HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-278 Commercial Design Review No. 2014-01CITY OF
LADE LSMORE
DREAM EXTREME.
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor
And Members of the City Council
FROM: Grant Yates
City Manager
DATE: September 9, 2014
PROJECT: Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 - A request by California
Gold Development for the development of a 18,800 square foot retail
building with associated 15,000 square foot outdoor display area and
associated improvements including two bio- retention basins,
parking and landscaping located at the northwestern corner of
Collier Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
Recommendation
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2014 -_; A Resolution of the City Council of Lake Elsinore,
California Regarding a Tractor Supply Company Retail Store located at the
Northwestern Corner of Collier Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (APN 377 -120-
002 & 038), Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01 for Commercial
Design Review No. 2014 -01.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2014- ; A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Lake Elsinore, California Regarding a Tractor Supply Company Retail Store located
at the Northwestern Corner of Collier Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (APN
377 - 120 -002 & 038), Adopting Findings of Consistency with the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for Commercial
Design Review No. 2014 -01.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2014-, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore Approving Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 for a Tractor Supply
Company Retail Store located at the Northwestern Corner of Collier Avenue (SR-
74) and Enterprise Way (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038).
Background
On August 19, 2014, the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 for the
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CDR NO. 2014 -01
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
PAGE 2 of 4
development of an 18,800 square foot Tractor Supply Company retail building with
associated 15,000 square foot outdoor display area and associated improvement.
Additionally, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2014 -31
approving Variance No. 2014 -01 to allow a reduction in the required setback and
landscaping in order to work around existing power lines along Collier Avenue and to
facilitate full -width road improvements along the project's frontage on Collier Avenue
and Enterprise Way. The Planning Commission also unanimously adopted Resolution
No. 2014 -32 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 -01 for the outdoor display area
associated with the proposed project.
Project Request & Location
The proposed project includes the construction of a Tractor Supply Company retail store
consisting of an 18,800- square -foot retail building; two drainage basins (8,000 and
2,100 square feet); permanent 15,000 square feet of outdoor display; perimeter
landscaping; and accompanying parking areas with 97 parking spaces at the
northwestern corner of Collier Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (APN 377 - 120 -002
& 038).
Two driveways are proposed off Enterprise Way and one driveway is proposed off
Collier Avenue (SR -74). All proposed structural improvements on the project site have
been designed to comply with the standards contained in the City of Lake Elsinore's
Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code). The project's landscape
features will include trees, shrubs, vines, and decorative groundcover and surfaces.
Architecture /Colors and Materials
The building is mainly comprised of a combination of smooth lap siding, stone veneer
and metal roofing. The building is articulated using a metal canopies to achieve
interest. The building's roofline has been broken up with varying parapet heights and a
peaked entry. Contrasting colors in the proposed building colors and materials are
complimentary and have been chosen to enhance the architectural elements on the
building. Slightly tinted window glazing will further serve to compliment the building's
color scheme.
Analysis
The proposed Tractor Supply Company retail store is in conformance with all applicable
development standards of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. In addition, the project
has been designed with enhanced architectural characteristics such as raised parapets,
and varying color treatments and materials, to create interesting building elevations.
The Design Review Committee that includes staff from Planning, Building and Safety,
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CDR NO. 2014 -01
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
PAGE 3 of 4
Fire and Engineering reviewed the requested Design Review application, recommended
applicable conditions of approval, and support the application.
Environmental Determination
The City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project would result in significant
impacts on the environment. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, there was
substantial evidence that any potential impacts to the environment associated with the
Project could be mitigated to less than significant levels.
For this reason, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01 was prepared in
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§
21000, et seq.: "CEQA") and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14
California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines ") and
applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore, to disclose potential environmental
impacts and to propose mitigation for those impacts.
City staff received only one comment letter (from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians) on the MND during the 30 -day public review comment period which began on
July 7, 2014, and ended on August 5, 2014. Two additional letters (State
Clearinghouse and City of Temecula) were received following the conclusion of the
comment period. Copies of the comment letters are attached to this staff report.
Fiscal Impact
Ultimately, the proposed project will have a positive fiscal impact to the community and
the City. The proposed Tractor Supply Company retail store will generate sales tax
revenues for the City of Lake Elsinore. In addition to the sales tax revenue that will be
generated, it is anticipated that the development of the project will provide construction
jobs.
Prepared by: Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Associate
Planning Manager
Approved by: Grant Taylor
Community Development Director
Grant Yates
City Manager
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CDR NO. 2014 -01
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
PAGE 4 of 4
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Aerial Photo
3. City Council Resolutions
4. Conditions of Approval
5. Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
6. Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
7. Comment Letters regarding Mitigated Negative Declaration
8. Letter in Support from Debra Wong
9. Projects Plans 24" X 36 ": Site Plan, Conceptual Grading Plan, Colored
Elevations and Preliminary Planting Plan
10. Color and Materials Board
11. Planning Commission Staff Report of August 19, 2014
VIA E-MAIL and USPS
C 1) aitperson:
iti-imy Bear Malec
IECIJANGA CULTURAL RESOURCES
vice Chairperson:
71 ?inecuhi Band cif l uisefiio Mission Indians Darlene Miranda
Committee Members:
Post office. Box 2183 0 Temeeuia, CA 9259:1 Evie Gerber
`telephone (951) 308 -9295 • Fax (951) 5069191 I3ridgett Barcello,Maxwell
Richard 13. scearce, III
Director:
Clary DuBois
Coordinator:
August 5, 201 r} Paul Macarro
I'1,3nning specialist:
Tuba Ebru ozdil
Cultural Analyst:
Anna Floover.
Mr. Richard .1. Macl- ott
Planning Manager
City of Lake Elsinore
Community Development Dept
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Notice for Public Hearing and Notice of Availability
and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tractor Supply Project
Dear Mr. MacHott:
This comment letter is written on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
(hereinafter, "the Tribe "), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government. The 'Fribe
formally requests, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092.2, to be notified and involved in the
entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the
"Project "), if you have not done so already, please add the "Tribe to your distribution list(s) for public
notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental review documents, archaeological
reports, and all documents pertaining to this Project. The Tribe further requests to be directly
notified of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning this Project. Please also
incorporate these comments into the record of approval for this Project.
The Tribe thanks the City of Lake Elsinore and the Developer for providing mitigation to
preserve and protect any sensitive Luiseho cultural resources and traditional landscapes that may be
found during earthmoving and to require both archaeological and Pechanga tribal monitoring during
earthmoving activities. The State and Federal governments have mandated that cultural resources
must be appropriately mitigated for within the confines of development projects. The Tribe
appreciates the active role the City takes to maintain the significant history of the Tribe and
California.
PECHANGA CULTURAL AFFILIATION TO PROJECT AREA
The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of Luiseno, and therefore the 'bribe's,
aboriginal territory as evidenced by the existence of Luiselio place names, 16ola ))Aelval (rock art,
pictographs, petroglyphs), traditional landscapes, a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), cultural
,Sacr-ed Is The Duty, Trusted Unto Ow- Care And %Pith Honor Me Rise To The Need
Pechanga Comment better to the (:'i(y- of' I.,ake llsinore
Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the VIND for'Fractor Supply,
August 5, 2014
Page 2
areas and ail extensive I..Uisetlo artif'act record in the vicinity ()['the Project. This culturally sensitive
area is affiliated with the Pechanga Band of LUiSCno Indians beCallSe ol` the I l -lbC 7S cultural ties to
this area as well as the close proximity ofthe Project to the "Tribal reservation [ands.
The Pechanba "Tribe has a specific legal and ciilttu•al itlterest in tllis Project as the "Tribe is
culturally affiliated with the geographic area that comprises the Project property and is the closest
affiliated tribe to the Property. The Tribe has been named the Most Likely Descendent (Cal. Pub.
Res. C. §5097.98) oil Projects in the nearby vicinity of the proposed Project and has specific
knowledge of cultiu•al resources and sacred places near the proposed Project which we have shared
With the City oil previous occasions oil this and other projects.
The Tribe welcomes the opportunity to meet with the City to further explain and provide
documentation concerning our specific cultural affiliation to lands within your jurisdiction, if so
desired.
REQUESTED TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT AND MITIGATION
The Pechailga Band is not opposed to this Project; however, we are opposed to any direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts this Project may have to tribal cultural resources. The Tribe's
primary concerns stem from the Project's proposed impacts on Native American cultural resources.
The Tribe is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such
as Luiseno village sites. TCPs, sacred sites and archaeological items which would be displaced by
ground disturbing work on the Project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items,
Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the work.
The 'Tribe is in receipt of the Project Initial Study (IS) for the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND). The proposed Project is located in a highly sensitive region of Luiseiio territory — a
Traditional Cultural Property, and the 'Fribe believes that the possibility for recovering subsurface
resources during ground - disturbing activities is high. The Tribe has over thirty -five (35) years of
experience in working with various types of construction projects throughout its territory. The
combination of this knowledge and experience, along with the knowledge of the culturally- sensitive
areas and oral tradition, is what the Tribe relies on to make fairly accurate predictions regarding the
likelihood of subsurface resources in a particular location.
Based upon the information provided to the Tribe, there are no known cultural resources
Iocated within the Project boundaries. Therefore, the sensitivity of this Project lies with the potential
to impact subsurface, unknown cultural resources durhlg earthmoving activities. At this time, the
'tribe thanks the City of Lake Elsinore for working closely with us to develop appropriate and
adequate mitigation measures. These are identified in the IS as MM CR -I to -6 and have been
copied below for reference. We request that these measures /conditions of approval, with the minor
edits proposed below, be incorporated into the final IS /MND and any other final environmental
documents approved by the City.
Aechanga Cultural Resources ^ Temecula Band ofbiisefio Mission. Indians
Post Office Box 2183 • Temecida, C,'4 92.592
Sacred Zs The Duty Trusted Unto Our Cate rind With honor TVe Rise To The Need
Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Lake Elsinore:
Re: Pechanoa Tribe Comments on the MNI) for "Praetor Supply
August 5. 2014
Page 3
MM CR l Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant /developer shall retain a
City- approved Project Archaeolo <oist and a Native American Monitor to monitor all
ground - disturbing activities in all areas of the project in in effort to identify any
unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits
shall be subject to a Cultural i'esOUrccs evaluation.
MM CR 2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit., the project applicant shall contact
the appropriate Tribes to notify that 'Tribe of.'(,)' rading.;, excavation and the monitoring
program, and to coordinate with the City of lake F"Isinore and the "bribe to develop a
Cultural Resources 'I•reatment and Monitoring Agreement, The Agreement shall
address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities,
and participation of professional Native American Tribal monitors during grading,
excavation and .)round disturbing activities; project grading and development
scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final
disposition of ally cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on
the site.
MM CR3 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre -
grading report with the City to document the proposed methodology for grading
activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified
archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect
grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM CR 2. the
archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in
consultation with the appropriate "Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any
archaeological resources discovered oil the property. Tribal and archaeological
monitors shall be allowed to monitor all orading, excavation and groundbreaking
activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in
consultation with the project archaeologist.
MM CR 4 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all Cultural resources, including sacred
items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area
to the appropriate tribe for proper treatment and disposition.
MM CR 5 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological /cultural resources are
discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the
appropriate tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and
confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code
6 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of m- eservation for archaeolo„ ical
resources. If the Developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the
mitigation for such reSOUrces, these issues will be presented to the Community
Development Director (CDD) for decision. The CDD shall make the determination
It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the "appropriate" Tribe due to their prior and extensive
participation and coordination with the City to deterrnine potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation
measures.
Pechanga Cultural Resources ° Temecula Band of Luisei "ro Mission Indians
Post Office Box 2153 • Temecula, C4 92592
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care Awl With Honor We Rise To The ,weed
Pechanga Comment Fetter to the City of bake 1'1,lsn1o1'e
Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the MND fot- Praetor Supply
August 5; 2014
Page 4
based on the provisions of the California e nv €ro1 mental Quality Act with respect to
archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs,
and practices of'the "Bribe.
MM CR 6 If hu €ran remains are encountered, California I lealth and Safety Code Section 7050.5
states that no Further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has
made the necessary findings as to o €'igin. Further, pui:suant to California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 (b) remains shall be left in place and free fi•orn
disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made.
If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the
Native American heritage Commission must be contacted- within 24 hours.
Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or
persons it believe to be the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant
may then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the
treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98 and the
Treatment Agreement described in MM CR 2.
The Pechanga Tribe again thanks the City and looks forward to continuing to work together
with the City of Lake Elsinore in protecting the Invaluable Pechanga Cultural resources found in the
Project area. Please contact me at 951- 770 -8104 or at alloove €- @pecllanga- ilsn.gov once you have
had a chance to review these comments if you have any comments or concerns. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anna Hoover
Culturat Analyst
Cc Pechanga Office of the General Counsel
Pechanga Cultural Resources ^ Temecula Band of Luise& Mission Indians
Post Office Box 2183 • Temecula, C4 92592
Sacred Is The Dwv Trusted Unto Our Care And Mth Honor I'r% Rise To The breed
5�''`u nom' z'`'; `TH•
90 m
OA(1FOR N \P
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
pF PLAN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA $° %
Governor's Office of Planning and Research b
s
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit OFr. AL,FOQ��°
Ken Alex
Director
August 6, 2014
Richard J. MacHott
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Subject: Tractor Supply Company Project
SCH #: 2014071019
Dear Richard J. MacHott:
�lllf .:1. 2014
CITY OF U\KE, E1,SINORE
PLANNING DIVISION
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state
agencies for review. The review period closed on August 5, 2014, and no state agencies submitted
comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above -named project, please refer to the
ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
Se organ
Director, State Clearinghouse
1.400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOA 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812 -3044
TEL (916) 445 -0613 FAX (91.6) 323 -301.8 www.opnca.gov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2014071019
Project Title Tractor Supply Company Project
Lead Agency Lake Elsinore, City of
Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
Description The proposed project includes the construction of a tractor supply store consisting of a 18,800 sf
tractor supply building; two drainage basins consisting of 8,000 and 2,100 sf; permanent outdoor
display areas of 18,120 sf; perimeter landscaping; and accompanying parking areas with 91 parking
spaces. Two driveways are proposed off Enterprise Way and one driveway is proposed off Collier
Avenue (SR -74). The project's landscape features will include trees, shrubs, vines, and decorative
groundcover and surfaces. The project will also include the construction of offsite roadway
improvements, the purpose of which is to improve the local circulation following development of the
project.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Richard J. MacHott
Agency City of Lake Elsinore
Phone (951) 674 -3124 x209 Fax
email
Address 130 S. Main Street
C State CA Zip 92530
City Lake Elsinore
Project Location
County
Riverside
City
Lake Elsinore
Region
Railways
Lat / Long
33° 41'34" N / 117° 20'47" W
Cross Streets
Northwest corner of Enterprise Way and Collier Avenue
Parcel No.
377 - 120 -002 and 377 - 120 -038
Township
5S Range 4/5W Section 31/36
Proximity to:
Highways
1 -15, CA -74
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Elsinore Basin
Schools
Valley Adult School
Land Use
GP: Light Industrial
Z: Commercial Manufacturing
Base
Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic- Historic; Biological Resources;
Drainage /Absorption; Flood Plain /Flooding; Forest Land /Fire Hazard; Geologic /Seismic; Minerals;
Noise; Population /Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation /Parks; Schools /Universities; Sewer
Capacity; Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading; Toxic /Hazardous; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water
Supply; Wetland /Riparian; Landuse; Cumulative Effects
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Cal Fire;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency Services,
California; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Region 7; Native American Heritage Commission
Date Received 07/07/2014 Start of Review 07/07/2014 End of Review 08/05/2014
August 7, 2014
Citof Temecula
Community Development
41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (951) 694 -6400 • Fax (951) 694 -6477 • www.<
Richard MacHott, Planning Manager
Community Development Department
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
RECEIVED
CITY Or K,.>kKU JELSINC9RE
PLANNING DIVISJON
SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration No.
2014 -01
Dear Mr. MacHott:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced project. At this time the City
of Temecula has no comment regarding the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the above mentioned project, involving the commercial design review and
Conditional Use Permit for Tractor Supply Co. located at the northwest corner of Enterprise Way
and Collier Avenue.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (951) 505 -5173 or e -mail me at
Armando .villa @cityoftemecula.org.
Sincerely,
a
Armando Villa, AICP
Director of Community Development
cc: Greg Butler, Assistant City Manager
Tom Garcia, Director of Public Works
Dale West, Associate Planner
G; \PLANNING \2014 \LR14 -0007 Inter Agency Reviews \Lake Elsinore \Comment Letter - MND Tractor Supply. doc
if
A
Richard J. MacHott
Planning Manager
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
!1111111� � lill lllil;i�
Dear Mr. MacHott,
My family has owned this property since the early 1960's and we are currently in escrow
with California Gold Company. As you know, California Gold is processing the Tractor
Supply development project on our property, and we wholeheartedly support their
project. Hopefully, with positive approvals from the City of Elsinore and Cal Trans, we
will soon be processing an application for a Lot Line Adjustment to provide the 3.6 acre
parcel for Tractor Supply.
We recognize and acknowledge the need to complete certain temporary engineering
work, such as road tapering, grading, construction staging and other related work to
complete their project, and we will fully cooperate with both California Gold and the City
of Lake Elsinore in that regard.
If you have any questions, please contact our civil engineer Mr. Rudy Nunez, (951) 551-
6932.
Sincerely yours,
Debra Won
Manager of RKW & IVILW Elsinore, LP
Regency Realty, LLC
Commercial Real Estate Investments
1080 K Batavia Street, Suite K, Orange, CA 92867-5529
Tel (714) 287-1900, Fox (714) 289-1155
LLI
V)
0
IL
0
Ix
CL
"es
z
0
(/)
----- V - -Y -1
F-I NISVG (33SOd011d
Ld
Of
CD CD
Z_
Of ct
C)
z
_j
<
C)
138'
9: C)
J- 0
C/) 0
(if -i
0
0
U) w
0
0
0
rn
0\
Cr,
46
IU%
I 1-i I-j J J V U V �. �
T:
0
0
C\4
ry
I--
(I)o
V)
0
0 <
-i L,1:2
Of
W 0
LL-
<
<
z
ry
ED Ld
o 0 <
V) a_
0
Lu
F <
ry w �-j
rn
0\
Cr,
46
IU%
I 1-i I-j J J V U V �. �
Ll Z hc:5,
LLJ'- CD
co 00
0
0
LL
LL
n u) n
0 �P.
\IP-
Z
z E <
E < LLI
< o < [If
-j
0 z
D
j
W
ry
LJJ I
A
00
46
%
......
v-:
a
-0
'Z
,%/0!9'1
10'
ON
10
00
------------------------
— — — — — — — — — — ffolro--a-Go-2T — — — S)
0) \j
NISV9 NOUN�U32jO18 (13SOdO�Id
�cb
m o
V ..........
9tN
Id CIISW02ld
142'
N
U)
U-)
0 0
0 ft� z 0
C14 00 OC)
ou -J
<
0 >- ft� C4 <
F--- LO V)
oz
� U Q Z F--- C14 0
"4- LO 100
m 0 0 cn cn "41
n Ld 0 0 z N C14 IL
< Z C) C) 0 C/)
fy_ 0 CY) C14
CD (f) bi D I U) L-) cc) I o
ry- C) 0 pr
0 LLJ Lj 0 0-4 0,--,,,,
14 z 0 r- (D n 00
n �lr �! 0
0 X LLJ E--1 00 C�6
00 0
LLJ 0 f)f oo,-o
-j Of LLJ LLJ 00 cn LO 00
0 0 [) C) 1�) ry 0 0
E z E 0 LLJ 0 F-- 'zo-JOO
CL L > IL OM
P-4 _j < 0 r,)000<)-
0 1--� Lj :2 1 0 Of (f)
LLJ C14 LLJ z
C) LLJ Of = K)
LU 0-4 LLJ 0
0 LAJ 0 Z D:� < U)
0 �j 0 Lij
3nN3AV
�o
aa) (D
0,�
�
�J311'100
-0
2) -c-
Q
CL ci
O
a
N
U? N
O
WU-�
�o
aa) (D
0,�
�
CT3
-0
2) -c-
Q
CL ci
O
a
N
U? N
O
:3 0,
t�
N�.
F
E
L
CL to
tii
Q
O
tU
t) 0
M
43
C 0
aa) (D
0-0
q,
2) -c-
tv
v
'
a)
`- O
:3 0,
q>j
N
E
L
t6
f-- E to
N
cn >
N N
t) 0
O
C 0
N
C:
O
D
V-
Co
«
�
tU
C
x
Q_ N
qt
O
O
�
x
O
Z7
to
lL
x
�
�
x
x
�
x
� �
x
Co
CL
a)
U
- 0
x
x
x
s
s
x
x
x
I
I
I r__
--------
� I
I
CITY OF
LADE LSII` 0KE
DREAM EXTREME,
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: Honorable Chairperson
Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Associate
Planning Manager
DATE: August 19, 2014
PROJECT: Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01, Conditional Use
Permit No. 2014 -01 & Variance No. 2014 -01 - A request by
California Gold Development for the development of a 18,800
square foot retail building with associated 15,000 square foot
outdoor display area and associated improvements including
two bio- retention basins, parking and landscaping located at
the northwestern corner of Collier Avenue (SR -74) and
Enterprise Way (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038).
APPLICANT Jim Todd, California Gold Development, 133 Old Wards Ferry
Road, Sonora, CA 95370
OWNER: Debra Wong, RKW & MLW Elsinore, LP, 1080 N. Batayia
Street, Ste.K, Orange, CA 92867
Recommendation
1. Resolution No. 2014-_; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City Of
Lake Elsinore, California Regarding a Tractor Supply Company Retail Store located
at the Northwestern Corner of Collier Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (APN
377 - 120 -002 & 038), Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01 for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 -01 and Variance No. 2014 -01; and
Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Adoption of
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01 for Commercial Design Review No.
2014 -01.
2. Resolution No. 2014- ; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of
Lake Elsinore, California Regarding a Tractor Supply Company Retail Store located
at the Northwestern Corner of Collier Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (APN
377 - 120 -002 & 038), Adopting Findings of Consistency with the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for Conditional Use
CDR No. 2014 -01, CUP 2014 -01 & VAR 2014 -01
August 19, 2014
Page 2 of 5
Permit No. 2014 -01 and Variance No. 2014 -01; and Recommending to the City
Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Adoption of Findings of Consistency with the
MSHCP for Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01.
3. Resolution No. 2014- ; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of
Lake Elsinore, California, Approving Variance No. 2014 -01 Related to a Reduction
in the Required Setbacks and Landscaping Adjacent to Collier Avenue and
Enterprise Way for a Tractor Supply Company Retail Store located at the
Northwestern Corner of Collier Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (APN 377 -120-
002 & 038).
