plan has been
prepared and is partially intended to reduce
overall visibility of grading and newly
constructed slopes along the Project site’s
proposed development boundary. A steep wall is
proposed to the southwest of Industrial Building
1 (see Figure 2) and would be partially screened
by proposed shrubs and trees.
Municipal Code
Section 17.112.040, Lighting. All outdoor lighting fixtures in
excess of 60 watts shall be oriented and shielded to prevent
direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing
Consistent. Site lighting would be directed
downward and shielded so as to avoid
unnecessary illumination of the night sky and
minimize potential for significant light trespass
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 25 FEBRUARY 2024
Table 5. Consistency Analysis
General Plan Community Form Element
through the luminaire and prevent any glare or direct
illumination on adjacent properties or streets.
Section 17.148.110, Lighting (Parking Requirements).
Adequate parking lot lighting for security purposes shall be
required and maintained to effectively illuminate the parking
area of all developments, except for single-family and duplex
dwellings. Lighting shall be located and designed so as to
preclude the direct glare of light shining onto adjacent
property, streets, or into the sky above a horizontal plane
passing through the luminaire.
onto adjacent properties, Consistency with
Section 17.112.040 and use of shields on
exterior lighting fixtures would also minimize
potential to adjacent properties to receive or
experience nuisance glare from site lighting
sources.
Parking lot lighting across the site would be
selected and designed to preclude the direct
glare of light shining onto adjacent property,
streets, or into the sky above a horizontal plane
passing through the luminaire.
4. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Because the Project would develop a currently mostly undeveloped, vacant site with industrial buildings, surface
parking, and other site improvements, implementation of the Project would create new sources of light and glare.
The Project also includes a 5.1-acre parcel with the potential to develop up to 61 attached dwelling units at a density
of 12 dwelling unit per net acre (design plans for this component have not yet been prepared). While specific lighting
plans have not been prepared for the Project, light and glare sources for industrial buildings would be similar to
those associated with the existing adjacent warehouse located off Ohana Circle. Light and glare sources on the 5.1-
acre parcel identified for residential development would be typical of attached dwelling unit neighborhood and
would include streetlights, pathway lighting, common area lighting, and parking lot lighting (if included).For the
industrial buildings, site development would likely see the installation of streetlight along extended Ohana Circle
and Dexter Avenue (and interior access driveways), parking lot lighting, wall packs on building exteriors, pathway
lighting and lighting near building office and mezzanine spaces. Because the Project site is located near the Elsinore
RV Hills Park and Interstate 15 (additional residences in the Rosetta Hills development are located approximately
1.5 miles away), Project site lighting could create lighting and/or glare disturbances for nearby residents and
motorists.
While site development would result in the installation of light and glare on a mostly undeveloped site adjacent to
a large swath of undeveloped terrain on the east, site lighting would not be excessive. Rather, appropriate
illumination of internal streets and uses would be provided and consistent with Section 17.112.040, Lighting, of
the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, all site lighting would be directed downward and shielded so as to avoid
unnecessary illumination of the night sky and minimize potential for significant light trespass onto adjacent
properties, Consistency with Section 17.112.040 and use of shields on exterior lighting fixtures would also minimize
potential to adjacent properties to receive or experience nuisance glare from site lighting sources. Lastly and
consistent with Section 17.148.110 of the City’s Municipal Code, parking lot lighting across the site would be
selected and designed to preclude the “direct glare of light shining onto adjacent property, streets, or into the sky
above a horizontal plane passing through the luminaire.” Lastly and based on the inclusion of shields, downward
direction of lighting, and avoidance of excessive lighting, site lighting would not adversely affect nighttime views
and operations at Mount Palomar Observatory. As site lighting would be designed and installed in accordance with
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 26 FEBRUARY 2024
Section 17.112.040 and Section 17.0148.110 of the City’s Municipal Code, and for the industrial building sites,
through the installation of appropriate illumination (as opposed to excessive illumination of site surfaces) of similar
nature as the adjacent existing warehouse off Ohana Circle, the Project would not create a new source of substantial
light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, Impacts would be less than significant.
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
6 References Cited
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1986. Manual 8431 – Visual Resource Contrast Rating. January.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2024. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed
February 2024. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-
livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
California Department of Finance. 2024. Estimates E-1: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State – January 1, 2022 and 2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-
e1/. Accessed February 26, 2024.
City of Lake Elsinore. 2011. General Plan. December.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. QuickFacts, City of Lake Elsinore, California (estimates as of July 1, 2022).
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lakeelsinorecitycalifornia/PST045222. Accessed
February 28, 2024.