4. Resolution No. 2014- ; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City Of
Lake Elsinore, California, Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 -01 for a
Tractor Supply Company Retail Store located at the Northwestern Corner of Collier
Avenue (SR -74) And Enterprise Way (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038).
5. Resolution No. 2014 - ; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of
Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore Approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 for a Tractor Supply
Company Retail Store located at the Northwestern Corner of Collier Avenue (SR-
74) and Enterprise Way (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038).
Proiect Request & Location
The proposed project includes the construction of a Tractor Supply Company retail store
consisting of an 18,800- square -foot retail building; two drainage basins (8,000 and
2,100 square feet); permanent 15,000 square feet of outdoor display; perimeter
landscaping; and accompanying parking areas with 97 parking spaces at the
northwestern corner of Collier Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (APN 377 - 120 -002
& 038).
Two driveways are proposed off Enterprise Way and one driveway is proposed off
Collier Avenue (SR -74). All proposed structural improvements on the project site have
been designed to comply with the standards contained in the City of Lake Elsinore's
Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code). The project's landscape
features will include trees, shrubs, vines, and decorative groundcover and surfaces.
CDR No. 2014 -01, CUP 2014 -01 & VAR 2014 -01
August 19, 2014
Page 3 of 5
Environmental Setting
Architecture /Colors and Materials
The building is mainly comprised of a combination of smooth lap siding, stone veneer
and metal roofing. The building is articulated using a metal canopies to achieve
interest. The building's roofline has been broken up with varying parapet heights and a
peaked entry.
As shown on the attached color elevations and color and materials board, the applicant
is proposing multiple colors on the building including:
Walls: Sherwin Williams Paint — "Urban Putty"
Sherwin Williams Paint — "Sanderling"
Sherwin Williams Paint — "Safety Red"
Eldorado Stone Veneer — "Savannah
Eldorado Stone Sill Cap — "Buckskin"
Awnings: Metal Roofing — Galvanized Steel
Powder Coat — Black
The contrasting colors are complimentary and have been chosen to enhance the
architectural elements on the building. The slightly tinted window glazing will further
serve to compliment the building's color scheme.
EXISTING LAND
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
USE
Project Site
Vacant
Limited Industrial
C -M (Commercial
Manufacturing)
Northwest
Vacant
Limited Industrial
C -M (Commercial
Manufacturing) & M -1
(Limited Manufacturing)
Southwest
Commercial,
Limited Industrial
C -M (Commercial
Industrial Park,
Manufacturing) & M -1
Towing Yard,
(Limited Manufacturing)
Auto Wrecking
Northeast
Cemetery, Light
Public Institutional
PI (Public /Institutional)
Industrial
& M -2 (General
Manufacturing)
Southeast
Commercial and
Public /Institutional and
PI (Public /Institutional)
Cemetery
General Commercial
and C -2 (General
Commercial)
Architecture /Colors and Materials
The building is mainly comprised of a combination of smooth lap siding, stone veneer
and metal roofing. The building is articulated using a metal canopies to achieve
interest. The building's roofline has been broken up with varying parapet heights and a
peaked entry.
As shown on the attached color elevations and color and materials board, the applicant
is proposing multiple colors on the building including:
Walls: Sherwin Williams Paint — "Urban Putty"
Sherwin Williams Paint — "Sanderling"
Sherwin Williams Paint — "Safety Red"
Eldorado Stone Veneer — "Savannah
Eldorado Stone Sill Cap — "Buckskin"
Awnings: Metal Roofing — Galvanized Steel
Powder Coat — Black
The contrasting colors are complimentary and have been chosen to enhance the
architectural elements on the building. The slightly tinted window glazing will further
serve to compliment the building's color scheme.
CDR No. 2014 -01, CUP 2014 -01 & VAR 2014 -01
August 19, 2014
Page 4 of 5
Variance Request
The subject property has a unique setting given that it has existing power lines located
on the property's frontage along State Route 74 (Collier Avenue). In order to obtain
additional right -of -way along State Route 74 a reduction in the setback and landscaping
is required in order to work around the existing power lines. For this reason, the
applicant has submitted an application for Variance No. 2014 -01. The reduced
landscaping will provide sufficient landscaping that will be compatible with the
landscaping on nearby development properties.
The reduced setback and landscaping are the minimal reduction possible that will still
enable the project to dedicate the additional right -of -way needed along both Collier
Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way. The reduced landscaping will provide sufficient
landscaping that will be compatible with the landscaping on nearby development
properties.
Analysis
The proposed Tractor Supply Company retail store has been found in conformance with
all applicable development standards of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. In addition,
the project has been designed with enhanced architectural characteristics such as
raised parapets, and varying color treatments and materials, to create interesting
building elevations. The Design Review Committee that includes staff from Planning,
Building and Safety, Fire and Engineering have reviewed the requested Design Review
application, recommended applicable conditions of approval, and support the
application.
Environmental Determination
The City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project would result in significant
impacts on the environment. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, there was
substantial evidence that any potential impacts to the environment associated with the
Project could be mitigated to less than significant levels.
For this reason, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01 was prepared in
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§
21000, et seq.: "CEQA ") and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14
California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines ") and
applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore, to disclose potential environmental
impacts and to propose mitigation for those impacts.
City staff received only one comment letter (from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians) on the MND during the 30 -day public review comment period which began on
CDR No. 2014 -01, CUP 2014 -01 & VAR 2014 -01
August 19, 2014
Page 5of5
July 7, 2014, and ended on August 5, 2014. A copy of the comment letter is attached to
this staff report.
Prepared By: Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Associate
Planning Manager
Approved By: Grant Taylor,
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Aerial Photo
3. Planning Commission Resolutions
4. Conditions of Approval
5. Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
6. Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
7. Comment Letter from Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians dated August 5, 2014
8. Color Elevations
9. Color and Materials Board
10. Projects Plans 24" X 36 ": Site, Conceptual Grading Plan and Colored Elevations
VICINITY MAP
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014-01
CITY OF
LAKE
LSINORE
�Dt E, A M E XT R E M E
wu
AERIAL PHOTO
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CITY OF
FA- F, E LSIlY01- ,E
®: DREAM EXTREME
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA
REGARDING A TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY RETAIL STORE LOCATED
AT THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF COLLIER AVENUE (SR -74) AND
ENTERPRISE WAY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038), ADOPTING MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2014 -01 FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
WHEREAS, California Gold Development, has filed an application with the City
of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01
( "Project ") for the approval of a 18,800 square foot retail building with associated 15,000
square foot outdoor display area and associated improvements including two bio-
retention basins, parking and landscaping located at the northwestern corner of Collier
Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (the "project "); and
WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: "CEQA ") and the
State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections
15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines ") because the Project involves an activity which may
cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease,
permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies
(Public Resources Code Section 21065); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially
significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be
mitigated to less than significant levels; and
WHEREAS, based upon the results of the Initial Study, and based upon the
standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was
appropriate to prepare and circulate Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01 for the
Project (the "Mitigated Negative Declaration "); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, on July 7, 2014 the
City duly issued a notice of intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the Mitigated
Negative Declaration was made available for public review and comment for thirty days
beginning on July 7, 2014, and ending on August 5, 2014, and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP ") for the
Project has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014 at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning
Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
PAGE 2 OF 4
Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and made its
recommendation to the City Council to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014-
01 for Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 by adopting Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2014 -29; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.184.090 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
( "LEMC ") the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore has the responsibility of making
decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the Planning
Commission for commercial design review applications; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City
Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission as well as
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested
parties with respect to this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated into these findings by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council has evaluated all comments, written and oral,
received from persons who have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City
Council hereby finds and determines that all public comments have been addressed.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with
CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's procedures for implementation of
CEQA. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
represents the independent judgment of the City.
SECTION 4. The City Council further finds and determines that none of the
circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration are present and that it would be appropriate to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration as proposed.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates the
following findings regarding the lack of potential environmental impacts of the Project
and the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration:
1. Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant
before a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study was released for public
review and mitigation measures set forth in the Initial Study would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would
occur.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
PAGE 3 OF 4
Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the Project, there is substantial
evidence suggesting that all potential impacts to the environment resulting from
the Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. All appropriate and
feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the Project design. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan contains an implementation program for each
mitigation measure. After implementation of the mitigation contained in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, potential environmental impacts are
effectively reduced to less than significant levels.
2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the
agency including the initial study and any comments received, that there is no
substantial evidence that the Project will have significant effect on the
environment.
Pursuant to the evidence received, including comment letters, and in the light of
the whole record presented, the Project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
SECTION 6. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the
attached conditions of approval, the City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 2014 -01 and the MMRP for Commercial Design Review No. 2014.
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the 9th day of September, 2014.
Natasha Johnson, Mayor
City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
PAGE 4 OF 4
/_1 III I *II
Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Barbara Leibold, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
I, VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby
certify that Resolution No. 2014 -_ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of September, 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA REGARDING A TRACTOR SUPPLY
COMPANY RETAIL STORE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWESTERN
CORNER OF COLLIER AVENUE (SR -74) AND ENTERPRISE WAY
(APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038), ADOPTING FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY
WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
WHEREAS, California Gold Development, has filed an application with the City
of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01
( "Project ") for the approval of a 18,800 square foot retail building with associated 15,000
square foot outdoor display area and associated improvements including two bio-
retention basins, parking and landscaping located at the northwestern corner of Collier
Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (the "project "); and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all projects which are
proposed on land covered by an MSHCP criteria cell and which require discretionary
approval by the legislative body undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process
( "LEAP ") and a Joint Project Review ( "JPR ") between the City and the Regional
Conservation Authority ( "RCA ") prior to public review of the project applications; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 further requires that development projects not within an
MSHCP criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide
Requirements "; and
WHEREAS, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and
approval by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Project is not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, Core or Linkage,
but is within the Elsinore Plan Area of the MSHCP, and therefore, the Project was
reviewed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements "; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that the City adopt consistency
findings prior to approving any discretionary project entitlements for development of
property that is subject to the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014 at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning
Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and made its
recommendation to the City Council to adopt findings of consistency with the MSHCP
for Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 by adopting Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2014 -30; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.184.090 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
( "LEMC ") the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore has the responsibility of making
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -,
PAGE 2 of 5
decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the Planning
Commission for commercial design review applications; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City
Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission as well as
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested
parties with respect to this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed
applications and their consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to adopt
findings that Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 is consistent with the MSHCP.
SECTION 2. That in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code,
and the MSHCP, Findings for adoption have been made as follows:
1. The proposed project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the
City must make an MSHCP Consistency Finding before approval.
The proposed project includes a commercial design review, conditional use
permit and variance request that require a number of discretionary approvals
from the City; including CEQA review. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution,
the project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency
with "Other Plan Requirements." These include the Protection of Species
Associated with Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal pool Guidelines (MSHCP,
Section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP,
Section 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, Section
6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.4), Vegetation
Mapping (MSHCP, Section 6.5. 1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines
(MSHCP, Section 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, Section 4).
2. The proposed project is not subject to the City's LEAP (Lake Elsinore Acquisition
Process) and the County's Joint Project Review processes.
The proposed project is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell area,
therefore, no formal LEAP submittal was required. However, the project is still
required to demonstrate compliance with "Other Plan Requirements. " The project
is in compliance as described further below.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal
Pools Guidelines.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -
PAGE 3 of 5
No vernal pools exist on the site and therefore vernal pool species are not
expected to occur. Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of
riparian /riverine areas and vernal pool habitat types based on their value in the
conservation of a number of MSHCP- covered species, none of which has any
potential to occur on the project site.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Guidelines.
The proposed project site is not located within the Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) as shown on Figure 6 -1 of the MSHCP. Based
on its location outside of any NEPSSA or Criteria Area Species Survey Area
(CASSA), the proposed project is compliant with MSHCP Section 6.1.3.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures.
The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is
located in CASSA, Amphibian Species Survey Area with Critical Area, Burrowing
Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area, and Mammal Species Survey Areas with
Criteria Areas of the MSHCP. The project site is located outside of any CASSA
for plants and mammals and no CASSA plant species were observed during the
focused surveys for the site.
The proposed project is located within the survey area identified for the
burrowing owl. A number of suitable burrows were found on the project site
during a reconnaissance -level survey conducted on the Project site. As required
by the MSHCP, mitigation has been included requiring pre- construction focused
species surveys within 30 -days prior to any ground- disturbing activities at the
project site where suitable habitat is present and requiring appropriate mitigation
if active nests are located.
Based upon the above, it can be concluded that the proposed project is
consistent with the provisions of the MSHCP.
6. The proposed project is consistent with the UrbaniWildlands Interface
Guidelines.
The proposed project site is separated from nearby criteria cells other properties.
Therefore the urban /wildlands interface guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the
MSHCP are not applicable.
7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
No vegetation mapping requirements apply to the proposed project.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014-.
PAGE 4 of 5
8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
The proposed project site is separated from nearby criteria cells by other
properties. Therefore, the fuels management guidelines set forth in the MSHCP
are not applicable.
9. The proposed project is conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation Fee.
The developer will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation Fee.
10. The proposed project overall is consistent with the MSHCP.
The Project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. No further
actions related to the MSHCP are required.
SECTION 3. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the
attached conditions of approval, the City Council hereby adopts findings that
Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 is consistent with the MSHCP.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the 9th day of September, 2014.
Natasha Johnson, Mayor
City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -
PAGE 5 of 5
ATTEST:
Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Barbara Leibold, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
I, VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby
certify that Resolution No. 2014 -_ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of September, 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01 FOR A
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY RETAIL STORE LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF COLLIER AVENUE (SR -74) AND
ENTERPRISE WAY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
WHEREAS, California Gold Development, has filed an application with the City
of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01
( "Project ") for the approval of a 18,800 square foot retail building with associated 15,000
square foot outdoor display area and associated improvements including two bio-
retention basins, parking and landscaping located at the northwestern corner of Collier
Avenue (SR -74) and Enterprise Way (the "project "); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been
delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for
commercial design review applications within the City of Lake Elsinore; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014 at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning
Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and made its
recommendation to the City Council to approve Commercial Design Review No. 2014-
01 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014 -33; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.184.090 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
( "LEMC ") the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore has the responsibility of making
decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the Planning
Commission for commercial design review applications; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City
Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission as well as
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested
parties with respect to this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and analyzed the Project prior to
making a decision to approve Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01.
SECTION 2. That in accordance with California Planning and Zoning Law and
the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.184.080 Findings, the City Council makes
the following findings regarding Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01:
1. The project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the
General Plan and the zoning district in which the project is located.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
PAGE 2 OF 3
The commercial retail use is appropriate to the site and surrounding
developments. The project is consistent with goals and policies of the Limited
Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation, is a permitted use in the CM
(Commercial Manufacturing) zoning district, and complies with all development
standards. In addition, safe and efficient circulation has been achieved onsite.
2. The project complies with the design directives contained in LEMC 17.184.060
and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
The retail commercial project is consistent with all provisions in LEMC Section
17.184.060 (Scope of design review), and complies with all development
standards set forth in LEMC Chapter 17.112 (Nonresidential Development
Standards).
3. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to LEMC 17.184.070, including guarantees
and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the
approval of the subject project to ensure development of the property in
accordance with the objectives of this chapter and the planning district in which
the site is located.
Pursuant to Section 17.184.070 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Project
was considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on
September 9, 2014, appropriate and applicable conditions of approval have been
included to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, and the project
is a permitted use in the CM (Commercial Manufacturing) zone district.
SECTION 4. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and
the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the City Council hereby approves
Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01.
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the 9th day of September, 2014.
Natasha Johnson, Mayor
City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
PAGE 3 OF 3
ATTEST:
Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Barbara Leibold, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
I, VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby
certify that Resolution No. 2014 -_ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of September, 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The proposed project (Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01, Conditional Use
Permit No. 2014 -01 and Variance No. 2014 -01) consists of the development of a
18,800 square foot retail building with associated 15,000 square foot outdoor
display area located at the northwestern corner of Collier Avenue (SR -74) and
Enterprise Way (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038). Improvements include two bioretention
basins, parking and landscaping.
2. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and
hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees or
Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory
agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the proposed project
attached hereto.
PLANNING DIVISION
3. Within 30 days of project approval, the applicant shall sign and complete an
"Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the
Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records.
4. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $2,181.25 made payable to the
County of Riverside for the filing of a Notice of Determination. The check shall be
submitted to the Planning Division for processing within 48 hours of the project's
approval.
5. Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 shall lapse and become void two years
following the date on which the design review became effective, unless one of the
following: (1) prior to the expiration of two years, a building permit related to the
design review is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward
completion; or (2) prior to the expiration of two years, the applicant has applied for
and has been granted an extension of the design review approval pursuant to
subsections (B) and (C) of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section
17.184.120. Notwithstanding conditions to the contrary, a design review granted
pursuant to LEMC Chapter 17.184 shall run with the land for this two -year period,
Planning Commission Approved Page 1 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 9, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
subject to any approved extensions, and shall continue to be valid upon a change
of ownership of the site which was the subject of the design review application.
6. Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 -01 shall lapse and become void two years
following the date on which the conditional use permit became effective, unless one
of the following: (1) prior to the expiration of two years, a building permit related to
the conditional use permit is issued and construction commenced and diligently
pursued toward completion, or (2) prior to the expiration of two years, the applicant
has applied for and has been granted an extension of the design review approval
pursuant to subsections (B) and (C) of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC)
Section 17.168.080. Subject to the provisions of LEMC Section 17.168.110, a
conditional use permit granted pursuant to the provisions of this section shall run
with the land and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site
or structure which was the subject of the conditional use permit application
7. Conditions of approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans prior to
their acceptance by the Building and Safety Division, Community Development
Department. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities.
8. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the approved building
plans, as modified by these conditions of approval.
8a. Wrought iron or "wrought iron" looking steel or aluminum fencing with block pilasters
that match the building materials shall be installed around the outdoor displace
in place of the black vinyl coated chain link fence shown on the site plan and
elevations on the two sides that face Collier Avenue and Enterprise Way. Prior to
installation of the required fencing, the applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan
to the Community Development Director for review and approval. (Added by the
Planning Commission at its August 19, 2014 meeting.)
9. Any minor revisions to approved site plan or building elevations shall be reviewed
and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. Any
substantial revisions to the site plan or building elevations shall be reviewed
according to the provisions of the Municipal Code in a similar manner as a new
application.
Planning Commission Approved Page 2 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
10.All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical
equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded
by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public
streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened, and the
Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permit shall approve
screening plan.
11. All exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and directed on -site so as not to create
glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the
horizontal plane of the fixture.
12. The property address (in numerals at least six inches high) shall be displayed near
the entrance and be easily visible from the front of the subject property and public
right -of -way.
13. Three (3) sets of the Final Landscaping /Irrigation Detail Plan with shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department with appropriate fees, reviewed and
approved by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and the Community
Development Director or designee, prior to issuance of a building permit.
a) All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler
system with 100% plant and grass coverage using a combination of
drip and conventional irrigation methods.
b) All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch
(6 ") high and six inch (6 ") wide concrete curb.
C) Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress /egress points shall be no
higher than thirty -six inches (36 ").
d) Landscape planters shall be planted with an appropriate parking lot
shade tree pursuant to the LEMC and Landscape Design Guidelines.
e) Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be
indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping
plan.
Planning Commission Approved Page 3 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
f) The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees
and meet all requirements of the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines.
g) All landscape improvements shall be bonded 100% for material and
labor for two years from installation sign -off by the City. Release of the
landscaping bond shall be requested by the applicant at the end of the
required two years with approval /acceptance by the Landscape
Consultant and Community Development Director or Designee.
h) All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion
of any phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for
any building.
i) Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan.
j) Final landscape plans to include planting and irrigation details.
14. The Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances and regulations
of other City Departments.
15. No individual signs are approved as part of this approval. The applicant or
designee shall submit an application for a sign permit, pay appropriate fees and
receive approval from the Community Development Department for any sign(s)
installed at the project site.
16. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code, Title 17 — Zoning unless modified by approved Conditions of
Approval.
17. The project shall connect to sewer and meet all requirements of the Elsinore Valley
Municipal Water District ( EVMWD). The applicant shall submit water and sewer
plans to the EVMWD and shall incorporate all district conditions and standards.
18. The applicant shall place a weatherproof 3' x 3' sign at the entrance to the project
site identifying the approved days and hours of construction activity (i.e., 7:00 A.M.
— 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday with no construction activity to occur on
Sundays or legal holidays) and a statement that complaints regarding the operation
can be lodged with the City of Lake Elsinore Code Enforcement Division (951) 674-
Planning Commission Approved Page 4 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
3124. The sign shall be installed prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
19.Any and all existing or proposed public areas shall be made accessible in
accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
20.Any and all improvements shall be in compliance with the 2013 California Building
Code (CBC).
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2014 -01 MITIGATION MEASURES
21. The applicant shall comply with the following mitigation measures, which are set
forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for Mitigated Negative Declaration
No. 2014 -01, which was adopted for this project:
a. MM 1310 -1: Due to the presence of suitable habitat onsite for the western
burrowing owl, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction focused
species surveys within 30 -days prior to any ground- disturbing activities at the
project site where suitable habitat is present. If burrowing owls are determined to
occupy the project site during preconstruction surveys, CDFW shall be consulted
and a passive relocation program shall be undertaken to relocate owls to an area
outside the impact zone. The relocation shall be conducted following accepted
protocols and would occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl.
Existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated.
b. MM 1310 -2: In order to avoid violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code site - preparation activities (removal
of trees and vegetation) shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during
the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) of potentially occurring
native and migratory bird species.
If preparation activities are to occur during the avian nesting season, February 15
through August 31, then a 30 -day pre- construction clearance nesting bird survey
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine whether active nests of
species protected by the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code are
present in the construction zone. If active nests are not located within the project
area and appropriate buffer, construction may be conducted during the
Planning Commission Approved Page 5 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
nesting /breeding season. However, if active nests are located during the pre -
construction field survey, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place
within at least 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other
sensitive or protected (under MBTA or California Fish and Game Code) bird
nests (non - listed), or within 250 feet of sensitive or protected songbird nests. A
qualified biologist shall be required to monitor the nest until it is determined that
the nest is no longer active, at which time vegetation removal could continue.
c. MM BIO -3: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall
pay the MSHCP development mitigation fee for commercial development in
effect at the time the permits are issued.
d. MM BIO -4: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the SKRHCP fee shall be paid.
As currently stated in the Habitat Conservation Ordinance, the fee is $500 per
acre.
e. MM BIO -5: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant /developer shall
pay the MSHCP development mitigation fee for commercial development in
effect at the time the permits are issued.
f. MM CR -1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project
applicant/developer shall retain a City- approved Project Archaeologist and a
Native American Monitor to monitor all ground- disturbing activities in all areas of
the project in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any
newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural
resources evaluation.
g. MM CR -2: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project
applicant shall contact the appropriate tribe* to notify that Tribe of grading,
excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Lake
Elsinore and the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and
Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known
cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native
American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing
activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation;
and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and
Planning Commission Approved Page 6 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
human remains discovered on the site. ( *It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe
will be the "appropriate" Tribe due to prior and extensive coordination with the
City in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation
measures due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the project area.)
h. MM CR -3: Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project archaeologist shall
file a pre - grading report with the City to document the proposed methodology for
grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for
a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop
and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM
CR -2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be
exercised in consultation with the appropriate tribe in order to evaluate the
significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal
monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and ground breaking
activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities
in consultation with the project archeologist.
MM CR -4: The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,
including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are
found on the project area to the appropriate tribe for proper treatment and
disposition.
MM CR -5: If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological /cultural
resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project
archaeologist, and the appropriate tribe shall assess the significance of such
resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources.
If the Developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation
for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Community
Development Director (CDD) for decision. The CDD shall make the
determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious
beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate tribe.
k. MM CR -6: If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant
Planning Commission Approved Page 7 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in
place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and
disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the
remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours. Subsequently, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the
"most likely descendant." The most likely descendant may then make
recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the
remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98.
MM GEO -1: Following stripping, fill removal, and any demolition activities a
minimum, remedial grading in building or other structural areas include removal
and replacement of the existing soil shall be to a depth of at least five feet below
existing site grade, five feet below proposed subgrade, or three feet below
foundation bearing grade, whichever is deeper. Remedial grading shall be
performed to a horizontal distance of at least five feet beyond the proposed
foundation limits. Follow the recommended overexcavation, the upper twelve
inches of exposed subgrade soils beneath the overexcavated area shall be
scarified, worked until uniform and free from large clods, moisture - conditioned to
within 2 percent of optimum moisture - content, and recompacted to a minimum of
95 percent of the maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557.
Remedial grading shall be performed in building areas, proposed wall locations,
and any area which utilizes the recommended bearing capacity values included
in the geotechnical report.
m. MM GEO -2: Within the pavement and exterior flatwork areas, the exposed
subgrade shall be excavated to a depth of 24 inches, worked until uniform and
free from large clods and moisture - conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum
moisture - content and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum
dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Prior to backfilling, the bottom
of the excavation shall be proof - rolled and observed by a qualified geotechnical
engineer to verify stability. This compaction effort shall stabilize the upper soils
and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during the field investigation.
n. MM GEO -3: Trees and shrubs are located within the project site. Tree and shrub
removal operations shall include roots greater than 14 inch in diameter. The
Planning Commission Approved Page 8 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
resulting excavations shall be backfilled with Engineered Fill compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D
1557.
o. MM TRA : Prior to the issuance of final occupancy /operating permits, the project
applicant shall improve the intersection Collier Avenue /Enterprise Way by
constructing a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane to City
of Lake Elsinore standards.* (* The Lake Elsinore standards for intersection of
Collier Avenue /Enterprise Way are those shown on the approved site plan.)
ENGINEERING DIVISION
GENERAL
22.As the condition for a lot line adjustment for APN 377 - 120 -002, the property owner
shall dedicate to the city at no cost for the right of way as classified in the General
Plan for the half full width of Enterprise Way (34 feet from the centerline) along the
southerly boundary of the property.
23. The applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from California Department of
Transportation for the driveway connecting to Collier Avenue (SR -74). A copy of
the permit shall remain on site for inspection.
24.All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood
Control District Standards and hydrology manual. RCFCD permission, via an
encroachment permit to connect to RCFCD facilities, needs to be received prior to
City permit for construction.
25. Developer shall mitigate to prevent any flooding and /or erosion downstream caused
by development of the site and /or diversion of drainage.
26.All natural drainage traversing the site (historic flow) shall be conveyed through the
site in a manner consistent with the historic flow or to one or a combination of the
following: to a public facility; accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of
drainage acceptance; or conveyed to a drainage easement as approved by the City
Engineer.
Planning Commission Approved Page 9 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
27.All required soils, geology, hydrology and hydraulic and seismic reports shall be
prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer.
28. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development
as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC).
29.Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.)
on site and /or out on the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property
owner or his agent. Overhead utilities (34 KV ^r lewer) shall be URGIeFgFOURded.
Temporary power shall be installed per the requirements of Building Official. All
power lines (temporary or permanent) shall comply with CALTRANS standards for
vehicle clearance.
30. The applicant shall install permanent centerline monuments per City of Lake
Elsinore Standards at intersection of the project entrance and the centerline of
Enterprise Way at the driveway.
31. The applicant shall install blue dot markers in the roadway at a right angle to Fire
Hydrant locations per Riverside County Standards.
32. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling,
the applicant shall be required to contract with CR &R Inc. for removal and disposal
of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated both during
cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction and
during occupancy.
33. Sight distance into and out of this project location shall meet or exceed CALTRANS
Standards.
34.Applicant shall submit a detailed hydrology and hydraulic study for review for the
sufficient containment and conveyance of the storm water to a safe and adequate
discharge point.
35. The site will accommodate all construction activity, vehicles, etc. No staging on
public streets, or private property belonging to others without the written permission
Planning Commission Approved Page 10 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
of the property owner.
36.Annexation into Citywide LLMD is required.
37.Annexation into LLMD No 1 will be required if there is no maintenance agreement
for landscaping. Supply acreage of total landscape area in ROW, and number of
streetlights.
38. Engineering Department, via the City Engineer, will approve location for
monument/entry sign.
;11:4*1
39. The applicant shall pay all Engineering Division assessed Capital Improvement,
Plan Check and Permit fees (LEMC 16.34). Applicable mitigation fees include:
• Stephens Kangaroo Habitat Fee (K -Rat): $500 per gross acre,
• Traffic Infrastructure Fee (TIF): $3.84 per square foot of buildings.
• Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF): Retail SF $ 10.49
• Drainage Fee: $5,265.00 per acre ( #46, Warm Springs West)
Project SIC code is: 5912, retail trade, drug stores and proprietary stores.
Development impact fees quoted are subject to change. Fees will be assessed at
the prevalent rate at time of payment in full.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT / POLLUTION PREVENTION / NPDES
40.All storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked "Only Rain in the Storm
Drain" using the City authorized marker to prevent illegal dumping in the drain
system.
41. Design — The project plans shall incorporate a combination of Site Design BMPs,
Source control BMPs and Treatment Control BMPs to address the potential
Pollutants of Concern identified for the project, as required by California Green
Building Standards, Section 5.106 and NPDES requirements for residential,
Planning Commission Approved Page 11 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
industrial and commercial projects within the San Jacinto, and Santa Ana River
Watersheds.
42. Hydromodification / Hydraulic Conditions of Concern — The project shall limit
disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems; conserve natural areas,
protect slopes, channels and minimize significant impacts from urban runoff.
43. Both a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) for post construction are required for this project. The
WQMP must be approved prior to grading or building permit issuance.
44. Prior to grading or building permit the applicant shall demonstrate that
compliance with the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of
Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of
the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number
or other proof of filing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
45. SWPPP — Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the
applicant shall demonstrate compliance with California's General permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of
the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board
and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge
Identification (WDID) Number. Projects subject to filing an NOI shall prepare and
implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the current
SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for review upon request.
Projects that are not subject to coverage under the General Permit — Construction
will prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in compliance
with the California Building Code and Local Ordinances.
46. Erosion & Sediment Control — Prior to the issuance of any grading or building
permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Engineer, an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as a separate sheet of the grading plan
submittal to demonstrate compliance with the City's NPDES Program and state
water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading
or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall
Planning Commission Approved Page 12 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
be property covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into local drainages or
waters by wind, rain, tracking, or dispersion. The plan shall also describe how the
project will ensure that all BMPs will be maintained during construction of any future
right of ways. A copy of the plan shall be incorporated into the SWPPP as
applicable, kept updated as needed to address changing circumstances of the
project site, be kept at the project site and available for review upon request.
47. The project shall implement LID practices that treat the 85th percentile storm in the
;priority order as follows:
• Infiltrate
• Harvest and use
• Evapotranspire and /or biotreat
• Treat ALL pollutants of concern and discharge (applicable to projects
discharging to Lake Elsinore for recharge)
48. Project hardscape areas shall be designed and constructed to provide for drainage
into adjacent landscape.
49. WQMP — A Preliminary and Final WQMP are required. Prior to the issuance of
any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit for review and
approval by the City Engineer, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used onsite
to control identified pollutants of concern. The applicant shall utilize the MS4
Permittee Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), LID Guidance Manual for
reference, and the MS4 Permittee's WQMP Guidance Document and Template for
submittal. This WQMP shall include the following:
• Detailed site and project description
• Potential stormwater pollutants
• Post - development drainage characteristics
• Low Impact Development (LID) BMP selection and analysis
• Structural and Non - Structural source control BMPs
• Site design and drainage plan (BMP Exhibit)
• Vector issues are addressed in the BMP design, operation and maintenance.
• GIS coordinates for all LID and Treatment Control BMPs
• HCOC — demonstrate that discharge flow rates, velocities, duration and
Planning Commission Approved Page 13 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
volume for the post construction condition from a 2 year and 10 year 24 hour
rainfall event will not cause significant adverse impacts on downstream
erosion and receiving waters, or measures are implemented to mitigate
significant adverse impacts to downstream public facilities and water bodies.
Design goal to replicate pre - development hydrologic regime.
• Operation and Maintenance (O &M) Plan & Agreement (using City format) that
(1) describes the long -term operation and maintenance requirements for
BMPs identified in the BMP Exhibit; (2) identifies the entity that will be
responsible for long -term operation and maintenance of the referenced
BMPs; and (3) describes the mechanism for funding the long -term operation
and maintenance of the referenced BMPs.
50. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and /or occupancy, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with applicable NPDES permits for construction,
industrial /commercial, MS4, etc. to include:
• Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMP's)
described in the BMP Exhibit from the project's approved WQMP have been
implemented, constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans
and specifications.
• Demonstrate that the project has complied with all non - structural BMPs
described in the project's WQMP.
• Provide signed, notarized certification from the engineer of work that the
structural BMP's identified in the project's WQMP are installed and
operational.
• Submit a copy of the fully executed, recorded Operations and Maintenance
(O &M) Plan for all structural BMPs.
• Demonstrate that copies of the project's approved WQMP (with recorded
O &M Plan attached) are available for each of the initial occupants
(commercial /industrial) or HOA as appropriate.
• Agree to pay for a Special Investigation from the City of Lake Elsinore for a
date twelve (12) months after the issuance of a Certificate of Use and /or
Occupancy for the project to verify compliance with the approved WQMP and
O &M Plan. A signed /sealed certification from the engineer of work dated 12
months after CofO will be considered in lieu of a Special Investigation by the
City.
• Provide a recorded copy of one of the following:
Planning Commission Approved Page 14 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
1. A water quality implementation agreement has the approved WQMP
and O &M Plan attached; or
2. The final approved Water Quality Management Plan and Operations
and Maintenance Plan.
51. Chemical management — Prior to the issuance of building permits for any tank or
pipeline, the uses of said tank or pipeline shall be identified and the applicant shall
submit a Chemical Management Plan in addition to a WQMP with all appropriate
measures for chemical management (including, but not limited to, storage,
emergency response, employee training, spill contingencies and disposal) in a
manner meeting the satisfaction of the Manager, Permit Intake, in consultation with
the Riverside County Fire Department and wastewater agencies, as appropriate, to
ensure implementation of each agency's respective requirements. A copy of the
approved "Chemical Management Plans" shall be furnished to the Fire Marshall,
prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy.
52. Industrial Facilities — For industrial facilities subject to California's General Permit
for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity as defined by
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code.
• Prior to grading or building permit close -out and /or the issuance of a
certificate of use and occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate that
compliance with the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the
Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board
and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge
Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
IMPROVEMENTS:
53.An encroachment permit is required for all work to be done in the public right -of-
way. Applicant shall submit the permit application, required fees and documents
prior to issuance.
54.Applicant shall construct improvements to Caltrans requirements from the existing
property line back to the proposed property line along the project frontage on Collier
Avenue. New improvements to match or transition to existing improvements along
Planning Commission Approved Page 15 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
the northern property boundary. Safety constraints will not allow for a bike lane at
this time.
55.Applicant shall construct half width street improvements: curb, gutter, sidewalk,
roadway pavement and drainage improvements on Enterprise Way. Improvements
to be constructed from the southerly property line to Collier Avenue to include
commercial driveway at main access.
56.All existing storm drain inlet facilities adjacent to the subject properties shall be
retrofitted with a storm drain filter; all new storm drain inlet facilities constructed by
this project shall include a storm drain filter.
57.All improvements must comply with ADA standards.
58. Provide street lighting, consistent with California State Codes and City Standards.
59. Dedicate right of way along Enterprise Way adjacent to the project (to total 34 feet
from centerline).
60. Dedicate right of way along State Route 74 (Collier Avenue) adjacent to the project
(to total 60 feet from centerline).
61.Applicant shall submit signing and striping plans for City review and approval for
Collier Avenue and Enterprise Way. Plans shall include details of the secondary
access showing compliance with sight distance standards, NPDES and
Professional Traffic Consideration. All signing and striping and traffic control
devices shall be installed and approved by the City.
62.A California Registered Civil Engineer shall prepare the improvement plans
required for this project. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to
Riverside County Road Department Standards latest edition, and City Codes
(LEMC 12.04 and 16.34). Improvement plans will be reviewed and approved by
both the City of Lake Elsinore and Caltrans.
63.The location for the entry /guide sign for this venue shall be approved by the
Engineering Division.
Planning Commission Approved Page 16 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT
64.A grading plan signed and stamped by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall
be submitted for City review and approval for all addition and /or movement of soil
(grading) on the site. The plan shall include separate sheets for erosion control,
haul route and traffic control. The grading submittal shall include all supporting
documentation and be prepared using City standard title block, standard drawings
and design manual (available at www.lake- elsinore.org).
65.All grading plan contours shall extend to minimum of 50 feet beyond property lines
to indicate existing drainage pattern.
66. If the grading plan identifies alterations in the existing drainage patterns as they exit
the site, a Hydrology and Hydraulic Report for review and approval by City Engineer
shall be required prior to issuance of grading permits. All grading that modifies the
existing flow patterns and /or topography shall be in compliance with federal, state
and local law and be approved by the City Engineer.
67.The applicant shall apply for, obtain and submit to the City Engineering Division a
letter from Southern California Edison (SCE) indicating that the construction activity
will not interfere with existing SCE facilities (aka SCE NIL).
68.All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical firm. Slopes
steeper than 2 to 1 shall be evaluated for stability and proper erosion control and
approved by the City.
69.A seismic study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake
faults, liquefaction and /or subsidence zones present on -site. A certified letter from
a registered geologist or geotechnical engineer shall be submitted confirming the
absence of this hazard prior to grading permit.
70. Prior to grading permit issuance the applicant shall obtain all necessary off -site
easements and /or permits for off -site grading and the app; +Eant shall —Rceep
drainage frem the adjaGent property ewneFs prier to gFading permit issuanGe-. shall
accept and direct historic flows of water from adjacent properties onto the project
Planning Commission Approved Page 17 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
site in a safe manner approved by the City Engineer. (Amended by the Planning
Commission at its August 19, 2014 meeting.)
71.Applicant shall execute and submit grading and erosion control agreement, post
grading security and pay permit fees as a condition of grading permit issuance.
72.A preconstruction meeting with the City Public Works Inspector (Engineering
Division) is required prior to commencement of ANY grading activity.
73. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, applicant shall provide the City for review and
approval a plan of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of import or
export material. Export sites located within the Lake Elsinore City limits must have
an active grading permit. Public Noticing and City Council approval is required for
haul routes of over 5,000 cubic yards. The cost of noticing shall be paid by the
applicant.
74.Applicant shall provide the city with a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Waste
Discharge Identification (WDID) letter issued by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
prior to issuance of grading permit(s).
75.Approval of the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) (see
General Construction Permit and California Green Building Standards Code) and
erosion control plan shall be received and BMPs implemented prior to issuance of a
grading permit. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and
be available for review upon request.
76.Approval of the project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post
construction shall be received prior to issuance of a grading permit.
77.Applicant shall pay all grading permit applicable processing, permit, security and
development fees including Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat prior to issuance of the
grading permit.
Planning Commission Approved Page 18 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT
78. The applicant shall process an Agreement with the WRCOG for relief from TUMF
fees. The agreement shall be executed prior to building permit
79. The applicant shall submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division for
this project and specify the technical data for the water service at the location, such
as water pressure and volume, etc. Submit this letter to the Engineering Division
prior to applying for a building permit.
80. The owner shall process through the City Engineering Division for plan check,
approval a lot line adjustment for APN 377 - 120 -002 and 377 - 021 -038.
81.All required public right -of -way dedications and easements shall be prepared by the
applicant or his agent and shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review
and approval prior to issuance of building permit.
82.A ReGiPFOGaIl aG(ss agFeeMe i shall be submitted feF the Gollior DFivoway fnr
futum develeprneRtte — n,e -;erth-. As the condition for a lot line adjustment, the
Applicant shall record an ingress/egress easement in a form approved by the City
Attorney that provides access to and from Collier Avenue by the property directly to
the north of the project site. (Added by the Planning Commission at it August 19,
2014 hearing.)
83. Provide soils, geology and seismic report, including recommendations for
parameters for seismic design of buildings, and walls prior to building permit.
84. Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy or building permits for
individual tenant improvements or construction permits for a tank or pipeline, uses
shall be identified and, for specified uses (where the proposed improvements will
store, generate or handle hazardous materials in quantities that will require
permitting and inspection once operational), the applicant shall propose plans and
measures for chemical management (including, but not limited to, storage,
emergency response, employee training, spill contingencies and disposal) to the
satisfaction of the City Building Official(s).
Planning Commission Approved Page 19 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
85.Applicant shall pay all applicable processing and development fees including but
not all inclusive: TUMF, MSHCP, TIF, and area drainage.
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY /FINAL APPROVAL:
86. Final soil report showing compliance with recommendations, compaction reports,
grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 1/2 x 11"
mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection will be
scheduled.
87.All required public right -of -way dedications, easements, dedications and vacations
and easement agreement(s) for ingress and egress through adjacent property(ies)
shall be recorded with a recorded copy provided to the City prior to final project
approval.
88. Slope maintenance along right -of -ways and open spaces shall be maintained by the
property owner. Documentation of maintenance responsibility shall be in a
recordable format and recorded prior to occupancy /final.
89.All street improvements shall be completed in accordance with approved plans or
as a condition of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
90. All signing and striping and traffic control devices onsite and on Enterprise Way and
Collier Avenue shall be installed.
91. Prior to grading or building permit close -out and /or the issuance of a certificate of
use or a certificate of occupancy, applicant shall:
1. Demonstrate that all structural BMPs have been constructed, installed and
are functioning in conformance with approved plans and specifications and
the WQMP;
2. Demonstrate that they are prepared to implement all non - structural BMPs
included in the conditions of approval or building /grading permit conditions;
3. Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved project
specific WQMP are available for the future owners /occupants; and
4. The applicant shall provide all education guidelines for Water Quality
Management Practices to the tenants, operators and owners of the
Planning Commission Approved Page 20 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
businesses of the development, regarding the environmental awareness on
good housekeeping practices that contribute to protection of storm water
quality and meet the goals of the approved WQMP in the Riverside County
NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. Contact the City NPDES
Coordinator for handout /guideline information.
92. Chemical management plans shall be approved by the City and other appropriate
agencies such as Riverside County Fire Department, the Health Services Agency's
Department of Environmental Health, and sewering and /or water agencies to
ensure implementation of each agency's respective requirements. Approval by the
appropriate agencies shall be furnished to the Engineering Division, prior to the
issuance of any certificates of use and /or occupancy.
93. The property owner shall execute and cause to be recorded a "Covenant and
Agreement" in the form provided by the City to inform future property owners of the
requirement to implement the approved final project- specific WQMP.
94.Applicant shall pay all outstanding applicable processing and development fees
including but not all inclusive: TUMF, MSHCP, TIF, Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat
and area drainage prior to occupancy /final approval.
95.As -built plans for all approved plan sets shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City. The applicant/developer /owner is responsible for revising the original
mylar plans. Once the original mylars have been approved, the applicant shall
provide the City with a CD of the "as built" plans in .tif format.
96.All final studies and reports shall be submitted in .tif format on a CD /DVD. Studies
and reports include, Soils, Seismic, Hydrology, Hydraulics, Grading, SWPPP,
WQMP, etc.
97. Provide on compact disc GIS Shape files of all final maps and street and storm
drain plans. *ALL DATA MUST BE IN projected Coordinate System: NAD 83 State
Plane California Zone VI U.S. Fleet.
Planning Commission Approved Page 21 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FIRE MARSHAL
General Conditions
98. Lake Elsinore Fire Protection Planning Office Responsibility - It is the
responsibility of the recipient of these Fire Department conditions to forward them to
all interested parties. The permit number (CDR 2014 -01) is required on all
correspondence. Questions should be directed to the Riverside County Fire
Department, Lake Elsinore Fire Protection Planning Division at 130 S. Main Street,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. Phone: (951) 671 -3124 Ext. 225. The following fire
department conditions shall be implemented in accordance with the Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code and the adopted codes at the time of project building plan
submittal, these conditions are in addition to the adopted code requirements.
99. Blue Dot Reflectors - Blue retro - reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on
private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants.
Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside
County Fire Department.
100. Minimum Hydrant Fire Flow - Minimum required fire flow shall be 1,750 GPM
for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available
before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Average spacing
between hydrants 500' and 250' maximum distance from any point on the street or
road frontage to hydrant.
101. Super Fire Hydrants - Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 -2 1/2 "), shall be located not
less than 25 feet or more than 250 feet from any portion of the building as
measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
102. Secondary Access — In the interest of Public Safety, this project shall provide an
Alternate or Secondary Access. Said access shall be constructed in accordance to
the City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Department standards to accommodate full
fire response and development evacuation.
Planning Commission Approved Page 22 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
103. Automatic / Manual Gates — Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider
than the width of the traffic lane(s) serving that gate and no less than 20 feet wide.
Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35
feet from the roadway and shall open to allow vehicle to stop without obstructing
traffic on the road. Where a one -way road with a single traffic lane provides access
to a gate entrance, a 40 -foot turning radius shall be used. Gate access shall be
equipped with a rapid entry system. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to installation. Automatic /manual gate pins shall be
rated with shear pin force, not to exceed 30 foot pounds. Automatic gates shall be
equipped with emergency backup power. Gates activated by the rapid entry system
shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. Contact the Fire Planning
office for current plan check fees.