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 28 FEBRUARY 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Location
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
SOURCE: County of Riverside 2024; Bing MapsDate: 2/26/2024 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Visual\Figure1-ProjectLocation.mxd01,000500Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
Temecula
BlytheMurrieta
Indian WellsLake Elsinore
Hemet
IndioRancho MiragePerris
Cathedral CityBeaumont
San
Bernardino
County
San Diego
County
Imperial
County
Mexico Arizona
66
395
95
243
18
71
57
247
74
94
91
39
241
54
125
206
195
56
330
78
173
115
67
60
2
177
58
38
76 79
138
98
86
111
805
5
215
10
15
8
40
405
210
15
Project Site
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 30 FEBRUARY 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
46'150'MIN5
0
'
T
Y
P
.
3
2
0
'710'58'TYP.60'TYP.290'812'
17
4
'150'±129'-8"±137'-2"6
0
'
T
Y
P
.
EXISTING
BUILDING
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 4
FOOTPRINT: ± 38,280 SF
MEZZ: 1,500 SF
GFA: ±39,780 SF
CLR. HGT: 32'
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 3
FOOTPRINT: ±26,100
MEZZ: 1,500 SF
GFA: ±27,600 SF
CLR. HGT: 32'
TUBULAR
STEEL
FENCING
TUBULAR
STEEL
FENCING
EASEMENT
TYP.
5' HIGH
RETAINING
WALL
1
7
4
'220'5' HIGH
RETAINING
WALL
REMAINDER
LOT 5 LOT DLOT E
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT A
LOT B
LOT 2
LOT C
LOT 1
LOT F
65'65'50'58'
TYP
58'50'50'58'50'58'
58' 26'TYP.1
3
0
'
±44'-5"
±
1
3
3
'
-
9
"
±192'-8"±69'-6"±42'-8"185'150'
MIN
26' 26'
TYP.
46'
±225'-1"
±282'-11"335'68'
48
'
30'
48'
24'
24'
20'-1"40'20'
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
2
6
'
TY
P
26'TYP±1
1
5
'
-
9
"
5
8
'
5
8
'
5
8
'70'70'30'80'C
AM
D
E
L
N
O
R
T
E
T
EM
E
C
U
L
A
V
A
L
L
E
Y
FW
Y
D
E
X
T
E
R
A
V
E
.
DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN
DETENTION BASIN
DETENTION BASIN
DETENTION
BASIN
DETENTION
BASIN
DETENTION
BASIN
OFFICE/
MEZZ
±6,25
0
SF OFFICE/MEZZ
±6,25
0 SFINDUSTRIAL BL
D
G 2FOOTP
RI
NT: ± 227,20
0
MEZZ: ± 12,500 SFTOTAL: ± 239,700 SFCLR. HGT: 40'PARAPET HGT: 50'
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 1
FOOTPRINT: ±235,480 SF
MEZZ: 12,500 SF
TOTAL: 247,980 SF
CLR. HGT: 40'
PARAPET HGT: 50'
OFFICE/MEZZ
±6,250 SF OFFICE/MEZZ
±6,250 SF
OFFICE\ MEZZ
OFFICE
\MEZZ2ND STYARD
11'-2
"BLDGSE
TBACK
10' HIGH
RETAININGWALL
BRIDGE
EMERGENCY FIRE
ACCESS GATE ONLY
24' FIRE LANE
24' FIRE LANE
24' FIRE LANE
SITE PLANA0.5
SITE PLAN N
SITE PLAN NOTES
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO.:
PA / PM:REMARKSDATEDATEREMARKSnew jerseychicagodenversacramentosan diegolos angelesirvinenorthern californiainteriorsplanningarchitecturep 949.660.9128 f 949.863.1581irvine. california 9261810 edelmangraphicsELSINORE HEIGHTSDEXTER AVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CALAKE ELSINORESite Plan
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
FIGURE 2Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\VisualSOURCE: Ware Malcomb 2023
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 32 FEBRUARY 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
LOT 5 LOT D
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT A
LOT 2
LOT C
LOT 1
C
AM
D
E
L
N
O
R
T
E
TEM
E
C
U
L
A
V
A
L
L
E
Y
FW
Y
DE
X
T
E
R
A
V
E
.