104. Separation of Occupancy — A fire barrier wall for the separation of occupancies
is required per the California Building Code. Fire walls, fire barriers, fire partitions,
smoke barriers, and smoke partitions or any other wall required to have protected
openings or penetrations shall be effectively and permanently identified with signs
or stenciling. Such identification shall be located in accessible concealed floor, floor
ceiling or attic spaces repeated at intervals not exceeding 30 feet along the wall,
and include lettering not less than 0.5 inch in height, incorporating the suggested
wording "FIRE AND /OR SMOKE BARRIER — PROTECT ALL OPENINGS," or other
wording.
105. Operating Permit Required — This project has been reviewed and may require
an operating permit in addition to the construction permit that has been conditioned
for this project in accordance with Section 105.6 of The California Fire Code.
Prior to Building Permit Issuance
106. Plan Check Fee - Building plan check fee made payable to the City of Lake
Elsinore, and shall be submitted to the Fire Department at time plans are submitted
to our office(s).
107. Water System Plans - Applicant and /or developer shall separately submit 2 sets
of water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans must be signed by
a registered Civil Engineer and /or water purveyor prior to Fire Department review
Planning Commission Approved Page 23 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
and approval. Mylars will be signed by the Fire Department after review and
approval. Two (2) copies of the signed and approved water plans shall be returned
to the Fire Department before release of a building permit.
108. Prior to Building Construction Verification — This project shall be inspected
and approved by the Fire Marshal or designee prior to bringing combustible
materials on site. During such inspection all permanent road signs shall be in
place, all hydrants shall be operating and approved for use by the water purveyor,
and all permanent road surfaces shall be completed including primary and
secondary access circulation.
Prior to Building Final Inspection
109. Fire Sprinkler System 13 — Install a complete fire sprinkler system designed in
accordance with California Building Code, California Fire Code and adopted
standards. Sprinkler systems with pipe sizes larger than 4 inches in diameter will
require the Engineer or Architect of Record certification with details and calculations
with "wet signature" that the building structural system is designed to support the
seismic and gravity loads for the support of the additional weight of the sprinkler
system. The PIV and FDC shall be located to the front of the building in an
approved location, unobstructed and within 50 feet of an approved road or
driveway, within 200 feet of a hydrant. A C -16 licensed contractor must submit
plans, along with the current fee, to the Fire Department for review and approval
prior to installation.
110. Sprinkler System Monitoring — Install an alarm monitoring system for fire
sprinkler system(s) with 20 or more heads. Valve monitoring, water -flow alarm and
trouble signals shall be automatically transmitted to an approved central station,
remote station or proprietary monitoring station in accordance with California
Building Code, California Fire Code and adopted standards. An approved audible
sprinkler flow alarm shall be provided on the exterior in an approved location. The
location of the Fire Alarm Control Unit shall be located in an environmentally -
controlled location in accordance with 10.14 (NFPA 72, 2010). A C -10 licensed
contractor must submit plans designed in accordance with adopted standards,
along with the current fee, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to
installation.
Planning Commission Approved Page 24 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01
VARIANCE NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY (APN 377 - 120 -002 & 038)
111. Designated Fire Lanes - The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate
lane painting and /or signs.
112. Knox Rapid Entry Box — A rapid entry Knox Box shall be installed on the
outside of the building. Key(s) shall have durable and legible tags affixed for
identification of the correlating tenant space. Special forms are available from this
office for ordering the Knox Box. If the building /facility is protected with a fire alarm
or burglar alarm system, it is recommended that the lock box be "tamper"
monitoring.
113. Fire Extinguishers- Minimum install portable fire extinguishers complying with
Section 906 of the 2013 California Fire Code with a minimum rating of 2A -20BC
and signage. Fire extinguishers located in public areas shall be in recessed
cabinets mounted 48" (inches) to center above floor level with maximum 4"
projection from wall. Contact Fire Department for proper placement of equipment
prior to installation.
Planning Commission Approved Page 25 of 25 City Council
August 19, 2014 September 2, 2014
C 1 "1 y o ll ,�--
I ,F
bJ Rf I
TRACTOR SUPPLY CO. PROJECT
(COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW No. 2014-01 &
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01)
INITIAL STUDY FOR
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 2014-01
Prepared By:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Applicant:
CALIFORNIA GOLD DEVELOPMENT CORP.
133 Old Wards Ferry Road, Suite G
Sonora, California 95370
Environmental Consultant:
FirstCarbon Solutions
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
July 7, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... ..............................1
A.
Purpose ............................................................................................................ ..............................1
B.
California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................... ...............................
1
C.
Intended Uses of Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ............. ...............................
2
D.
Contents of Initial Study ................................................................................ ...............................
2
E.
Scope of Environmental Analysis ................................................................... ..............................3
F.
Tiered Documents, Incorporation by Reference, and Technical Studies ....... ...............................
3
11. PROJECT
DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... ...............................
6
III. ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST ....................................................................... ...............................
6
A.
Background .................................................................................................... ...............................
6
B.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................ ...............................
17
C.
Determination .............................................................................................. ...............................
17
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS .......................................................................... .............................26
I.
Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... .............................26
II.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................... .............................27
III.
Air- Quality ................................................................................................... ...............................
29
IV.
Biological Resources ...................................................................................... .............................38
V.
Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... ...............................
42
VI.
Geology and Soils ........................................................................................ ...............................
44
VII.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................ .............................47
VIII.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................ ...............................
50
IX.
Hydrology and Water- Quality ...................................................................... ...............................
53
X.
Land Use and Planning ................................................................................ ...............................
57
XI.
Mineral Resources ....................................................................................... ...............................
58
XII.
Noise ............................................................................................................ ...............................
59
XIII.
Population and Housing ............................................................................... ...............................
63
XIV.
Public Services ............................................................................................... .............................64
XV.
Recreation .................................................................................................... ...............................
65
XVI.
Transportation/ Traffic .................................................................................... .............................66
XVII.
Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................... ...............................
69
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................. .............................72
Initial Studdy for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY
APPENDIX B: CULTURAL
APPENDIX C: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D: GEOTEC1 NICAL REPORT
APPENDIX E: NOISE
APPENDIX F: TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Localized Significance Analysis .................................................................... ............................... 32
Table 2: Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ................................................ ............................... 34
Table 3: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions ............................................................ ............................... 35
Table 4: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions ............................................................. ............................... 35
Table 5: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases .......................................................... ............................... 50
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map .................................................................................. ..............................9
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map, Aerial Base ................................................................ ............................... 11
Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map, Topographic Base ...................................................... ............................... 13
Exhibit4: Site Plan ...................................................................................................... ............................... 15
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page iv
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the Tractor Supply Company Project (Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 &
Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 -01). For purposes of this document, these applications will be called
the "proposed project."
B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
As defined by Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an
Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for
determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or Mitigated
Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation
and clearance for any proposed project.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal
if the following conditions occur:
• The proposal has the potential to substantially degrade quality of the environment.
• The proposal has the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of
long -term environmental goals.
• The proposal has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable.
• The proposal could cause direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings.
According to Section 21080(c)(1) of CEQA and Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Negative
Declaration can be adopted if it can be determined that the project will not have a significant effect on
the environment.
According to Section 21080(c)(2) of CEQA and Section 15070(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted if it is determined that although the Initial Study
identifies that the project may have potentially significant effects on the environment, revisions in the
project plans and /or mitigation measures, which would avoid or mitigate the effects to below the level
of significance, have been made or agreed to by the applicant.
This Initial Study has determined that the proposed project may result in potentially significant
environmental effects but that said effects can be reduced to below the level of significance
through the implementation of mitigation measures and therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary environmental
evaluations and clearance.
This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 , as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.); the
State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA
Guidelines "), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter- 3, Section 15000, et. seq.);
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page I
applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures
of any other responsible public agency or agency with jurisdiction by law.
The City of Lake Elsinore City Council is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section
15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the
environment.
C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents which are intended
to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision - makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the
general public of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review
process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to
examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While
CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and
other responsible agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives,
including economic and social goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021).
The City of Lake Elsinore City Council, as Lead Agency, has determined that environmental clearance
for the proposed project can be provided with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study and
Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be
circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments received on the document
will be considered by the Lead Agency before it acts on the proposed project.
D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and
environmental implications of the proposed project.
L INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of Lake
Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental
procedures, and incorporation by reference documents.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of discretionary
approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City's Environmental Checklist Form.
The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those
areas that would have either a potentially significant impact, a less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated, a less than significant impact, or no impact.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS provides the background analysis supporting each response
provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed
and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and
identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures
are also set forth, as appropriate, that would reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to levels of
less than significance.
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents the background analysis supporting each response provided in
the environmental checklist form for the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section
21083(b) of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 2
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those individuals consulted and
involved in the preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.
VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document.
E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is
stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. All
responses will take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project- level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each
question, there are four possible responses, including:
1. No Impact: A "No Impact" response is adequately supported if the referenced sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to the proposed project.
2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project implementation will have the
potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels of
thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required.
3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and explain how the
measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
4. Potentially Significant Impact: Future implementation will have impacts that are considered
significant and additional analysis and possibly an EIR are required to identify mitigation measures
that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL
STUDIES
Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on the incorporation by
reference of tiered documentation and technical studies that have been prepared for the proposed project
which are discussed in the following section.
1. Tiered Documents
As permitted in Section 151.52(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, information and discussions from other
documents can be included into this document. Tiering is defined as follows:
"Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as the one
prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on
narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions fi-om the broader EIR; and
concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project."
For this document, the "Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program EIR (SCH
42005121019)" (prepared in 2011) serves as the broader document, since it analyzes the entire City
area, which includes the proposed project site. However, as discussed, site - specific impacts, which the
broader document (Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program EIR) cannot
adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This document, therefore, evaluates each
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 3
environmental issue alone and relies upon the analysis contained within the Lake Elsinore General Plan
Update Final Recirculated Program EIR with respect to remaining issue areas.
Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which
discourages redundant analyses, as follows:
"Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but
related projects including the general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This
approach can eliminate repetitive discussion of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative
declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is
appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or
program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to
a site - specific EIR or negative declaration."
Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
"Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent
with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent
with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the
later project to effects which:
(1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or
(2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions
in the project, by the imposition of conditions or other means."
2. Incorporation by Reference
Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs and is most appropriate for
including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do
not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly useful
when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative
impacts of related projects (Las Vitgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177
Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is
available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or
analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584,
595]). This document incorporates by reference the document from which it is tiered, the Lake Elsinore
General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program EIR, published in 2011. This document will be
referred to as the "General Plan EIR."
When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must
comply with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
• The incorporated document must be available to the public or be a matter of public record (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15150[a]). The General Plan EIR shall be made available, along with this
document, at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main
Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674 -3124.
• This document must be available for inspection by the public at an office of the lead agency (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15150[b]). This document is available at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community
Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674 -3124.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 4
This document must summarize the portion of the document being incorporated by reference or
briefly describe the information that cannot be summarized. Furthermore, this document must
describe the relationship between the incorporated information and the analysis in the General Plan
EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]). As discussed above, the General Plan EIR addresses the
entire City of Lake Elsinore and provides background and inventory information and data which
apply to the project site. Incorporated information and /or data will be cited in the appropriate sections.
This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15150[d]). The State Clearinghouse Number- for the General Plan EIR is
2005121019.
The material to be incorporated in this document will include general background information
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[f]).
3. Technical Studies
The following Technical Studies were utilized to complete the analysis contained in this IS /MND:
• Air Quality (FCS, 2014) Appendix A
• Cultural (FCS, 2014) Appendix B
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Partner Engineering and Science Inc., 2013) Appendix C
• Geotechnical Report (Krazan & Associates, Inc., 2013) Appendix D
• Noise (FCS, 2014) Appendix E
• Transportation and Traffic (Trames Solutions Inc., 2013) Appendix F
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 5
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The project site is located in the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California (Exhibit 1). The
3.44 -acre project site is located within an industrial area of the City of Lake Elsinore, at the northwest
corner of Enterprise Way and Collier Avenue (SR -74). The project site is bounded by vacant land
(northwest), Collier Avenue followed by Elsinore Valley Cemetery (northeast), Enterprise Way followed
by California Skier Mastercraft (IS 171 Collier Ave.) (southeast), and vacant land (southwest). The project
site is located on the Lake Elsinore, California, United States Geologic Survey 7.5- minute quadrangle
map, Range 4 West, Township 5, Section 31 and 36 (Latitude 33 °41'34" North; Longitude 117 °20'47"
West). The project site is located at 1,300 feet above mean sea level. Exhibit 1 shows the regional
location of the project site and Exhibit 2 shows the project vicinity. A topographic map of the project site
is provided in Exhibit 3.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes the construction of a tractor- supply store consisting of a 18,800- square -foot
tractor supply building; two drainage basins consisting of 8,000 and 2,100 square feet; permanent outdoor
display areas of 18,120 square feet; perimeter landscaping; and accompanying parking areas with 91
parking spaces. Two driveways are proposed off Enterprise Way and one driveway is proposed off Collier
Avenue (SR -74). Project details are contained in Exhibit 4.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title:
Tractor Supply Company Project (Commercial Design Review No. 2014 -01 & Conditional Use Permit
No. 2014 -01)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Associate, Planning Manager (951) 674 -3124 Ext. 209
4. Project Location:
The project is located on the northwest corner of Enterprise Way and Collier Avenue, Lake Elsinore,
CA
5. Project Sponsors Name and Address:
California Gold Development Corp. 133 Old Wards Ferry Road, Suite G, Sonora CA 95370
6. General Plan Designation:
Limited Industrial (LI)
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 6
7. Zoning:
Commercial Manufacturing (CM)
8. Description of Project:
The project consists of the construction of a Tractor Supply Company store, with a building, two
basins, landscaping, permanent outdoor display areas, and parking.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located in an industrial area, bounded by vacant land (northwest), Collier Avenue
followed by Elsinore Valley Cemetery (northeast), Enterprise Way followed by California Skier
Mastercraft (18171 Collier Ave.) (southeast), and vacant land (southwest).
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 7
Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, FCS GIS 2014.
• FirstCarbon° ® 5 2.5 0 5 Exhibit 1
SOLUTIONS Miles
Regional Location Map
10830018 • 04/2014 1 1_regional.mxd CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE • TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. FCS Field Survey and GIS Data, 2014.
Exhibit 2
�-,A Firstcarbono ® 1,000 500 0 1,000 Local Vicinity Map
SOLUTIONS ��� Feet Aerial Base
10830018 • 04/2014 1 2_local_aerial.mxd CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE • TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: TOPO! USGS Lake Elsinore, CA (1997) 7.5' L)RU.
Exhibit 3
®A FirstCarborr e 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Local Vicinity Map
SOLUTIONS Feet Topographic Base
10830018 • 04/2014 1 3_local_topo.mxd CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE • TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: Architecture Plus Inc., February 2014.
• FirstCarbon° Exhibit 4
4
SOLUTIONS ® Site Plan
10830018 • 04/2014 1 4_site_plan.cdr CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE • TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agricultural and Forestry
❑
Air Quality
Resources
F]
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Greenhouse Gas
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Hydrology / Water
Emissions
Materials
Quality
[❑
Land Use I Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
Ej
'Transportation / Traffic
F]
Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Z 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGA'T'ED NEGATIVE,
DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARA'T'ION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
(Richard J. M4 c Hott, Planning Manager) to
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 17
I AESTHETICS Would the roiect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
❑
Less Than
®
❑
vista?
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Incorporated
I AESTHETICS Would the roiect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
❑
❑
®
❑
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
❑
❑
❑
El
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
❑
El
❑
❑
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
El
El
®
❑
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
❑
❑
❑
rq
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
❑
❑
®
❑
views in the area?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
❑
❑
❑
❑
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
❑
❑
❑
El
Mapping and Monitoring Program of
❑
❑
®
❑
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
❑
❑
1 ®
I ❑
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
❑
❑
❑
rq
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland
❑
❑
❑
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
❑
❑
❑
forest land to non - forest uses?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
❑
❑
®
❑
in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural
use?
management or air pollution control district may be 'relied ;upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
❑
❑
❑
❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
❑
❑
®
❑
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
❑
❑
1 ®
I ❑
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 18
III Rini 71f211'' dT . RFQQn1 TRrF.,1Q Wnnld tho nrniprt-
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
❑
Less Than
®
❑
through habitat modifications, on any species
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Incorporated
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non - attainment under an applicable
❑
❑
®
❑
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions, which exceed
❑
❑
®
❑
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
❑
❑
®
❑
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
❑
❑
®
❑
number of people?
❑
❑
❑
III Rini 71f211'' dT . RFQQn1 TRrF.,1Q Wnnld tho nrniprt-
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
❑
❑
®
❑
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
❑
®
❑
❑
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
❑
❑
®
❑
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
❑
❑
®
❑
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
❑
❑
❑
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
❑
❑
❑
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nurser sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
❑
®
❑
❑
reservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
❑
❑
❑
❑
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V CTTIXIIRAT, RF,1 01TRCES. Would the nroiect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations?
❑
❑
®
❑
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
❑
®
❑
❑
pursuant to §15064.5 of the California Code of
Regulations?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
❑
❑
®
❑
geologic feature?
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 19
VI. + GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the nroiect:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
❑
Less Than
®
❑
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No
loss, injury, or death involving:
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo
❑
Incorporated
❑
❑
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
❑
❑
❑
❑
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
❑
❑
®
❑
VI. + GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the nroiect:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
❑
❑
®
❑
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
❑
❑
❑
❑
loss, injury, or death involving:
❑
❑
❑
❑
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo
❑
❑
❑
❑
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
❑
❑
®
❑
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
®
❑
❑
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including
❑
❑
®
1:1
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
El
❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
❑
❑
®
❑
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
❑
®
❑
❑
or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
❑
®
❑
❑
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
❑
❑
❑
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
VIL GRFF'NHOIJgF; GAS EMISSIONS. Would the nroiect '
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
❑
❑
®
❑
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
on the environment?
❑
❑
❑
❑
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
❑
❑
❑
❑
emissions of greenhouse gases?
VIII HA7.ARITR ANT) HA7ARAOIIS MATERIALS Would the:nroiect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
❑
❑
®
❑
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
❑
❑
❑
❑
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
❑
❑
❑
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 20
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 21
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
❑
❑
❑
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
❑
❑
❑
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
❑
❑
❑
for people residing or working in the project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
❑
❑
®
❑
emergency evacuation plan?
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands area adjacent to
❑
❑
®
❑
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
IX.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the °ro'ect:';
a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste
❑
❑
®
❑
discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
such that there could be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
❑
❑
®
❑
table (e.g. the production rate of pre- existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
❑
❑
®
❑
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off -site?
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
❑
❑
®
❑
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in flooding on- or
off -site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
❑
❑
®
❑
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑
❑
❑
❑
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area
❑
El
❑
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 21
IV W1101 I'M ® rwt1L_® o1 III U IYAW1oflor liWaYNT13riiiI T.TiiWITfQi
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than
❑
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No
region and the residents of the state?
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
important mineral resource recovery site
the project (including, but not limited to the
Incorporated
❑
®
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
❑
®
❑
delineation map?
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
structures which would impede or redirect flood
❑
❑
❑
❑
flows?
plan or natural community conservation plan?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
❑
❑
®
❑
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) hlundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
❑
❑
IV W1101 I'M ® rwt1L_® o1 III U IYAW1oflor liWaYNT13riiiI T.TiiWITfQi
a) Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
region and the residents of the state?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
important mineral resource recovery site
the project (including, but not limited to the
❑
❑
®
❑
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
❑
®
❑
other land use plan?
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
❑
®
❑
❑
plan or natural community conservation plan?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
YT NTTNTi R AT. RFgnlTRCF.C.` Wniild the nraie.et!
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
❑
❑
❑
❑
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
❑
❑
❑
❑
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
❑
❑
®
❑
other land use plan?
'VTT XrnicV +tio„ v onf —"If ;n•
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
❑
❑
®
❑
local general plan or noise ordinance, or other
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
❑
❑
®
❑
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
❑
❑
®
❑
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
❑
❑
®
❑
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
❑
❑
❑
❑
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
❑
❑
❑
❑
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 22
-i1 Ingo] U111 WIN N117►`®► 1 oil "a 161W11 Iff llt`i`M(ifl1TWIiFUM
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
❑
Less Than
❑
❑
either directly (for example, by proposing new
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
through extension of roads or other
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
infrastructure ?
❑
Incorporated
❑
e) Other public services /facilities?
or working in the project area to excessive noise
❑
❑
❑
levels?
❑
❑
❑
F7
-i1 Ingo] U111 WIN N117►`®► 1 oil "a 161W11 Iff llt`i`M(ifl1TWIiFUM
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
❑
1 ❑
❑
❑
either directly (for example, by proposing new
b) Police protection?
❑
❑
®
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
❑
❑
❑
❑
through extension of roads or other
d) Parks?
❑
infrastructure ?
❑
®
❑
e) Other public services /facilities?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
❑
❑
❑
necessitating the construction of replacement
❑
❑
❑
F7
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
❑
❑
❑
housing elsewhere?
a) Fire protection?
❑
1 ❑
❑
❑
neighborhood and regional parks or other
b) Police protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
c) Schools?
❑
❑
❑
d) Parks?
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
e) Other public services /facilities?
❑
❑
❑
❑
VV RFC''RFATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
❑
❑
❑
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
❑
®
❑
❑
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
❑
❑
El
F7
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XVI TRA'NfiPORTATION /TRAFFIC'_ Would :the nroiect:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking
into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non- motorized travel and
❑
®
❑
❑
relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited
to level of service standards and travel demand
❑
❑
❑
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
Initial Stuady for• Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 23
Initial Study for Alitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 24
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
❑
❑
❑
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
❑
❑
❑
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
t) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
❑
❑
❑
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities?
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
❑
❑
❑
❑
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
❑
❑
®
❑
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
❑
❑
®
❑
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
❑
❑
®
❑
resources or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
❑
❑
❑
❑
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill system with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
❑
❑
®
❑
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
❑
❑
®
❑
regulations related to solid waste?
XVI11. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
❑
❑
®
❑
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
❑
❑
❑
VN
Initial Study for Alitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 24
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Deelaration No. 2014 -01
Page 25
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No
Significant
with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
❑
❑
❑
VIIJ
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Deelaration No. 2014 -01
Page 25
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental
Checklist. A complete list of the reference sources applicable to the following source abbreviations is
contained in Section VII, References, of this document.
I. AESTHETICS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact
The project site currently consists of vacant land covered with natural vegetation, weeds, and trees. No
operations are currently conducted onsite. Land uses in the project vicinity consist of commercial
activity, previously developed land, and vacant land. Collier Avenue borders the project site to the
northeast with Enterprise Way bordering the site to the southeast. The City designates scenic resources in
the General Plan including Lake Elsinore, Cleveland National Forest, rugged hills, mountains, ridgelines,
rocky outcroppings, streams, vacant land with vegetation, buildings of historical and cultural significance
such as the cultural center, bathhouse and military academy, parks, and trails. The project site contains
one of these features, vacant land with native vegetation. However, the project is located within an areas
designated for Limited Industrial development and is not considered an area of scenic value.
Furthermore, the City of Lake Elsinore is primarily concerned with the scenic vistas associated with Lake
Elsinore. The proposed project is located west of Interstate 15 (1 -15), situated between the roadway and
the lake. However, the establishment of the proposed project would not obstruct the viewshed as the
project site is located at a lower elevation than the I -15 freeway. Additionally, as discussed in the Lake
Elsinore General Plan, many commuters on the I -15 are moving too quickly to clearly observe the views
from this section of the freeway. Impacts to a scenic vista will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, December 13, 2011)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less Than Significant Impact )
The project is not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway, precluding the
possibility of impacting scenic resources associated with a scenic highway. There are two routes in the
project vicinity, I -15 and State Highway 74 that are designated as "Eligible State Scenic Highways - Not
Officially Designated." Thus, at this time there are no designated scenic highways within the vicinity.
Impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Department of Transportation, CA Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:
http: / /www. dot. ca. gov /hq /LandArch /scenic_highways /index.htm)
Initial Study,for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 26
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Less Than Significant Impact)
As previously discussed in La), above, the project is located within an existing developed industrial area.
The site consists of vacant and previously disturbed land with natural vegetation. Implementation of the
project would establish a commercial use with associated features including landscaping. Due to the
previously disturbed nature of the project site, and the industrial - related land uses within the vicinity, the
project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Site Visit)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Pursuant to the City's General Plan, light and glare impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory are of
concern to the City. Furthermore, areas of light pollution impacts have been identified through a "ring
analysis," where primary impacts to the Observatory are within a 30 -mile radius, and secondary impacts
are up to 45 miles. According to the General Plan Figure 4.12, the project site is within the 45 -mile
secondary impacts radius. The project would introduce light features to the vacant project site, but would
not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The new building and associated components
would include lighting features typical of commercial developments, such as security lighting and indoor
store lighting. While the project would introduce new sources of light compared to the existing
conditions, all lighting fixtures would comply with the general provisions as outlined in Section
17.112.040 Lighting (for Nonresidential Development) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC).
Section 17.112.040 requires all outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of 60 watts to be oriented and shielded
to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through the lu ninaire and prevent any
glare or illumination on adjacent properties or streets. Additionally, this section of the LEMC encourages
the use of low pressure sodium vapor lighting due to the City's proximity to the Mount Palomar
Observatory. Impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, December 13, 2011)
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? Less
Than Significant Impact)
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) has designated the project site as "Farmland of
Local Importance. Therefore, the project site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance. Although the project is considered farmland that is locally important,
the General Plan and Zoning Code designate the project site for commercial and limited manufacturing
use. Therefore, the City does not designate the project site as farmland of local importance, but rather,
land that should be utilized for other purposes, as designated. Impacts are less than significant.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 27
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: California Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP))
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact)
The California Department of Conservation indicates that no Williamson Act contracts are active for any
area within Lake Elsinore. The Lake Elsinore General Plan does not identify any specific designation for
agricultural uses, but does note that small -scale agricultural uses may be appropriate in the Hillside
Residential land use designation. The Lake Elsinore Zoning Code does not contain any agricultural zones
or any zone that principally allows agricultural uses. The project site is zoned in the Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code as "CM" Commercial Manufacturing and does not propose any changes to uses allowed
or development standards within the General Plan or Zoning Code related to agricultural uses. Therefore,
there will be no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No
impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program, 2011/2012)
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(8))? (No Impact)
The USDA Forest Service vegetation maps identify most of the City as urban, herbaceous, or shrub type
indicating that there are no areas currently growing industrial wood tree species. Portions of the City are
mapped as hardwood forest /woodland. However, these areas of vegetation are primarily located within
drainage, hillside, and other similar areas within the City. The project site is vacant and is neither forest
land nor timberland as defined by the referenced code sections. In addition, the project site is zoned in the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code as "CM" Commercial Manufacturing and does not propose any changes to
uses allowed or development standards within the General Plan or Zoning Code related to forest land or
timberland uses, beyond that which is currently allowed. Therefore, the project will have no impact to any
timberland zoning or loss of forest land. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. EvegTile53B_02_03_v2 and
EvegTile54_02_03 v2. 2007)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest uses? (No Impact)
As previously stated in Impact II c, the USDA Forest Service vegetation maps identify most of the City as
urban, herbaceous, or shrub type indicating that there are no areas currently growing industrial wood tree
species. Portions of the City are mapped as forest /woodland. However, these areas of vegetation are
primarily located within drainage, hillside, and other similar areas within the City. The project site is
vacant and does not contain forest land as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526 and
Government Code section 51104(g). Therefore, development of the project will not result in the loss of
forest land or result in the conversion of forest land to non- forest uses. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study fog° Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 28
(Sources: USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. EvegTile53B_02_03_v2 and
EvegTile54_02_03 v2. 2007)
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project is bounded by roadways, vacant land, and commercial uses. The project site is designated as
"Limited Industrial" by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses do not include active agriculture. The
project consists of a commercial store that would not infringe on its surroundings, including potential
agricultural land. The project would not cause, by location or nature, the conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, December 13, 2011, City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map,
2012)
III. AIR QUALITY
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less Than
Significant Impact)
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) and within the jurisdiction of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The current air quality attainment plan is the
2012 Air Quality Management Plan (2012 . AQMP). The 2012 AQMP was adopted on December 7, 2012
(SCAQMD 2012). The purpose of the 2012 AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated
program that would lead the Air Basin into compliance with the federal 24 -hour PM2.5 air quality
standards, and to provide an update of the Air Basin's projections in meeting the federal 8 -hour ozone
standards. Although the 2012 AQMP is the current AQMP for the Air Basin, the SCAQMD adopted and
implemented multiple different AQMPs prior to the current 2012 document. Therefore, "AQMP" is used
as a generic term when not associated with a specific document.
According to the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District Handbook (Handbook), there are
two key indicators of consistency with an AQMP:
Indicator 1: Whether the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment
of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
Indicator 2: A project would conflict with the AQMP if it will exceed the assumptions in
the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project build -out and phase. The
Handbook indicates that key assumptions to use in this analysis are population number
and location and a regional housing needs assessment.
For the purpose of the analysis within this study, consistency with the 2012 AQMP would also be
determined based on whether the proposed project would comply with applicable control measures, rules,
and regulations, in addition to Indicator 1.
Project's Contribution to Air Quality Violations
The proposed project would be consistent with the 2012 AQMP, if the proposed project would not result
in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 29
violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified
in the Plan. As discussed in Section 3(b), below, the proposed project would not violate an air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, the
proposed project's air quality impacts will be less than significant in this regard. If the project emissions
exceed the SCAQMD's regional thresholds for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), volatile organic compounds
(VOC), and particulate matter (both PMIO and PM2.5), it follows that the emissions could contribute to a
cumulative exceedance of a pollutant for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment (ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, PM10, PM2.5) at a monitoring station, and would not be consistent with the goals of the 2012
AQMP (which are to achieve attainment of pollutants). As discussed in Section 3(c), below, the proposed
project would not contribute towards a cumulatively considerable regional air quality violation impact.
Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Indicator 1, and would not conflict with the 2012
AQMP.
Consistency with Growth Assumptions
According to Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the
consistency finding is to determine whether a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives
of the regional air- quality plans, and thus, whether it would interfere with the region's ability to comply
with federal and state air quality standards. If a project is inconsistent, local governments need to
consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. Consistency with
the AQMP implies that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the
respective plan to achieve the national and state air quality standards.
The proposed project would be consistent with the 2012 AQMP if it does not exceed the growth
assumptions in the 2012 AQMP. The growth assumptions in the 2012 AQMP are based on regional
growth projections, state housing needs allocations, vehicle miles traveled data from the Southern
California Association of Governments which in turn, are informed by County and City General Plan
growth projections. The City of Lake Elsinore adopted their current General Plan prior to the
SCAQMD's adoption of the 2012 AQMP. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the growth projected
by the City's General Plan is incorporated in the 2012 AQMP. The primary method of determining
consistency with the 2012 AQMP growth assumptions is consistency with the City's General Plan land
use designation for the site. The City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan designates the project site as LI
(Limited Manufacturing) to accommodate the growth of businesses in the project vicinity. Since the
proposed project's intended land use would be consistent with the current General Plan, implementation
of the proposed project would not require amendments to the City's land use or zoning designations for
the project site. Therefore, the project would be within the City's General Plan designation and is
consistent with the SCAQMD's 2012 AQMP according to this criterion. The proposed project is
consistent with Indicator 2, and would not conflict with the 2012 AQMP.
Compliance with AQMP Control Measures, Rules, and Regulations
In addition to not conflicting with the AQMP, the proposed project would comply with all applicable
rules and regulations of the AQMP. The proposed project would include construction activities, which
would increase the amount of construction fugitive dust (PMro and PM2.5), therefore the proposed project
would need to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (SCAQMD 2005). Rule 403 governs emissions of
fugitive dust during construction and operation activities. The rule requires that fugitive dust be
controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible
in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403
requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance
Initial Studyfor Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 30
offsite. Compliance with this rule is achieved through the application of standard Best Management
Practices (BMPs). Rule 403 BMPs include but are not limited to the following:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all
inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).
• Water active sites at least three times daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be
thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.)
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 0.6
meters (2 feet) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the
trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code section 23114.
• Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph) or less.
• Suspension of all grading activities when wind speeds (including instantaneous wind
gusts) exceed 25 mph.
• Bumper strips or similar best management practices shall be provided where vehicles
enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any
equipment leaving the site each trip.
• Replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical.
• During all construction activities, construction contractors shall sweep onsite and offsite
streets if silt is carried to adjacent public thoroughfares, to reduce the amount of
particulate matter on public streets. All sweepers shall be compliant with SCAQMD
Rule 1186.1, Less Polluting Sweepers.
Compliance with the BMP requirements in Rule 403 is mandatory; as such, the project is required to
implement the BMPs by law. These measures are accounted for in the California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 computer program as "mitigation" because of how the model is
constructed, even though compliance with Rule 403 requirements is neither voluntary nor considered
mitigation under CEQA. The proposed project's compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 would result in
consistency with the applicable AQMP control measures.
As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plans, and the impact will be less than significant.
In summary, the project would not significantly contribute to an air quality violation, would be consistent
with the growth assumptions of the 2012 AQMP, and would comply with all applicable rules and
regulations.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2005. Guidance for Addressing Air Quality
Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. Website: http: / /www.aqmd.gov /prdas /agguide /doe
/chapter05.pdf)
Initial Stardy for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 31
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2012. Air Quality Management Plan. Website:
http : / /www.agmd.gov /aqmp /2012agnip /Final- Februaty2Ol3 /index.htmi. February 2013)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Two criteria are used to assess the significance of this impact: (1) the localized construction analysis and
(2) the CO hot spot analysis. Potential localized impacts would occur if a project exceeds state or federal
standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM2.5, PMIO or CO. Emissions of NO2, PM2.5, PMro and CO could
be emitted during project construction from construction equipment, construction employee trips, and
vendor trips. CO emissions are of concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are
related to increases in on -road vehicle congestion.
Localized Construction Analysis
The SCAQMD's Governing Board adopted a methodology for calculating localized air quality impacts
through localized significance thresholds (also referred to as a LST analysis). Localized significance
thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. Localized
significance thresholds were developed in recognition of the fact that criteria pollutants such as CO, NO,
and PMro and PM2.5 in particular, can have local impacts at nearby sensitive receptors as well as regional
impacts. The localized significance thresholds are developed for each source receptor area and are
applicable to NO,;, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5.
The project site is located in Source Receptor Area 25 (SRA 25). The SCAQMD states that receptor
locations are onsite locations where persons may be exposed to the emissions from project activities.
Receptor locations include residential, commercial and industrial land use areas; and any other areas
where persons can be situated for an hour or longer at a time. The closest worker receptor is located
approximately 25 meters southeast of the project site. The closest sensitive receptor is located more than
200 meters north of the project site.
The onsite emissions during construction were compared with the localized significance thresholds for
SRA 25, 1 -acre site, with a receptor at 25 meters for NOx and CO, and 200 meters for PM10 and PM2.5.
The CaIEEMod program was used to estimate air pollutant emissions from project construction.
Compliance with the dust control BMP requirements in Rule 403 is mandatory; as such, the project is
required to implement the BMPs by law. These measures are accounted for in the CalEEMod program as
"mitigation" because of how the model is constructed, even though compliance with Rule 403
requirements is neither voluntary nor considered mitigation under CEQA. The emissions quantification
methodology and assumptions, as well as the detailed modeling output, are provided as Appendix A to
this IS /MND. The results of the localized significance analysis are provided in Table 1. Onsite
construction emissions are from fugitive dust during grading and off -road diesel emissions.
Table 1: Localized Significance Analysis
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 32
Onsite Emissions {pounds per day)
Source
NOx
co
PMro
Pmzr,
Site Preparation
57.62
42.96
10.18
6.76
Grading
41.10
26.75
4.94
3.50
Building Construction (2014)
31.25
18.93
2.23
2.10
Building Construction (2015)
30.03
18.74
2.12
1.99
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 32
Onsite Emissions (pounds per day)
Source NOX CO! PMIO MIS
Paving 20.31 12.68 1.22 1.13
Architectural Coating 2.57 1.90 0.22 0.22
Maximum Daily Emissions 57.62 42.96 10.18 6.76
Localized Significance threshold 162 750 67 20
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide
SOx = sulfur oxides PMI0 and PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 0.1 µg and less than 2.5 µg, respectively
Source of emissions: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).
Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District 2009, for Source Receptor Area 25 The thresholds for
nitrogen dioxide and CO are based on the distance to the nearest worker (25 meter look -up value) because those pollutants
have an averaging time for 8 hours or less and workers would be onsite for 8 hours. The thresholds for PM 10 and PM2.5 are
based on the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor (200 meter look -up value).
The localized construction analysis demonstrates that the proposed project would not exceed the localized
significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PMIO and PM2.5. Therefore, the project would not violate any air
quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during
construction.
Operational CO Hotspot
Localized high levels of carbon monoxide (CO hot spot) are associated with traffic congestion and idling
or slow moving vehicles. To provide a worst -case scenario, CO concentrations were estimated at project -
impacted intersections, where the concentrations would be the greatest. The SCAQMD recommends that
a local CO hot spot analysis be conducted if the intersection meets one of the following criteria:
The intersection is at Level of Service (LOS) D or worse and where the project increases the
volume to capacity ratio by 2 percent, or
2. The project degrades LOS at an intersection from C to D.
A Traffic Analysis for the proposed project included an analysis of traffic volumes at the Collier Avenue
and Enterprise Way intersection existing conditions plus the proposed project (Trames Solutions Inc.
2013). The study found that the LOS at Collier Avenue and Enterprise Way intersection would degrade
from LOS C to LOS D during the PM peak hour.
The CALINE4 was used to evaluate the project's potential to generate a CO hotspot. There are several
inputs to the CALINE4 model. One input is the traffic volumes, which is from the project- specific traffic
report. The traffic volumes with the project were used for the Opening Year scenario as well as emission
factors generated using the EMFAC2007 model for the year 2014.
As shown in Table 2, the estimated 1 -hour and 8 -hour average CO concentrations at build -out, in
combination with background concentrations are below the state and federal standards. No CO hot spots
are anticipated because mobile emissions of CO from the project are not anticipated to contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of CO. Therefore, according to this criterion,
ail- pollutant emissions during operation would result in a less than significant impact.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No, 2019 -01
Page 33
Table 2: Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Appendix F: Trames Solutions Inc. 2013. Lake Elsinore Tractor Supply Company — Traffic
Analysis, Appendix A: FCS -MBAa. 2014. Air Quality Emissions Modeling Output)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Less Than Significant Impact. This impact is related to regional criteria pollutant impacts. If an area is
in nonattainment for a criteria pollutant, then the background concentration of that pollutant has
historically exceeded the ambient air quality standard. The non - attainment regional pollutants of concern
are ozone, NO2, PM,o, and PM2.5. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is a regional pollutant
formed by a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Ozone precursors, VOC and NO,, react in the
atmosphere in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Therefore, the SCAQMD does not have a
recommended ozone threshold, but it does have thresholds of significance for VOC and NO,. This
impact section includes analysis of, and significance determinations for those pollutants.
The SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for project construction and operation are provided
within the respective analyses below. Regional emissions include those generated from all onsite and
offsite activities. Regional significance thresholds have been established by the SCAQMD because
emissions from projects in the Air Basin can potentially contribute to the existing emission burden and
possibly affect the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards.
If project emissions exceed the SCAQMD's regional thresholds for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5), it follows that the emissions
could contribute to a cumulative exceedance of a pollutant for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment
(ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PMro, PM2.5) at a monitoring station in the Air Basin. Therefore, projects within
the Air Basin region with regional emissions in excess of any of the regional significance thresholds are
considered to have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities associated with the proposed development could temporarily increase NO„ VOC,
PM10, PM2.5, and sulfur oxides (SO,) concentrations in the project vicinity. The primary source of
construction - related VOC and NOX emission is gasoline and diesel powered, heavy -duty mobile
construction equipment. Primary sources of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are generally clearing activities,
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 34
grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed
surfaces. The proposed project's construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. The
emissions quantification methodology and assumptions, as well as the detailed modeling output, are
provided as Appendix A to this IS /MND. Within each construction phase, the analysis conservatively
assumes that all construction equipment would be operated simultaneously, which is not likely to occur.
Table 3 summarizes construction- related emissions. The information shown in Table 3 indicates that the
SCAQMD regional emission thresholds would not be exceeded for VOC, NO,, CO, SO, PMIO, and PM2.5
emissions. Therefore, impacts from construction - related emissions will be less than significant.
Table 3: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the project. The main source of operational emissions
from the project will be mobile sources (e.g., motor vehicles) traveling to and from the proposed project.
The CalEEMod was used to quantify project - generated operational emissions. The analysis methodology,
assumptions and the CalEEMod output are provided in Appendix A. As shown in Table 4, the average
daily increase in mobile emissions from the project will be less than the SCAQMD's significance
thresholds; therefore, impacts from operational emissions will be less than significant.
Table 4: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions
Emissions;
{pounds per day)
soi�re
Voc : _ ,
NDX ,
co...
=SOx '''
PMo
Site Preparation
5.39
57.75
44.29
0.39
10.39
6.81
Grading
4.49
49.79
33.88
0.05
5.67
3.80
Building Construction (2014)
4.10
32.45
21.89
0.03
2.56
2.20
Building Construction (2015)
3.86
31.08
21.43
0.03
2.45
2.09
Paving
2.46
20.43
14.01
0.02
1.45
1.19
Architectural Coating
26.34
2.60
2.23
0.01
0.28
0.24
Maximum Daily Construction
26.34
57.75
44.29
0.39
10.39
6.81
Emissions
Significance threshold
75
100
550
150
150
55
Significant impact?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Notes:
VOC = volatile organic compounds
NOa = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide
SO, = sulfur oxides
PMIO and PM2_5 = particulate matter
less than 0.1 µg
and less than
2.5 µg,
respectively
Source of emissions: CalEEMod Output
(Appendix A).
Source of thresholds: SCAQMD 2011.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the project. The main source of operational emissions
from the project will be mobile sources (e.g., motor vehicles) traveling to and from the proposed project.
The CalEEMod was used to quantify project - generated operational emissions. The analysis methodology,
assumptions and the CalEEMod output are provided in Appendix A. As shown in Table 4, the average
daily increase in mobile emissions from the project will be less than the SCAQMD's significance
thresholds; therefore, impacts from operational emissions will be less than significant.
Table 4: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 35
Emissions
(pounds per day)
Source
Voc
NOx
CO
sox
PMIn
PM2 6
Area
1.23
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Energy
0.02
0.15
0.12
0.00
0.01
0.01
Mobile
2.95
9.76
39.29
0.08
5.64
1.61
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 35
Conclusion
In summary, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for
construction or operational pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly contribute
towards a cumulatively considerable regional air quality violation impact. The project would not result in
a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Appendix F: Trarnes Solutions Inc. 2013. Lake Elsinore Tractor- Supply Company — Traffic
Analysis, Appendix A: FCS /MBAa. 2014. Air Quality Emissions Modeling Output,
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011 a. Air Quality Significance
Thresholds. Revised March 2011. Website: www.aqmd.gov /cega /handbook /signthres.pdf. Accessed
July 18, 2013.)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant
Impact)
Less Than Significant Impact. This discussion addresses whether the project would expose sensitive
receptors to construction - generated fugitive dust (PMro and PM2.5), construction - generated diesel
particulate matter (DPM), operational related toxic air contaminants (TACs), or operational CO hotspots.
For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive
individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities (SCAQMD
2008). Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not
typically remain onsite for 24 hours. However, when assessing the impact of pollutants with 1 -hour or 8-
hour standards (such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide), commercial and /or industrial facilities
would be considered sensitive receptors for those purposes. The project site is not considered a sensitive
receptor. Additionally, no sensitive receptors exist near the project site. The nearest sensitive receptor to
the project construction area is more than 200 meters north of the extent of project construction.
Construction: Localized emissions
Air pollutant emissions from project construction could create localized health impacts if the ambient air
quality standards are exceeded. As shown in Section 3(b), the project would not exceed the SCAQMD's
localized significance thresholds for construction - generated emissions. Therefore, the project would not
expose receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations from construction activities.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 36
Emissions (pounds per day)
Source
VOC
NO,,
CO
SOx
PMao
pm"s
Total Daily Operational
4.19
9.90
39.42
0.08
5.65
1.62
Emissions
Significance threshold
55
55
550
150
150
55
Significant impact?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Notes:
VOC = volatile organic compounds
NOX = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide
SOX = sulfur oxidesPM,o and PM2.5 =
particulate matter less than
0.1 µg and less than 2.5 µg, respectively
1 Total annual mobile emissions assume
5 additional race days per
year.
Source of emissions: CalEEMod Output
(Appendix A).
Source of thresholds: SCAQMD 2011,
Conclusion
In summary, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for
construction or operational pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly contribute
towards a cumulatively considerable regional air quality violation impact. The project would not result in
a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Appendix F: Trarnes Solutions Inc. 2013. Lake Elsinore Tractor- Supply Company — Traffic
Analysis, Appendix A: FCS /MBAa. 2014. Air Quality Emissions Modeling Output,
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011 a. Air Quality Significance
Thresholds. Revised March 2011. Website: www.aqmd.gov /cega /handbook /signthres.pdf. Accessed
July 18, 2013.)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant
Impact)
Less Than Significant Impact. This discussion addresses whether the project would expose sensitive
receptors to construction - generated fugitive dust (PMro and PM2.5), construction - generated diesel
particulate matter (DPM), operational related toxic air contaminants (TACs), or operational CO hotspots.