DETENTIONBASIN
DETENTION
BASIN
DETENTIONBASIN
DETENTIONBASIN
DETENTIONBASIN
DETENTIONBASIN
OFFICE/
MEZZ
INDUSTRI
AL BL
D
G 2
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 1
OFFICE/MEZZ OFFICE/MEZZ
±6,250 SF
OFFICE
\ MEZZ
OFFICE
\MEZZ2ND STYARD
EXISTINGBUILDINGNOT APART
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 3
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 4
OFFICE/
MEZZ
BRIDGE
EMERGENCY FIRE
ACCESS GATEONLY
EASEMENT TYP.10' HIGHRETAINING WALL
5' HIGHRETAINING WALL
FIRE LANE
5' HIGHRETAINING WALL
TUBULARSTEEL FENCE
TUBULARSTEEL FENCE2ND ST(NOT A PART)(NOT A P
ART)
FICUS REPENS /
CREEPING FIG
5 GAL /
PER PLAN
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WULCOLS
PROPOSED SHRUBS
1 GAL /36" O.C.
5 GAL /36" O.C.
1 GAL /30" O.C.
ALYOGYNE HUEGELII /BLUE HIBISCUS
BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA /DESERT MARIGOLD
CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYLLA /FAIRY DUSTER
ENCELIA CALIFORNIA /CALIFORNIA ENCELIA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA /RED/YELLOW YUCCA
AGAVE ATTENUATA /FOXTAIL AGAVE
LEUCOPHYLLUM F. 'GREEN CLOUD' /GREEN CLOUD TEXAS RANGER
SALVIA GREGII 'FURHMAN'S RED' /FURHMANS RED SAGE
CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' /DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH 1 GAL /36" O.C.
1 GAL /36" O.C.
1 GAL /36" O.C.
1 GAL /36" O.C.
1 GAL /36" O.C.
1 GAL /30" O.C.
1 GAL /36" O.C.
1 GAL /36" O.C.
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS
PROPOSED TREES
PRELIMINARY PLANTING LEGEND
GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS /
HONEY LOCUST
24" BOXSTANDARD
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA /
COAST LIVE OAK 36" BOX48" BOX
LAGERSTROEMIA I. 'NATCHEZ' /
CREPE MYRTLE
48" BOXSTANDARD(DECIDUOUS)
TRISTANIA CONFERTA /
BRISBANE BOX
15 GALSTANDARD
(EVERGREEN)
(EVERGREEN)
(EVERGREEN)
SOUTH INLANDVALLEY
REGION 4
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS /SILVERBERRY 5 GAL /36" O.C.
15 GAL
STANDARD
PINUS ELDARICA /
AFGHAN PINE
LOW15 GALSTANDARD
PHORMIUM T. 'SURFER' /SURFER NEW ZEALAND FLAX
DIETES VEGETA /FORTNIGHT LILY
ROSMARINUS O. 'PROSTRATUS' /
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY 1 GAL /30" O.C.
ROSA X 'FLOWERING CARPET' /
FLOWERING CARPET ROSE - PINK 1 GAL /30" O.C.
LOW
LOW
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM /MYOPORUM 1 GAL /
36" O.C.
LANTANA CAMARA /COMMON LANTANA 5 GAL /
36" O.C.
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
PLATANUS A 'BLOODGOOD' /
BLOODGOOD PLANE TREE
LOW15 GAL24" BOX
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS /
WESTERN REDBUD
GEIJERA PARVIFLORA /
AUSTRALIAN WILLOW
(CONIFER)
(DECIDUOUS)
(DECIDUOUS)
(EVERGREEN)
STANDARD
24" BOXSTANDARD LOW
15 GALSTANDARD LOW
CAREX PRAEGRACILIS /
CALIFORNIA FIELD SEDGE
1 GAL /
36" O.C.
MOD
DESCHAMPSIA CAESPITOSA /
TUFTED HAIRGRASS
1 GAL /
36" O.C.
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS /
DEER GRASS
1 GAL /
36" O.C.
JUNCUS PATENS /
CALIFORNIA GREY RUSH
1 GAL /
36" O.C.
MOD
MOD
MOD
PROPOSED BASIN PLANTING
SOUTH INLANDVALLEY
REGION 4
CISTUS PURPUREUS /ORCHID ROCKROSE 5 GAL /36" O.C.
BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' /CENTENNIAL BACCHARIS
CAESALPINEA MEXICANA /MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADISE
1 GAL /36" O.C.
5 GAL /36" O.C.
1 GAL /36" O.C.PHORMIUM T. PURPUREUM /NEW ZEALAND FLAX
ROSMARINUS O. 'PROSTRATUS' /PROSTRATE ROSEMARY 1 GAL /
30" O.C.LOW
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM /MYOPORUM 1 GAL /
36" O.C.LOW
LOW
LOWLOW
LOW
LOW
PENNISETUM ALOEPECUROIDES /
BLACK PENNISETUM
1 GAL /
42" O.C.