For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive
individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities (SCAQMD
2008). Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not
typically remain onsite for 24 hours. However, when assessing the impact of pollutants with 1 -hour or 8-
hour standards (such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide), commercial and /or industrial facilities
would be considered sensitive receptors for those purposes. The project site is not considered a sensitive
receptor. Additionally, no sensitive receptors exist near the project site. The nearest sensitive receptor to
the project construction area is more than 200 meters north of the extent of project construction.
Construction: Localized emissions
Air pollutant emissions from project construction could create localized health impacts if the ambient air
quality standards are exceeded. As shown in Section 3(b), the project would not exceed the SCAQMD's
localized significance thresholds for construction - generated emissions. Therefore, the project would not
expose receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations from construction activities.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 36
Toxic Air Contaminants - Construction
Equipment used during construction of the proposed project would emit diesel particulate matter, which is
a carcinogen. However, the diesel particulate matter emissions are short -term in nature. Determination of
risk from diesel particulate matter is considered over a 70 -year exposure time. Guidance published by the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed
Land Use Projects, does not include guidance for health risks from construction projects addressed in
CEQA; risks near construction projects are expected to be included later when the toxic emissions from
construction activities are better understood. Additionally, the nearest sensitive receptors are located
more than 200 meters north of the extent of project construction. Therefore, considering the dispersion of
the emissions and the short time frame, exposure to diesel particulate matter would be considered less
than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants - Operation
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains
recommendations that will "help keep California's children and other vulnerable populations out of
harm's way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution" (ARB 2005), including recommendations for
distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses. These recommendations are assessed as
follows.
• Distribution centers. ARB recommends avoiding siting sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a
distribution center. The proposed project is not a distribution center; therefore, this criterion is not
applicable.
• Fueling stations. ARB recommends avoiding siting sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large
fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 -foot
separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. The proposed project is not a gas
station; therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
• Dry cleaning operations. ARB recommends avoiding siting sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any
dry cleaning operation that uses perch loroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, ARB
recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, ARB recommends
consultation with the local air district. The proposed project is not a dry cleaning operation;
therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
As such, the proposed project would not site and expose any sensitive land uses within the siting
distances recommended by ARB. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to
significant risk from project operational emission.
Operational: CO Hotspot
As shown in Section 3(b), above, the project would not create a localized CO hotspot. Therefore, the
project would not expose receptors to substantial CO concentrations from operational activities.
Conclusion
The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial quantities or significant concentrations of
construction - generated emissions, construction - generated DPM, operational TACs, or CO hotspots.
Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 37
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2009. Health Risk Assessments for
Proposed Land Uses. Website: http:// www .capcoa.org /wp- content/uploads /2012/03
/CAPCOA_HRA LU_Guidelines_8- 6- 09.pdf.)
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality and
Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Website: www.arb.ca.gov /ch
/landuse.htm.
South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMM). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology, Appendix C. Website: www. agmd. gov /CEQA /handbook/LST /LST.html.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant
Impact)
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. People may have different
reactions to the same odor. An odor that is offensive to one person may be acceptable to another (e.g.,
coffee roaster). An unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a
familiar one. Known as odor- fatigue, a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and
recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity of the odor. The SCAQMD recommends that
odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis shall determine whether the project
would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the California Code of Regulations and
Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus would constitute a public nuisance
related to air quality.
Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to
some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not reach an
objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. The closest worker- receptor is located approximately
25 meters southeast of the project site. The closest sensitive receptor is located more than 200 meters
north of the project site.
Typical sources of objectionable odors include agricultural operations (e.g., dairies, feedlots, etc.),
landfills, wastewater treatment plants, refineries, and other types of industrial land uses. The proposed
project includes the development of a tractor supply store, and is not a land use typically associated with
emitting objectionable odors. Therefore, impacts associated with the creation of objectionable odors
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Site Visit, Project Design)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 38
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
Burrowing Owl
The project may have a substantial effect on burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The project site
contains disturbed grassland habitat dominated by non - native species including Russian thistle (Salsola
Tragus), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.). This habitat provides suitable
habitat for burrowing owl. A number of suitable burrows were found on the project site during the
reconnaissance -level survey conducted in March of 2014. The burrowing owl (BUOW) is listed as a
California Species of Concern as designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
and is a conditionally covered species in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Therefore, mitigation measure BIO -I will be implemented to conduct pre -
construction focused species surveys for burrowing owl within 30 -days prior to any ground - disturbing
activities at the project site where suitable habitat is present. With the implementation of mitigation
measure BIO -1, impacts to BUOW would be less than significant.
Nesting Birds
The project may have a substantial effect on nesting birds. The project site contains approximately 20
arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and a couple tamarisk located in the eastern portion of the project site.
This habitat provides suitable nesting habitat for a variety of avian species.
Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA protects
all common wild birds found in the United States (U.S.) except the house sparrow, starling, feral pigeon,
and resident game birds such as pheasant, grouse, quail, and wild turkey. Resident game birds are
managed separately by each state. The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect,
possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird including feathers, parts, nests, or
eggs.
Nesting birds are also protected under the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code). The CDFW
administers the CFG Code. There are particular sections of the CFG Code that are applicable to natural
resource management. For example, § 3503 of the CFG Code states it is unlawful to take, possess, or
needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird that is protected under the MBTA. CFG Code § 3503.5
further protects all birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes, birds of prey such as hawks and
owls, and their eggs and nests from any form of take. Therefore, mitigation measure BIO -2 will be
required to implement site - preparation activities (removal of trees and vegetation) to avoid, to the greatest
extent possible, potentially occurring native and migratory bird species during the nesting season
(generally February 1 to August 31). With the implementation of mitigation measure BI0-2, impacts to
potentially occurring native and migratory bird species would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO -I Due to the presence of suitable habitat onsite for the western burrowing owl, a qualified
biologist shall conduct pre- construction focused species surveys within 30 -days prior to any ground -
disturbing activities at the project site where suitable habitat is present. If burrowing owls are determined
to occupy the project site during preconstruction surveys, CDFW shall be consulted and a passive
relocation program shall be undertaken to relocate owls to an area outside the impact zone. The relocation
shall be conducted following accepted protocols and would occur outside of the breeding season for the
burrowing owl. Existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 39
MM 13I0-2 In order to avoid violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California
Fish and Game Code site - preparation activities (removal of trees and vegetation) shall be avoided, to the
greatest extent possible, during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) of potentially
occurring native and migratory bird species.
If preparation activities are to occur during the avian nesting season, February 15 through August 31, then
a 30 -day pre- construction clearance nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to
determine whether active nests of species protected by the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code
are present in the construction zone. If active nests are not located within the project area and appropriate
buffer, construction may be conducted during the nesting /breeding season. However, if active nests are
located during the pre - construction field survey, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place
within at least 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive or protected
(under MBTA or California Fish and Game Code) bird nests (non - listed), or.within 250 feet of sensitive
or protected songbird nests. A qualified biologist shall be required to monitor the nest until it is
determined that the nest is no longer active, at which time vegetation removal could continue.
(Sources: FCS reconnaissance -level survey conducted in March of 2014)
California Fish and Game Code. Fish and Game Code Section 3500 -3516)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Sil4nificant Impact)
A variety of drainages cross the City of Lake Elsinore originating from the surrounding hills and
generally draining towards Lake Elsinore. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
wetlands are present within the City primarily around Lake Elsinore. However, the project site does not
contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. These impacts were analyzed in the
City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan EIR and were determined to be less than significant with the
implementation of existing Federal and State programs, in particular Sections 401 and 404 of the U.S.
Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. The majority of the project site
is dominated by disturbed habitat and non - native grasslands. The project site does contain approximately
20 scattered arroyo willows, but they do not appear to be associated with a drainage feature or waterway,
and therefore is not considered a natural riparian community. Additionally, the willow trees onsite are
scattered and do not function as a habitat. The area containing willow trees is less than 0.10 acre, which
is under FCS' standard mapping unit for vegetation communities and habitats, and therefore is not
considered a functioning habitat. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory.
http: // 107.20. 228.18 /Wetlands /WetlandsMapper.html# [Accessed March 19, 2014])
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)
There are no waters of the United States or waters of the State within the project site. There are also no
marshes, vernal pools, or coastal waters within the project site. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 40
(Sources: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory.
http://107.20. 228. 18 /Wetlands /WetlandsMapper.html# [Accessed March 19, 2014])
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (No Impact)
The project site is located in the southeastern corner of an undeveloped lot with commercial development
to the south and commercial development to the north and east. Although the disturbed nature of the
project site continues to the west, the project site is not part of a wildlife movement corridor and the
proposed development of the project site will not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Site Visit)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? (Less Than Si%!nilicant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Chapter 5.120 of the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (Municipal Code) is referred to as the Tree
Preservation Ordinance. This Chapter protects City trees, park trees and street trees within public areas
owned by the City. The project site does not contain any trees protected under Chapter 5.120 of the
Municipal Code and therefore, the project will have no impact. Additionally, Chapter 5.116 of the
Municipal Code protects Significant Palm Trees within the City limits. This Chapter provides a
mechanism to regulate the removal, destruction and relocation of significant palm trees. No palm trees
occur within the project site and therefore, there will be no impact to Significant Palm Trees. Lastly,
Chapter 19.04 of the Municipal Code is referred to as the Habitat Conservation Ordinance. The purpose
of the ordinance is to implement the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKRHCP). The
project site is located within the fee area for the SKRHCP. Potential project impacts to the SKRHCP are
discussed in Section IVY below. There will be no impact on any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources.
Mitigation Measures: MM 13I0-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall
pay the MSHCP development mitigation fee for commercial development in effect at the time the permits
are issued.
Mitigation Measures: MM 13I0-4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the SKRHCP fee shall be paid.
As currently stated in the Habitat Conservation Ordinance, the fee is $500 per acre.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less
Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The project is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). As such, a habitat assessment and consistency analysis is required to
evaluate the project with respect to consistency with the MSHCP. A review of the Riverside County
Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator for the project site APN determined
that the site is located within the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP. Additionally, the project site is not
located within a Criteria Cell, Cell Group, Existing Core Area, proposed Core Area, existing linkage, or a
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 41
proposed linkage. The project site is located within a required survey area for burrowing owl, as
discussed above in Section IV.A. Because the project site is located within the MSCCP boundary, it may
have a substantial effect and requires mitigation.
Additionally, the project site occurs within the boundaries of the SKRHCP. However, the project site is
not located within the core reserve area, and therefore, the proposed project site may have a substantial
effect on the SKRHCP, but will not affect any core reserve areas. Payment of the SKRHCP fee is
required for project sites that occur within the SKRHCP area. The payment of the fee allows the City to
implement the terms of the Section 10(a) permit and management authorization.
Mitigation Measures: MM BIO -5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall
pay the MSHCP development mitigation fee for commercial development in effect at the time the permits
are issued.
(Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan)
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations? (Less Than Significant Impact)
FCS prepared a Cultural Resources Report (Appendix ,B) for the project site. The Cultural Resource
Report determined that there are no historic archaeological resources more than 45 years of age in the
project area and no prehistoric artifacts or sites were noted. The cultural resource record search showed
that a substantial number of known historic cultural resources are located in or near the project area, and
the project location itself at one time contained remnants of the race track associated with P33- 23614.
However, the project site is currently vacant. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: FCS -MBAb. 2014. Cultural Resources Report.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations? (Less Than Sil4nificant with Mitigation
Incorporated)
In accordance with CEQA, FCS/MBA has determined that there are no historic archaeological resources
more than 45 years of age in the project area and no prehistoric artifacts or sites were noted. The cultural
resource record search showed that a substantial number of known historic cultural resources are located
in or near the project area, and the project location itself at one time contained remnants of the race track
associated with P33- 23614. Although the results of the survey were negative for prehistoric resources, a
number of prehistoric isolates (primarily manos) have been found within one - quarter- to one -half mile of
the site. Based on the records search information, the sensitivity of the project area is considered
moderate and there is the possibility that buried archaeological deposits will be encountered during future
development.
Impacts to potentially significant cultural resources are considered low -to- moderate. This is based on the
possibility that significant subsurface prehistoric resources may be uncovered during construction- related
earthmoving, but the area is not considered particularly sensitive. However, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impacts would be less than significant.
Initial Study for A7itigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 42
Mitigation Measures:
MM CR -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant /developer shall retain a City -
approved Project Archaeologist and a Native American Monitor to monitor all ground- disturbing
activities in all areas of the project in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any
newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
MM CR -2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project applicant shall contact the
appropriate tribe to notify that Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to
coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore and the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and
Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the
designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading,
excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of
compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human
remains discovered on the site.
MM CR -3 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project archaeologist shall file a pre - grading
report with the City to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said
methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to
have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in
MM CR -2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in
consultation with the appropriate tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological
resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation
and ground breaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in
consultation with the project archeologist.
MM CR -4 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items,
burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate tribe for
proper treatment and disposition.
MM CR -5 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological /cultural resources are discovered
during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the appropriate tribe shall assess the
significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If
the Developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these
issues will be presented to the Community Development Director (CDD) for decision. The CDD shall
make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect
to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the
appropriate tribe.
(Sources: FCS /MBAb. 2014. Cultural Resources Report.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project area has been assessed for potential impacts to paleontological resources. The literature
review showed that there is low potential for uncovering fossil resources if future earthmoving were to
take place inside the project site. Therefore, mitigation monitoring during future development inside the
project site is not required. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 43
(Sources: FCS /MBAb. 2014. Cultural Resources Report.)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less Than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
There are no known burial grounds located onsite. Past uses of the site included a race track and
agriculture. However, there is always the small possibility that ground - disturbing activities during
construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. Should this occur, Federal laws
and standards apply including Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and
its regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 10.
In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, California State Health and
Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made
the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and Public Resources
Code (PRC) § 5097.98. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM CR -6 If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states
that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains
shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition
has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the
coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission— within 24 hours. Subsequently, the
Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the "most
likely descendant." The most likely descendant may then make recommendations, and engage in
consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98.
(Sources: FCS/MBAb. 2014. Cultural Resources Report.)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42. (Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is not located near any known earthquake faults, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Pursuant to the Geotechnical Study prepared by Krazan and
Associates Inc. in September of 2013, the project site is located 5.0 miles from the nearest fault. Because
of the distance to local faults, impacts from fault rupture are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Krazan and Associates Inc., Geotechnical Study. September, 2013)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 44
Pursuant to the Geotechnical Report ( Krazan and Associates, 2013), based on the proximity of several
dominant active faults and seismogenic structures, as well as the historic seismic record, the project site is
considered subject to relatively high seismicity. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is
ground shaking due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The Lake Elsinore
Fault is located within 5 km (approximately 3.1 miles) of the site. The site specific risk from ground
shaking hazards is comparable to others in the general area within similar geologic settings. The
Geotechnical Report (Appendix D) includes recommendations that would reduce any potential impacts to
less than significant levels. Therefore, with implementation of proposed mitigation, impacts are less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM GEO -1: Following stripping, fill removal, and any demolition activities a minimum, remedial
grading in building or other structural areas include removal and replacement of the existing soil shall be
to a depth of at least five feet below existing site grade, five feet below proposed subgrade, or three feet
below foundation bearing grade, whichever is deeper. Remedial grading shall be performed to a
horizontal distance of at least five feet beyond the proposed foundation limits. Follow the recommended
overexcavation, the upper twelve inches of exposed subgrade soils beneath the overexcavated area shall
be scarified, worked until uniform and free from large clods, moisture- conditioned to within 2 percent of
optimum moisture - content, and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density based
on ASTM Test Method D1557. Remedial grading shall be performed in building areas, proposed wall
locations, and any area which utilizes the recommended bearing capacity values included in the
geotechnical report.
MM GEO -2: Within the pavement and exterior flatwork areas, the exposed subgrade shall be excavated
to a depth of 24 inches, worked until uniform and free from large clods and moisture- conditioned to
within 2 percent of optimum moisture - content and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the
maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Prior to backfilling, the bottom of the
excavation shall be proof - rolled and observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer to verify stability. This
compaction effort shall stabilize the upper soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during
the field investigation.
MM GEO -3: Trees and shrubs are located within the project site. Tree and shrub removal operations
shall include roots greater than 14 inch in diameter. The resulting excavations shall be backfilled with
Engineered Fill compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test
Method D 1557.
(Sources: Geotechnical Report Krazan and Associates, 2013)
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant)
The project site contains predominately- medium dense to dense sands and silty sands with varying gravel
content. Groundwater is located at a depth of approximately 20 feet below the surface, similar to the
general vicinity of the site. The Geotechnical Report concludes that the liquefaction potential at the site is
considered low, and that soils to a depth of 50 feet are non - liquefiable. Potential ground failure issues are
also addressed through compliance with applicable building code construction requirements. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Geotechnical Report Krazan and Associates, 2013)
iv) Landslides? (No Impact)
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 45
As can be seen within Exhibit 3, Local Topographic Map, the project site contains gentle sloping to the
northeast. In addition, there are no features within the vicinity of the project site such as hills, canyons, or
mountains that could produce a landslide, and the project site is depicted on the County of Riverside
General Plan Figure S -5 "Regions Underlain by Steep Slopes" as less than 15% slopes. Therefore, no
impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: RCTLMA, 2008 Riverside County General Plan Website: http: / /www.rctlma.org /genplan
/content/gp /chapter06.htmi)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site contains loose, near surface soils. Based on the recommendations contained in the
Geotechnical Report (refer to Appendix D), construction of the project would require grading, removal,
and replacement of existing soils to a depth of at least five feet below existing site grade, five feet below
the proposed subgrade, or three feet below foundation bearing grade (whichever is deepest). However,
pursuant to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (refer- to Appendix D) the proposed project site is
located within a previously developed area where soils have been historically disturbed by agricultural
use and a horse race track. The project site has remained vacant from 1989 to present. Additionally, the
project site is located within an area with a wind erodibility rating of moderate, thus construction
activities would not be of particular concern in this regard (Figure S -8 Wind Erosion Susceptibility Map).
Soil exposed by construction activities during development of the proposed project could be subject to
erosion if exposed to heavy rain, winds, or other storm events. As part of development of the proposed
project, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared in compliance with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirement. The SWPPP shall identify Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used at the project site to control stormwater and prevent on-
or offsite runoff. Erosion control will be addressed through the Erosion Control Plan that is required as
part of the grading permit process. Additionally, the project site would be subject to the requirements of
Rule 403 Fugitive Dust Emissions Control issued by the South Coast Air- Quality Management District
(AQMD). The Fugitive Dust Emissions Control Plan would include Best Management Practices (BMPs),
which are features designed to protect against substantial soil erosion as a result of water and wind
erosion, including the routine watering of the surface soils during grading and other earthmoving
activities. Consistency with BMPs also prove to reduce erosion and topsoil loss will be implemented to
minimize impacts to the soils during construction. Therefore, project impacts to topsoil loss and soil
erosion would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Riverside County General Plan, Figure S -8 Wind Erosion Susceptibility Map, 2008.)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
As previously discussed, the project site topography and location preclude the possibility of landslides.
Implementation of the project would not affect liquefaction susceptibility because the project would not
affect ground water levels and soils onsite are non - liquefiable. However, the project site is subject to
seismic settlement. The total seismic- induced settlement is not expected to exceed 1.3 inches and
differential settlement by a seismic event is estimated to be less than 0.5 inch. The native soils within the
project site are not considered conducive to significant hydro- collapse, but any loose fill materials at the
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 46
site could be vulnerable to hydro- collapse. With compliance of current code requirements and MM
GEO -1 through MM GEO -3, the site will not likely be subject to lateral spreading hazards. Therefore,
compliance with mitigation measures set forth in MM GEO -1 through MM GEO -3 would reduce
impacts to levels of less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to MM GEO -1 through MM GEO -3 for applicable mitigation.
(Sources: Geotechnical Report Krazan and Associates, 2013)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Refer to Section c) for discussion of seismic settlement. As part of construction, engineered non -
expansive fill will be introduced to the site. Provided that the project complies with the recommendations
set forth in the Geotechnical Report (MM GEO -1 through MM GEO -3), the project site is considered
suitable for the proposed development. Additionally, the project would comply with the latest adopted
edition of the California Building Standards Code. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to MM GEO -1 through MM GEO -3 for applicable mitigation.
(Sources: Geotechnical Report Krazan and Associates, 2013)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact)
The project is located adjacent to existing developed properties that utilize the Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District wastewater disposal systems. The project proposes to connect to existing utilities and
implementation would not require septic tanks or alternative disposal systems. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Geotechnical Report Krazan and Associates, 2013)
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project may contribute to climate change impacts through its contribution of greenhouse gases
(GHGs). The project would generate a variety of GHGs during construction and operation, including
several defined by AB 32, such as carbon dioxide (COZ), methane (CHA and nitrous dioxide (NZO) from
the exhaust of equipment and the exhaust of vehicles for employees, visitors, and construction hauling
trips. The proposed project may also emit GHGs that are not defined by AB 32. For example, the
proposed project may generate aerosols from diesel particulate matter exhaust. Aerosols are short -lived
GHGs, as they remain in the atmosphere for approximately one week. The project would emit NOX and
VOCs, which are ozone precursors. Ozone is a GHG. However, unlike the other GHGs, ozone in the
troposphere is relatively short -lived and is being reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis.
Certain GHGs defined by AB 32 would not be emitted by the project. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used by the
project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would emit PFCs or SF6.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 47
The SCAQMD is in the process of preparing recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases
for local lead agency consideration; however, the SCAQMD's Board has not approved the thresholds.
The SCAQMD permit threshold consists of five tiers, as follows:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not a project qualifies for any applicable exemption under
CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan.
If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan, it does not have
significant greenhouse gas emissions.
• Tier 3 is a screening threshold level to determine significance using a 90 percent emission capture
rate approach and is 10,000 MTCO2e per year (with construction emissions amortized over 30 years
and added to operational emissions).
• Tier 4 was not approved in the interim greenhouse gas threshold.
• Tier 5 would allow the project proponent to purchase offsite mitigation to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to less than the screening level (in Tier 3).
The SCAQMD is in the process of preparing recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases
for local lead agency consideration ( "SCAQMD draft local agency threshold "); however, the SCAQMD
Board has not approved the thresholds as of the date of the IS/MND (SCAQMD 2010). The current draft
thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under
CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan.
If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan, it does not have
significant greenhouse gas emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all
projects within its jurisdiction. A project's construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are
added to a project's operational emissions. If a project's emissions are under one of the following
screening thresholds, then the project has less than significant impacts:
All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400
MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
• Tier 4 has the following options:
Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage; this percentage is
currently undefined
Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures
Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees: 4.8
MTCO2e /SP /year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e /SP /year for plans;
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Decloration No. 2014 -01
Page 48
Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e /SP /year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e /SP /year for plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.
To determine whether the proposed project has significant GHG emissions, this project utilizes the
SCAQMD's draft local agency tiered threshold. The threshold is as follows:
• Project greenhouse gas emissions compared with the threshold: 3,000 MTCO2e per year.
CalEEMod version 2013.2.2 was used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from project construction
and operation. The emissions quantification methodology and assumptions, as well as the detailed
modeling output, are provided as Appendix A to this IS /MND. The project's GHG emissions are
provided in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, the project's construction and operational GHG emissions are
less than the significance threshold at of 3,000 MTCO2e. Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact.
Table 5: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
Annual, MTCO2e
Area
0.00
Energy
166.02
Mobile
1,191.05
Waste
8.04
Water
34.98
Subtotal Construction (averaged over 30 years)
12.73
Total
1,412.85
Threshold
3,000
Significant impact?
No
Notes:
MTCOze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
Source of emissions: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).
Source of thresholds: SCAQMD 2011.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA
Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting 415. September 28. Website: www.aqmd.gov
/cega/ handbook /GHG /2010 /sept28mtg /ghgnrtg 15- web.pdf)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less Than Sillnificant Impact)
The City of Lake Elsinore adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2011 in order to reduce the City's
proportionate share of GHG emissions and to meet the statewide targets that are identified in Assembly
Bill (AB) 32 and Executive Order S -3 -05.
The City selected efficiency -based targets for the years governed by the General Plan to reduce
community -wide emissions to 6.6 MTCOZe per service population per year by 2020 (a 22.3% reduction
from the 2008 rate of 8.5 MTCOze /SP), and to 4.4 MTCOze per set-vice population per year by 2030 (a
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 49
48.2% reduction from the 2008 rate of 8.5 MTCOze /SP). These efficiency -based targets represent the AB
32 and Executive Order S -3 -05 targeted emissions levels for 2020 and 2030 on a per service population
basis. The City arrived at these values by dividing the statewide AB 32 targeted emissions level for 2020
and statewide Executive Order S -3 -05 targeted emissions level for 2030 by the 2020 and 2030 statewide
service population respectively.
The project's Year 2020 operational greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using CalEEMod version
2013.2.2. Project emissions are shown in Table 6. Because the CaIEEMod module used to estimate
reductions for those regulatory requirements, and project design features is labeled as "mitigation" within
the model, the mitigated output from CalEEMod is used; however, those modeling components are not
considered mitigation under CEQA, rather, are regulatory requirements and project design features.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Elsinore. 2011. Climate Action Plan. Website: http: / /www.lake- elsinore.org /Modules
/ShowDocument.aspx ?documentid =7249)
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less Than Significant Impact)
During operation, the project would result in the onsite use of common types of hazardous materials, such
as the use of cleaners and disinfectants by maintenance staff. These potentially hazardous materials,
however, would not be of a type or occur in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to the public
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No, 2014 -01
Page 50
and safety, or the environment. These products are labeled to inform users of potential risks and to
instruct them in appropriate handling procedures. Businesses are required by law to ensure employee
safety by identifying hazardous materials in the workplace, providing safety information to workers that
handle hazardous materials, and adequately training workers.
In addition, the project may include potentially hazardous materials that may be sold by the proposed
business, including, but not limited to fertilizer, lawn chemicals, agricultural chemicals, and petroleum
products. The City of Lake Elsinore currently requires any new business that would handle hazardous
materials to inventory their hazardous materials, as well as allow Fire Department review of their
hazardous materials processes and procedures, prior to the execution of various required business permits.
Businesses that sell or store hazardous materials in excess of exempt amounts as defined by the Uniform
Fire Code would be subject to City review and approval of a Special Conditional Use Permit. Therefore,
with consideration of the requirements discussed above, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, hazardous materials used during project operation would not pose any substantial public health
or safety hazards. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Proposed Project, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Less Than Silznificant Impact)
During construction, only typical building materials will be utilized, and any potentially hazardous
materials would be regulated. The project would comply with all applicable regulations relating to
hazardous materials.
Operation of the project is likely to involve the storage and use of common cleaning substances, building
maintenance products, paints, and solvents at the project site. These potentially hazardous substances
would not be of a type or occur in sufficient quantities onsite to pose a significant hazard to public health
and safety, or the environment. The storage and use of these materials would be subject to existing
federal, state, and local regulations. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the risk of
accidents and spills are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Proposed Project)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Impact)
The nearest schools to the project site are Valley Adult School and Ortega Continuation High School
Keith McCarthy Academy, located approximately 1.10 mile from the site, a greater distance than one -
quarter mile. Additionally, the project would not utilize significant hazardous materials during
construction or operation. The location precludes the possibility of irnpacts to existing and proposed
schools. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No, 2014 -01
Page 51
(Sources: Proposed Project, Lake Elsinore Unified School District)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment? (No Impact)
The Phase I ESA determined that it is unlikely anything would be discovered during construction relating
to potentially hazardous items such as Underground Storage Tanks, or asbestos containing materials.
Additionally, no Recognized Environmental Concerns were reported for the project site.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC) compiles a list, most commonly known
as a Cortese List, with a list of known sites containing hazardous materials. The project site is not listed
as a known site containing hazardous materials. Additionally, the project site is not listed on the county
or federal substance control and hazardous materials lists. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. August, 2013)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact)
The project site is not located within an area subject to an airport land use plan, and the nearest airport is
approximately 6.5 miles from the site. Therefore, no impacts pertaining to airport safety hazards would
occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Project Location)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact)
The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. A review of federal aviation records
was conducted to confirm using the Airport IQ 5010 provided by Caltrans and the Federal Aviation
Administration. The nearest private airstrip, McConville Airstrip, is located west of Lake Elsinore near
Highway 74, approximately 6 miles from the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working at the project site. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Master Records and Reports, Lake Elsinore, CA
Website: http: / /www.gcrl. corn /5010web /airport.cfm ?Site =CA42)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Sil4nificant Impact)
The project does not include any features or components that would impair the implementation of or
physically interfere with any emergency response plan. Site access is provided via two driveways on
Enterprise Way, and an extended driveway on Collier Ave, providing sufficient entry and exit in the case
of emergency. No residential uses are proposed onsite, and employees of the project would be trained to
respond to emergencies pursuant to City and County emergency evacuation and response plans. The
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 52
project would not create substantial additional traffic on local roadways that could be used during a
potential emergency. The project would not prevent responsible governments from alerting or warning
citizens, conducting evacuations, providing shelter or feeding opportunities, or conducting search and
rescue operations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Project Design, Appendix F: Trames Solutions Inc. 2013. Lake Elsinore Tractor Supply
Company — Traffic Analysis)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands area adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City of Lake Elsinore is subject to high risks from wildland fires due to its proximity to forests,
including the Cleveland National Forest. However, the project site is located within an area of Lake
Elsinore that is designated as only moderate concern for wildland fires as indicated on the City's Fire
Hazard Zones map. The project does not include any residential components, and is not considered a
critical facility. The project would comply with the current Fire Code and requirements therein.
Therefore, impacts related to wildland fires would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, Fire Hazard Zones Map)
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Less Than Significant
Impact)
The project is required to submit a project - specific Water Quality Management Plan, per the requirements
outlined by the Santa Ana Region Applicability of WWMP Requirements Checklist provided by the
County of Riverside. Construction activities such as demolition, grading, and paving would generate
sediment created by soil disturbance. If not controlled, surface water runoff from the project site may
carry loose sediment to nearby storm drains and into local waterways including the Temescal Wash. In
addition, accidental release of pollutants associated with construction could also degrade the quality of
water runoff from the site and contribute pollution to local waterways. Construction activities may
include the use of gasoline and diesel - powered heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water
pumps, and air compressors.
Sediment created by soil disturbance is the most likely pollutant that would be generated during or
following site grading. Surface water runoff from the site could carry this sediment through storm drains
and into local waterways. Potentially, an accidental release of sediment could result from construction
and degrade the water quality of local waterways.
In compliance with the NPDES requirements of the Clean Water Act and as part of the development of
the project, a SWPPP would be prepared. The requirements of the NPDES program are administered in
California by the State Water ,Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCBs) and enforced through the State Construction General Permit process. The SWPPP must
identify 'specific BMPs that will be used at the project site to treat and control stormwater, reduce
sedimentation, and prevent erosion. The SWPPP is expected to include site maps showing existing and
proposed physical site conditions, stormwater collection and discharge points, and drainage patterns; a
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 53
description of BMPs to be implemented to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater,
prevent, or control erosion, and manage non - stormwater and construction materials.
Projects that comply with NPDES requirements ensure the project does not result in a significant impact
related to changes in the quantity, rate, or quality of stormwater runoff from the site. The SWPPP must
determine the project's risk level and include the appropriate BMPs and other measures to ensure
compliance with all requirements of the Clean Water Act, the NPDES program, and the Construction
General Permit. With implementation of the SWPPP, the proposed project construction would comply
with the applicable water quality and waste discharge standards and would not otherwise substantially
degrade water quality.
Post Construction
The City of Lake Elsinore is responsible for ensuring compliance with federal and state laws that regulate
stormwater runoff management prior to its entry to the storm drain system, streams, rivers, and other
bodies of water. Specifically, the City operates under the Regional Water Quality Control Board's
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP), which requires new and redevelopment projects
to include appropriate measures to treat urban runoff and to prevent increases in runoff flows.
Implementation of the NPDES Permit and City Policy requirements would reduce potential construction
and post construction impacts to surface water quality to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: — Riverside County. Santa Ana Region Applicability of WWMP Requirements Checklist.
Website: http : / /rcflood.org /downloads/NPDES/ Documents /SA_WQMP /EXHIBIT %20E.pdf)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that there could be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table (e.g. the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The proposed project will connect to the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's (EVMWD) water
supply system via local roadways. The potable water supply is provided from imported water from the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, local service water from Canyon Lake, and local
groundwater from the Elsinore Basin. The EVMWD Water Master Plan evaluated existing and planned
water sources, and water- distribution systems with their respect to their ability to meet a project's water
demand. EVMWD serves a total of 37,250 potable service connections and has an average potable
demand of approximately 32,000 acre -ft /year. EVMWD predicts that future water demand in 2020 will
rise to 55,244 acre -ft /year. The project would contribute to the increase in demand, however the
EVMWD utilizes a conjunctive use program. In wet years, the program utilizes imported water- in the
Elsinore Basin enhancing groundwater supply reliability. Conjunctive use and artificial recharge
programs instituted by EVMWD over the past several years, and continued implementation of such
programs in the future is expected to result in satisfactory management of the Elsinore Basin (EVMWD,
2011).
In addition, the proposed use is compliant with the General Plan Land Use designation of Light Industrial,
and the current Commercial Manufacturing (CM) zoning. The project is aligned with the goals of the
General Plan. Based on the aforementioned information, there is adequate supply to provide water to the
project site and depletion of groundwater supplies will not occur. Impacts are less than significant.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 54
In addition, the project site is located within a moderately urbanized area. The project is not considered
an important recharge area by EVMWD. Water will also percolate into the earth by flowing into the
natural plant cover basins and into other landscaped areas. Thus, it is anticipated that the natural aquifer
recharge process will not be impacted. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: EVMWD, Urban Water Management Plan, 2011. Website:
http: / /www. water .ca.gov / urbanwatermanagement /2010uwmps/ Elsinore %20Valley %20Municipal %20Wat
er %20District /EVMWD %20UWMP %202010_Final.pdf, EVMWD, Groundwater Management Plan,
2011 Website: http: / /www.evmwd.com /depts /engineering /gmp.asp)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is generally level and has no existing surficial drainage features, including streams or
rivers. The project proposes to convert previously developed but presently vacant land to conform to the
uses designated in the General Plan. The project includes the establishment of a Tractor Supply Company
Store, two drainage basins, outdoor display areas, and parking and associated roadways. Drainage
patterns onsite would be altered due to the establishment of additional impervious surfaces including
parking lots, display areas, and primary store component. Drainage basins would be utilized to regulate
the flow of water onsite. As part of project approval, the proposed Tractor Supply Company Store would
be required to comply with all NPDES regulations as discussed in previous sections. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Site Visit, Project Design)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Less Than
Significant Impact)
The proposed project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site through the introduction of
impervious surfaces. Therefore, the project could potentially increase the rate or amount of surface run-
off from the site. However, the project would not alter the course of a stream or river, as none are present
onsite. Additionally, the project includes the establishment of two drainage basins totaling 9,100 square
feet. The site has been designed allowing water to drain to the basins, reducing the risk of flooding.
Landscaping will also be constructed, that would prevent a significant increase in surface runoff and
allow water to percolate into the ground.
Therefore, the project would not substantially increase the rate of surface runoff that could result in the
flooding on -or offsite. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: KLA Landscape Architecture Planning, Preliminary Landscape Plan, February, 2014.)
Initial Study for° Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 55
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Less Than Significant Impact)
The proposed project would be served by the City's stormwater drainage system. Construction activities
such as demolition, grading, and paving could introduce additional pollutants and sediment into water
runoff and flow into nearby storm drains. Site run -off would drain into the proposed drainage basins
located on the western and southern sections of the site. Construction of the basins would allow water to
drain and reduce the amount of run -off from the site while also providing natural methods of pollution
prevention. As part of development of the proposed project, a SWPPP in compliance with the NPDES
requirements of the Clean Water Act would be prepared, as discussed previously. Projects that comply
with NPDES requirements would not result in a significant impact related to changes in the quantity, rate,
or quality of stormwater runoff from the site. Finally, continuous use and operation of the site would not
create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing storm drains on the project
site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Project Design; Riverside County. Santa Ana Region Applicability of WWMP Requirements
Checklist. Website: http : / /reflood.org /downloads/NPDES /Documents /SA_WQMP /EXHIBIT %20E.pdf)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Less Than Significant Impact
Construction activities related to the proposed project could introduce pollutants and sediment into water
runoff from the site. Runoff from the site flows through storm drains to nearby water bodies, with the
potential to ultimately reach the Pacific Ocean. As part of development of the proposed project, a SWPPP
in compliance with the NPDES requirements of the Clean Water Act would be prepared, as discussed
previously. Implementation of the proposed drainage basins would also aid the project in reducing
potential impacts to water quality and hydrology. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Riverside County. Santa Ana Region Applicability of WWMP Requirements Checklist.
Website: http: / /reflood.org /downloads/NPDES /Documents /SA_WQMP /EXHIBIT %20E.pdf)
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact)
The project site is located within an area demarcated as Zone X by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Map No. 06065C2028G, Panel No. 2028). Zone X is located
outside of the 100 -year (and 500 -year) flood plains. There are no housing structures proposed as part of
the project, precluding the possibility of placing housing within a flood zone. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Community Panel No.
2028, Map No. 06065C2028G.)
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Initial Study.for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 56
The project site is located within an area demarcated as Zone X by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Map No. 06065C2028G, Panel No. 2028). Zone X is located
outside of the 100 -year (and 500 -year) flood plains. Therefore, the project would not introduce structures
that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Website: http: / /mapl.msc.fema.gov /idms
/IntraView.egi ?KEY= 42003571 &IFIT =1 [Accessed June 17, 2014])
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project is not located within an area susceptible to flooding, including flooding as a result of levee
failure or dam failure, as delineated on Figure S -10 Dam Failure Inundation Zones of the Riverside
County General Plan. Project impacts related to flooding dam would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Riverside County General Plan Figure S -10 Dam Failure Inundation Zones, 2008.)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact)
The project is located approximately 30 miles from the Pacific Coast, precluding the possibility of
significant impacts from a tsunami. A potential seiche within the City could be produced by Lake
Elsinore. However, the project site is not located within an area of concern as depicted on Figure S -10
Dam Failure Inundation Zones of the Riverside County General Plan. Furthermore, the project site and
project vicinity is relatively flat, thus mudflows are not of concern. There will be no impacts related to
seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Riverside County General Plan, Figure S -10 Dam Failure Inundation Zones, 2008)
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact)
The project is vacant and located at the northwest corner of Enterprise Way and Collier Avenue. Thus, it
does not divide an established community. Furthermore, the proposed project is located within the
Business District of Lake Elsinore. The project site does not contain any existing communities or
residential structures, nor is located adjacent to any such features. The project would not divide any
established biological communities as analyzed above in Section IV Biological Resources. Therefore, the
project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, December 13, 2011)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 57
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
The project site is located within the Business District sphere of the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan,
with the land use designation of Light Industrial. Additionally, the project is zoned Commercial
Manufacturing (CM). The project is consistent with both the land use designation and the zoning. The
project is in compliance with other applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: _City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, December 13, 2011))
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan? (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated)
The project is located within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Conservation Plan (WRMSHCP).
Refer to Section IV f), above, for additional information pertaining to project conformance with
applicable plans. With implementation of mitigation measures contained in Section IV Biological
Resources, project impacts to habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans are
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to IV Biological Resources for applicable mitigation measures.
(Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Stephens' Kangaroo
Rat Habitat Conservation Plan)
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (No Impact)
The project site is located within an area designated MRZ -3, areas containing known or inferred mineral
occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. A review of aerial photographs of the project
site and surrounding vicinity show no current or historic indication of aggregate operations currently
occurring in the area. Evidence of historical aggregate mining operations in the vicinity is also not
apparent. In addition, the establishment of a new mineral extraction operation at the project site is
infeasible, however, due to the surrounding commercial /industrial uses, which are not compatible with a
mining operation. Furthermore, the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan contains a policy restricting
incompatible land uses within the impact area of existing or potential surface mining areas.
Through the project, CEQA and permitting processes, the City shall ensure a balance between the
conservation of significant mineral resources, the need for extracted materials for local
construction, and proper mitigation for potential impacts and conflicts between uses.
Aggregate mining operations generally produce particulate matter, which could impact the sensitive
receptors and surrounding commercial and mixed -use facilities within the project area. Noise from such
an operation would also be incompatible with sensitive receptor and surrounding commercial and mixed -
use facilities land uses. Because the project site is not a feasible candidate for raining due to its
surrounding uses. Therefore, the project is not likely to impact these resources..
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 58
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Certified Dec. 2011. Website:
http:/ /www. lake - elsinore.org /index.aspx ?page =909)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact)
As previously discussed, the project site is located within an area designated MRZ -3, areas containing
known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. A review of aerial
photographs of the project site and surrounding vicinity show no current or historic indication of
aggregate operations currently occurring in the area. Evidence of historical aggregate mining operations
in the vicinity is also not apparent. In addition, the establishment of a new mineral extraction operation at
the project site is infeasible, however, due to the surrounding commercial /industrial uses, which are not
compatible with a mining operation. Furthermore, the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan contains a
policy restricting incompatible land uses within the impact area of existing or potential surface mining
areas.
Through the project, CEQA and permitting processes, the City shall ensure a balance between the
conservation of significant mineral resources, the need for extracted materials for local
construction, and proper mitigation for potential impacts and conflicts between uses.
Aggregate mining operations generally produce particulate matter, which could impact the sensitive
receptors and surrounding commercial and mixed -use facilities within the project area. Noise from such
an operation would also be incompatible with sensitive receptor and surrounding commercial and mixed -
use facilities land uses. Because the project site is not a feasible candidate for mining due to its
surrounding uses. Therefore, the project is not likely to impact these resources
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Certified Dec. 2011. Website:
http: // www .lake - elsinore.org /index.aspx ?page =909)
XII. NOISE
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? Less
Than Significant Impact)
With regard to noise impacts to the project, the following policies from the City of Lake Elsinore General
Plan apply:
Policy 7.1 Apply the noise standards set forth in the Lake Elsinore Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Matrix (Table 3 -1) and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards (see Table 3 -2) when considering all new
development and redevelopment proposed within the City.
Policy 7.4 Consider estimated roadway noise contours based upon Figure 3.6, Noise Contours, when
making land use design decisions along busy roadways throughout the City.
Implementation program Through project review and the CEQA processes, the City shall assess new
development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with noise
standards and compatibility criteria where appropriate.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 59
Table 3 -2 Interior and Exterior Noise Standards is not applicable to the project, as the project is not
located within the vicinity of residential properties, hotels, motels, transient lodging, hospitals, schools or
similar uses listed in the table.
The most predominant noise source affecting the project site results from traffic on the adjacent roadways
of Enterprise Way and Collier Avenue. Future traffic volumes on these roadways are provided in Onsite
Noise Output and Roadway Contour Analysis attached in Appendix E, along with the resulting noise
levels, as projected to the project's property line. The project is located within the noise contour of 65
LDN per the City of Lake Elsinore Noise Contours Figure 3.6 contained in the General Plan. As depicted
in Appendix E, Roadway Contour Analysis, the project would reach a noise level of 61.3 dBA CNEL at
Collier Avenue and 43.3 dBA CNEL at Collier Avenue under existing, ambient growth, cumulative and
project conditions. The project site itself would experience noise levels of 41.5 dBA CNEL. Both of these
predicted noise measurements are less than the City standard of 65 LDN. Thus, the project would comply
with Policy 7.4.
As per Policy 7.1, the project would be in compliance with the standards set forth in the Elsinore Noise
and Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Table 3 -1). Under the project category of Commercial - General,
Special Industrial Institutional, the project would be clearly compatible with noise levels less than 55
LDN to 65 LDN, and normally compatible with noise levels of 70 LDN to greater than 80 LDN. Per the
output data, the proposed project would reach levels that are potentially significant due to the surrounding
land use of a cemetery that has a "normally compatible" Open Space noise level of 65 LDN. However,
the output data is a very conservative estimate of noise because the result was calculated with the
assumption that a tractor would be utilized consistently onsite, and would not be idling during operation
of the tractor. However, during operation the Tractor Supply Store would not consistently operate the
tractors, but rather operate them only during loading and unloading, or movement to and from the display
areas. Therefore, even though the project would have the potential to produce significant noise levels, it
would be extremely unlikely to approach that level of noise on a regular basis, if ever.
The City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code includes regulations for noise levels of light industrial land
uses and other land use categories. As per Table 1 Exterior Noise Limits (Levels not to be exceeded more
than 30 minutes in any hour) of the Municipal Code Section 17.176.060, light industrial land uses require
a limit of 70 dBA. The proposed project would establish onsite conditions that are lower than the standard
set forth in the code, as described previously.
During construction the project would comply with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code requirements,
thereby reducing any potential impacts to levels of less than significant. Construction would only occur
during typical hours and would not occur on Sundays or holidays per City Code.
Therefore, the project is in compliance all City regulations regarding noise, the impacts would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, 2011 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Chapter 3.0 Public Safety and
Welfare, December- 2013.