LOW
SALVIA LEUCANTHA /MEXICAN BUSH SAGE 1 GAL /42" O.C.LOW
LANTANA 'DWARF YELLOW' /
DWARF YELLOW LANTANA
1 GAL /
30" O.C.
LOW
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS /
PINK MUHLY
1 GAL /
36" O.C.
AGAVE DESMETTIANA /
DWARF AGAVE
1 GAL /42" O.C.LOW
LOW
PROPOSED SLOPE PLANTING
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 729 SPACES
TREE REQUIREMENT: 1 TREE FOR EVERY 10 PARKING SPACESTREE REQUIREMENT: 10 TREES / 729 SPACES = 73 TREES
TREES PROVIDED WITHIN THE PARKING AREA: 206 TREES
LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS
LANDSCAPE AREA PROVIDED: 143,293 SF
TOTAL SITE AREA: 2,417,707 SF
827,649 SF / 2,417,707 = 34.2%
143,293 SF OF PLANTING WITHIN THE PARKING AREA289,789 SF OF PARKING LOT AREA
143,293 SF / 289,789 SF = 49% LANDSCAPE WITHIN PARKING AREA
LANDSCAPE AREA - DETENTION BASIN: 272,078 SF
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 827,649 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA - SLOPES: 412,278 SF
LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITHA DRIP SYSTEM AND A SMART CONTROLLER.
PROPOSED IRRIGATION SHALL BE UTILIZING DRIP IRRIGATIONFOR SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING AREAS. EACH
TREE SHALL RECEIVE TWO TREE BUBBLERS FOR SUPPLIMENTAL
LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION
WATERING DURING ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD.
PROPOSED ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE SCREENED
WITH WITH PLANT MATERIAL - EITHER VINES ON WALLS, ORAPPROPRIATE HEDGES.
PAGE
2024.02.12
IRV23-0133-00Preliminary Landscape Plan
Vectra Capital Lake Elsinore
Dexter Ave, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
L1.1
SCALE: 1"=200'-0"
0 200 400 600
(Date)
(Signature)
Lic. #5439Colleen M. Nolan
02.12.2024Colleen M. Nolan
Landscape Architect, #5439
13355 Silverado Court, Corona 92883cnolan@cox.net
714.743.7915 cell
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS /WESTERN REDBUD
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA /CREPE MYRTLE
PINUS ELDARICA /
AFGHAN PINE
TRISTANIA CONFERTA /BRISBANE BOX
PLATANUS A. 'BLOODGOOD' /BLOODGOOD PLANE TREE
GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS /
HONEY LOCUST
QUERCUS ACERFOLIA /
COAST LIVE OAK
GEIJERA PARVIFLORA /
AUSTRALIAN WILLOW
Preliminary Landscape Plan
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
FIGURE 3Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\VisualSOURCE: Colleen M. Nolan 2024
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 34 FEBRUARY 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 2023
Exterior Materials
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
FIGURE 4Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Visual
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 36 FEBRUARY 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 2023SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 2023
Project Renderings
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
FIGURE 5Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Visual
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
Key Views
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
SOURCE: County of Riverside 2024; Bing MapsDate: 2/26/2024 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Visual\Figure4-KeyViews.mxd0 500250Feet
Project Boundary
Key Views
FIGURE 6
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
Key Views 1 and 2: Existing Conditions
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
FIGURE 7Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\VisualKOP 1: Existing view from Interstate 15 towards Project site and existing warehouse
KOP 2: Existing view from Camino Del Norte towards Ohana Circle
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
Key Views 3 and 4: Existing Conditions
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
FIGURE 8Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\VisualKOP 3: Existing view from Camino Del Norte towards Project site (Industrial Building 1 site) and existing warehouse
KOP 4: Existing view from Interstate 15 towards Project site (Industrial Building 1 and 3 sites) and existing warehouse
and battery energy storage facility
VISUAL REPORT FOR THE ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
Key View 1: Southbound Interstate 15
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
FIGURE 9Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\VisualExisting Conditions
Visual Simulation of Project
VISUAL REPORT - ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 46 FEBRUARY 2024
Key View 2: Northbound Camino Del Norte near Ohana Circle
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
FIGURE 10Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\VisualExisting Conditions
Visual Simulation of Project
VISUAL REPORT - ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 48 FEBRUARY 2024
Key View 3: Northbound Camino Del Norte
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
FIGURE 11Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\VisualExisting Conditions
Visual Simulation of Project
VISUAL REPORT - ELSINORE HEIGHTS PROJECT
14471 50 FEBRUARY 2024
Key View 4: Northbound Interstate 15
Visual Report - Elsinore Heights Project
FIGURE 12Path: Z:\Projects\j1586401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\VisualExisting Conditions
Visual Simulation of Project