City of Lake Elsinore, 2013. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Chapter 17.176.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan does not contain specific guidelines pertaining to vibration or
groundborne noise levels. However- the proposed project would not contain any components onsite that
would typically produce such effects. As per the General Plan Public Safety and Welfare Chapter, the
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 60
most common sources of vibration in the planning area are transit vehicles, construction equipment, and
large vehicles. Several land uses are more sensitive to vibrations and thus have a lower threshold.
Sensitive uses include but are not limited to hospitals, concert halls, libraries, certain research institutions,
residential areas, schools, and offices. None of these uses are within the project vicinity.
The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code includes a provision to reduce vibration impacts, under Section
17.176.080 Prohibited Uses. The code states the following:
G.) Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the
vibration perception threshold of any individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source
if on private property or at 150 feet (46 meters) from the source if on a public space or right -of-
way.
As previously indicated the project site is not located near any land uses that are sensitive to vibrations.
During construction some of the equipment may produce vibrations. However the equipment that
typically produces vibrations, such as pile drivers would be utilized in the center of the site where the
main building will be established. The distance from the property line and right -of -ways reduces the
chance of project vibration causing significant impacts.
Therefore because the project does not present any vibration concerns during operation, no sensitive uses
exist within the project area, and the majority of construction would occur in the center of the site,
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, 2011 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Chapter 3.0 Public Safety and
Welfare. December 2013.
City of Lake Elsinore, 2013. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Chapter 17.176.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is currently vacant, and therefore does not contribute to local ambient noise levels. Thus
the implementation of development onsite would create a new source of noise that would increase the
ambient noise levels within the project vicinity. As per the Roadway Analysis Contour Tables contained
in Appendix E, existing noise levels on Collier Avenue are 61.2 dBA CNEL, and under project conditions
with cumulative impacts and ambient growth, the project specific increase would be 0.1 dBA CNEL,
considered a less- than - perceptible increase. Enterprise Drive is a small road with minimal traffic at
present, with an average daily traffic level of 11 vehicles. Under existing conditions Enterprise Drive
maintains a noise level of 38.1 dBA CNEL. The proposed project would contribute an increase of
approximately 5.2 dBA CNEL. However, while this increase would be considered a perceptible increase
in ambient noise levels, the resulting traffic noise levels would remain well under the required noise
levels for industrial or even residential land uses with a noise level of 43.3 dBA CNEL. In addition, the
project is directly surrounded by vacant land and a commercial use, neither of which are considered
sensitive uses. Therefore, traffic noise increases along access roadway segments with implementation of
the project would be considered less- than - significant and no mitigation would be required.
The project is in agreement with the land use designations in the General Plan, and zoning provided in the
Zoning Code. Therefore, the proposed light industrial use should be acceptable and tolerated within the
district including the noise associated with such planned uses. Therefore, the project would not establish a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, and impacts are less than
significant.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 61
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, 2011 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Chapter 3.0 Public Safety and
Welfare. December 2013)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is currently vacant, and does not contribute to local ambient noise levels. Thus the
implementation of development onsite would create a new source of noise that would increase the
ambient noise levels within the project vicinity. Permanent noise increases related to implementation of
the project are discussed under Section XII.c) above. However, implementation of the project would
result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity resulting from short-term
construction activities. The operation of heavy construction equipment would contribute to noise during
the construction phase of the project. However, the applicant would comply with local regulations
regarding acceptable hours of construction. Paragraph F of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section
17.176.080. (Prohibited acts) contains the following policy:
• Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair,
alteration, or demolition work between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on
weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential
or commercial real property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities or by variance
issued by the City.
Paragraph F.2 of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.176.080 includes the maximum noise levels at
affected properties, including business properties which are adjacent to the project site. At business
properties (i.e. California Skier Mastercraft), the maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent,
short -term operation (less than 10 days) of mobile equipment shall remain at or below 85 dBA daily,
including Sundays and Legal Holidays, all hours. For stationary equipment (period of 10 days or more)
the requirement is 75 dBA or below. All mobile or stationary internal combustion engine powered
equipment or machinery shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and air intake silencers in proper
working order. The project would be required to comply with all Municipal Code requirements regarding
construction and operation, thus would not produce a substantial temporary increase in noise levels.
In addition, the project is directly surrounded by vacant land and a commercial use, neither of which are
considered sensitive uses. Therefore with compliance of local regulations, the project would not create a
substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels within the project vicinity, and impacts are less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, 2011 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Chapter 3.0 Public Safety and
Welfare. December 2013;
City of Lake Elsinore, 2013. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Chapter 17.176)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 62
The project is not located within an area subject to an airport land use plan. Additionally, the project is
located approximately 4.5 miles from the nearest airport (Skylark Field Airport). No impacts would
occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, 2011 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Chapter 3.0 Public Safety and
Welfare. December 2013)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)
The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Skylark Field Airport is a private
airport located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the project. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, 2011 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Chapter 3.0 Public Safety and
Welfare. December 2013)
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (No Impact)
The project consists of the establishment of a Tractor Supply Company store within an industrial business
area. The project does not contain any residential components, significant open space that would attract
people, or add a business that would induce population growth. Thus, the proposed project would not
directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in an area, and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Proposed Project)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
The project is not zoned for residential use, nor is it currently or historically occupied by housing
structures. Therefore, the project would displace substantial numbers of existing housing, and no impacts
would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required
(Sources: Site Visit, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code)
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 63
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (No Impact)
The project is not zoned for residential use, nor is it currently occupied by any people. Additionally, no
housing structures are located onsite. Therefore the project would not displace significant numbers of
people, and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Site Visit)
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The nearest manned fire station is Station 410, located approximately 2.6 miles southwest of the project
site. The City contracts for fire services from the Riverside County Fire Department and the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). The project would not significantly increase the
demand for fire services within the vicinity because no residential structures are proposed, and
components of the project do not present unique safety concerns. Additionally, the buildings will be
designed and constructed to comply with all current state and local building requirements, and be subject
to design review and inspection for fire safety considerations. With mandatory compliance with
applicable Fire Code regulations, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, 2011 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Chapter 3.0 Public Safety and
Welfare. December 2013)
b) Police protection? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City contracts for police services from the County of Riverside Sheriff's Department and the City
Police Department station is located at 333 Limited Avenue. The general plan lists the total number of
sworn offers serving in the City in 2011 as 43.6 which equates to a ratio of 0.85 sworn officer per 1,000
residents. Implementation of the proposed project would create a negligible increase in police demand
within the City. The project is not a use that generates a significant need for police services and no
residential structures are proposed. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, 2011 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Chapter- 3.0 Public Safety and
Welfare. December 2013)
c) Schools? (No Impact)
The project does not contain any residential components, and thus, would not cause an increase in the
demand for schools in the area. No impacts would occur.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 64
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Proposed Project)
d) Parks? (No Impact)
The project does not contain any residential components, and thus, would not cause an increase in the
demand for parks in the area. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Proposed Project)
e) Other public services /facilities? (No Impact)
The project does not contain any residential components, and would not cause an increase in the demand
for other public services /facilities in the area including churches, libraries, or community centers. No
impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Proposed Project)
XV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated? (No Impact)
The project consists of a Tractor Supply Company Store and associated improvements. The project would
not introduce additional people into the area. Thus, none of the project elements would cause an increase
in the usage of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other recreational facilities. With no project -
related increase in the usage of parks and recreation facilities, there will be no project- caused
deterioration of existing recreational facilities. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Proposed Project)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment ? (No
Impact)
The project consists of the establishment of a commercial development within the Business District of the
Lake Elsinore General Plan. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities and does not
create the need to establish additional recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would not require the
construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment, and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Proposed Project)
Initial Study,for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 65
XVL TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
The following traffic and circulation analysis is based in part on the December 2013 Traffic Analysis
memorandum prepared by Trames Solutions, Inc., which is included as Appendix F to this document.
The number of trips generated by a project is based on the specific uses proposed and the size of the
overall project. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation manual (9th Edition,
2012) is the industry standard in determining the number of trips generated by a development project on a
daily and peak hour basis. The description for a home improvement store, which sells hardware, lumber,
etc., most closely resembles the project. However, since a home improvement store sells many items that
the tractor supply store will not, the AM and daily trip rate can be considered to be conservatively high.
Project trip rates are presented on Table 1 of the Traffic Analysis memorandum (Appendix F).
Based on the land use assumptions for the project, it is anticipated that the project would generate
approximately 585 trips per day with 28 AM peals hour- trip ends and 27 PM peak hour trip ends. Table 7
presents the trip generation estimates for the project.
Table 7: Trip Generation Summary
Tractor Supply Store 1 19.031 TSF 1 16 1 12 1 28 1 13 1 14 1 27 1 585
Total 1 16 1 12 1 28 1 13 1 14 1 27 1 585
Existing Conditions
Based on the existing traffic control (stop sign on Enterprise Way), current lane geometry, and empirical
peak hour counts, the intersection of Collier Avenue /Enterprise Way is operating at acceptable service
levels. Table 8 shows the delay and corresponding level of service (LOS) during the AM and PM peak
hours.
Table 8: Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 66
Opening Year with Project Conditions
The project is anticipated to be built in 2014. Therefore, a 2 percent ambient growth rate has been applied
to the existing counts to reflect growth in the area. The City of Lake Elsinore has been contacted to
determine if any nearby, unbuilt developments could be constructed commensurately with the project. It
has been determined that no projects in the vicinity of the site would be developed by the 2014 timeframe.
The resulting peak hour traffic volumes including the project traffic are shown on Figure F of the Traffic
Analysis memorandum.
Table 9 presents the LOS service summary for Opening Year with Project traffic conditions at the Collier
Avenue /Enterprise Way intersection. In order to accommodate project traffic on Collier Avenue and
reduce delays /conflicts, a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane has been assumed at
the study intersection.
Table 9: Intersection Analysis for Opening Year (2014) With Project Conditions
Collier Ave/ CSS 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 18.2 25.0 C D
Enterprise
Way
Notes:
I CSS = Cross Slrcet Slop
2 L =Ldl. T= Throngh.R= Right:
.
3 Delay and level of sery ice nlatla(ed using the folbwing analysis software: Traffi.,
Based on the operational analysis for the Collier Avenue/Enterprise Way intersection, with incorporation
of Mitigation Measure MM TR -1, below, the project will not cause a significant impact during the peak
hours at its opening year timeframe. Therefore, impacts associated with the performance of the circulation
system will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM TR -1 Prior to the issuance of final occupancy /operating permits, the project applicant shall improve
the intersection Collier Avenue /Enterprise Way by constructing a northbound left turn lane and a
southbound right turn lane to City of Lake Elsinore standards.
(Sources: Trames Solutions, Inc., Traffic Analysis Memorandum, December 16, 2013.)
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level
of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (No Impact)
As addressed above in Impact XVLa, the project will not cause a significant impact during the peak hours
at its opening year timeframe, nor will it substantially impact the performance of the local or regional
circulation system. Thus, the project will not affect any regionally significant roadway as identified in the
Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) most current December- 2011 Congestion
Management Program (CMP). Therefore, no impacts associated with the CMP will occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 67
(Sources: Riverside County Transportation Commission, Congestion Management Program, December
14, 2011.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No Impact)
The closest public airport to the project site is Skylark Field Airport, which is located approximately 4.5
miles to the southeast. Based on this distance, any flights over the project site will occur at a substantial
height. Additionally, the height of the project will be limited by the City of Lake Elsinore's Zoning Code,
which would ensure that the project would not interfere with air traffic. Furthermore, the proposed project
will not generate additional air traffic or require a change in the location of Skylark Field Airport.
Therefore, no impacts associated with air traffic patterns will occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Master Records and Reports, Lake Elsinore, CA
Website: http:// www .gerl.com /5010web /airpot-t.cfm ?Site =CA42
City of Lake Elsinore's Zoning Code)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (No Impact)
Although the project will include the construction of offsite roadway improvements (as addressed in
Impact XVI.a, above), the purpose of which is to improve the local circulation following development of
the project. Aside from these identified improvements, the project will not include any offsite features
that will extend into the public right -of -way or otherwise interfere with circulation or result in traffic
hazards. Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous design features would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Trames Solutions, Inc., Traffic Analysis Memorandum, December- 16, 2013)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact)
The project site will be accessible via two driveways off Enterprise Drive and one driveway directly off
Collier Avenue. These driveways will be constructed to comply with all applicable standards related to
width and clearance, and thus, will be able to accommodate emergency vehicles. Therefore, no impacts
associated with emergency access will occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Trames Solutions, Inc., Traffic Analysis Memorandum, December 16, 2013)
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (No
Impact)
The project would construct a Tractor Supply facility on a property designated for industrial /commercial
development. The project's consistency with designated industrial /commercial uses at the site would
therefore not prevent the implementation or performance of any adopted policies, plans or programs
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Deelaration No, 2014 -01
Page 68
supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, no impacts associated with alternative transportation or
the performance of alternative transportation would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: 2011 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan)
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is currently served with sanitary sewer service provided by the EVMWD. Wastewater
discharge requirements are determined by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The EVMWD lift stations pump several thousand gallons per day to 1.5 million gallons per
day and its ,Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility has capacity to treat up to eight million gallons of
wastewater a day. The proposed project would establish a new commercial use that would be expected to
produce a corresponding increase in wastewater generation, but is not expected to generate significant
point source or non -point source pollutants. The proposed development is in accordance with the Lake
Elsinore General Plan for future development, and located within the EVMWD service area. Additionally,
the project includes the establishment of two drainage basins that would help regulate the wastewater
produced onsite. EVMWD utilize a tertiary system of water treatment, which would reduce any project
contributed pollutants. Thus, the proposed project would not be expected to cause facilities within the
RWQCB to exceed applicable requirements set by the Regional Water Quality Board. Impacts are less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Wastewater Treatment Operations, Website:
http://www.evmwd.com/depts/opei-ations/Wastewater/)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (Less Than Sil4nificant Impact)
The proposed project would use an onsite system for the collection of wastewater for conveyance to
offsite public wastewater facilities. Wastewater conveyed from the project site would ultimately reach
EVMWD facilities, as part of District 2 wastewater treatment facility, where it would undergo treatment
in accordance with applicable regulations. Moreover, most of the wastewater generated by the proposed
Project would originate from restroom facilities, which would not impact wastewater treatment or bypass
EVMWD treatment facilities.
The proposed project would result in the generation of approximately 3,000 gpd of wastewater per acre,
or 10,320 gpd (based on the 3.44 total acres of onsite industrial /commercial use). The EVMWD facility
has the capacity to treat 8.0 mgd of wastewater, and the addition of Project wastewater would fall within
the treatment capacity of EVMWD's Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. As such, no adverse
impacts related to wastewater conveyance and treatment is expected as a result of the Project, including
the exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. With Project implementation, the EVMWD
facilities would continue to operate in compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge
requirements. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wastewater treatment would be less than
significant.
Initial Study .for Mitigated Negative Deelaration No. 2014 -01
Page 69
Onsite water systems would provide potable water and will connect to the existing water mains with
conventional water meters. According to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update EIR, sufficient
water supply for the City exists both presently and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for
the proposed project. The project would construct a Tractor Supply facility on a property designated for
industrial /commercial development. The project's consistency with designated industrial /commercial uses
at the site would therefore be consistent with the water assessment located within the City of Lake
Elsinore General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, no impacts are associated with the construction of new
water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Wastewater Treatment Operations, Website:
http://www.evmwd.com/depts/operations/wastewater/
City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
(Less Than Significant Impact)
The project will draw on existing drainage facilities. The project site is located within the EVMWD's
Urban Service Area, District 2 where such facilities exist, and have the capacity to serve the proposed
project. In addition, the proposed drainage basins would reduce overall demand for additional or
expanded stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the
construction or expansion of existing stormwater drains or facilities. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Project Design)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The potable water supply in the project area is provided from imported water from Metropolitan, local
service water- from Canyon Lake, and local groundwater from the Elsinore Basin. The City of Lake
Elsinore General Plan Update EIR evaluated the City's existing and planned water sources, and water
distribution systems with their respect to their ability to meet a project's water demand. As determined by
the City's General Plan Update EIR, less than significant impacts would occur to existing water facilities.
The EVMWD serves a total of 37,250 potable service connections and has an average potable demand of
approximately 32,000 acre -ft /year. EVMWD predicts that future water demand in 2020 will rise to 55,244
acre -ft /year. The project would contribute to the increase in demand, however the EVMWD utilizes a
conjunctive use program. In wet years the program utilizes imported water in the Elsinore Basin
enhancing groundwater supply reliability. Conjunctive use and artificial recharge programs instituted by
EVMWD over the past several years and continued implementation of such programs in the future is
expected to result in satisfactory management of the Elsinore Basin ( EVMWD, 2011). Based on the
aforementioned information, the City's water supply has adequate supply to provide water to the project
site and would not require additional entitlements. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Wastewater Treatment Operations, Website:
littp://www.evmwd.com/depts/operations/wastewater/)
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 70
City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project would result in an increase in wastewater compared to existing conditions, as the project site
is currently vacant. Therefore, the project would be expected to have a corresponding increase in
wastewater generation. Wastewater effluent from the project site is treated through the EVMWD, which
operates 31 lift stations that pump water throughout the area. The EVMWD Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facility has the capacity to treat 8.0 million gallons per day. The existing stormwater
treatment facility has the capacity to adequately serve the project site, among other planned uses
consistent with the City's General Plan. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: EVMWD, Treating Wastewater. Website:
http://www.evmwd.com/depts/operations/wastewater/default.asp)
f) Be served by a landfill system with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs? (Less Than Sillnificant Impact)
Development and operation of the proposed project would generate solid waste which would be served by
existing solid waste disposal set-vices. However, development of the project would not include significant
solid waste generated by demolition.
Solid waste disposal is regulated on the regional level. The City is served by multiple landfills including
Badlands Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill, and El Sobrante Landfill. Badlands Landfill is expected to
reach capacity by 2024, Lamb Canyon Landfill by 2021, and El Sobrante Landfill by 2045. Badlands and
Lamb Canyon both have the potential to expand their facilities and capacity. In compliance with Section
40050 et. Seq. of the California Public Resources Code Lake Elsinore will continue to implement solid
waste reductions programs, thereby reducing the cumulative effect of project implementation. The project
would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes.
Additionally, the project site is located within the Riverside County Service Area, which includes
disposal sites that have the capacity to serve the proposed project. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Riverside County Waste Management Department, Website: http: / /www.rivcowm.org /openems
/landfill _info /landfill_hours.html)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less
Than Significant Impact)
The construction of a Tractor Supply Company Store on the vacant project site would increase the amount
of solid waste generated on the site. However, existing landfills in the project area have adequate capacity
to serve the site. Waste collection service in Lake Elsinore is currently provided CR &R. The proposed
project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011)
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 71
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA and
Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less Than
Significant Impact)
As per Section IV Biological Resources, the proposed project is located within an area known to contain
habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special- status species. However, mitigation measures proposed would
reduce impacts to less than significant levels. In addition, the project will not interfere with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Furthermore, there are no identified
historic or known prehistoric resources identified on this site, based on findings in the Cultural Resources
Assessment. There are no archaeological or paleontological resources identified in the project, based on a
Records Search and field survey.
(Sources: FCS reconnaissance -level survey conducted in March of 2014.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory.
http: //107.20. 228. 18 /Wetlands /WettandsMapper.html# [Accessed March 19, 2014)
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)? (No Impact)
As noted in the individual topical sections of this document, the project does not have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The proposed Tractor Supply Company project
would establish a store and associated improvements consistent with the site's current Commercial
Manufacturing zoning and Light Industrial General Plan land use designation. The General Plan EIR
evaluated the impacts of the implementation of the City's General Plan and mitigates potential impacts.
Therefore, the project is part of the envisioned growth and development of the City of Lake Elsinore.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
2005121019) December 13, 2011)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact)
The project will not have other environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly, as there are no such impacts identified by the studies conducted for
this project or identified by review of the design of the proposed project. The project would be
conditioned to ensure that all standard conditions of approval and necessary mitigation measures are
followed prior to use of the facility.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. 2011)
Initial Study.for A7itigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 72
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document.
This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines.
First Carbon Solutions I Michael Brandman Associates
Jason Brandman — Project Director
Charles Holcombe — Project Manager
Liz Westmoreland — Environmental Analyst
Chiyss Myer — Sr. Air Quality /GHG Scientist
Kenneth J. Lord, Ph.D., RPA, Senior Archaeologist
Scott Crawford — Sr. Biologist
Phil Ault — Sr. Noise Specialist
Krazan and Associates Inc.
James Kellogg — Managing Engineer
Partner Engineering and Science
Cody Taylor — Principle
Trames Solutions, Inc.
Scott Sato, P.E. — Senior Associate
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 73
VII. REFERENCES
The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document. Except
as noted, they are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development
Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674 -3124.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land
Uses. Website: http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content / uploads / 2012/ 03 /CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8 -6-
09.pdf
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005.
California Department of Conservation. 2011/2012. Williamson Act Program.
California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective. April 2005. Website: www.arb.ca.gov /ch /landuse.htm.
California Fish and Game Code. Fish and Game Code Section 3500 -3516.
California Resources Agency. 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).
City of Lake Elsinore. 2011. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Chapter 3.0 Public Safety and Welfare.
City of Lake Elsinore. 2011. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan General Plan Update.
City of Lake Elsinore. 2011. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report.
City of Lake Elsinore. December 2011. City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map.
City of Lake Elsinore. 2011. Climate Action Plan. Website: littp: / /www.lake- elsinore.org/Modules
/ShowDocu m ent. aspx ?documentid =7249
City of Lake Elsinore. 2013. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
City of Lake Elsinore, 2013. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Chapter 17.176City of Lake Elsinore, 2011
City of Lake .Elsinore General Plan, Chapter 3.0 Public Safety and Welfare.
Department of Transportation, CA Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/seenic—highways/index.htm
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Wastewater Treatment Operations, Website:
http://www.evmwd.com/depts/operations/wastewater
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Treating Wastewater. Website:
http://www.evmwd.com/depts/opei-ations/wastewater/default.asp
Riverside County Waste Management Department, Website:
http: / /www.riveowm.oi-g /opencros /landfill _info /landfill_hours.litml
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Groundwater Management Plan, 2011 Website:
http: / /www.evmwd.com /depts /engineering /gmp.asp
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 74
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Urban Water Management Plan, 2011. Website:
http: / /www. water .ca.gov /urbanwatermanagement
/2010uwmps/ Elsinore% 20Valley% 20Munici pal % 20Water% 20District /EVMWD %20UWMP %202010_F
inal.pdf)
FCS -MBA. March 2014. Reconnaissance -level survey conducted.
FCS -MBAa. 2014. Air Quality Emissions Modeling Output.
FCS -MBAb. 2014. Cultural Resources Report.
Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Master Records and Reports, Lake Elsinore, CA Website:
http://www.gerl.com/50 I Oweb/airport.cfm?Site=CA42
KLA Landscape Architecture Planning, Preliminary Landscape Plan, February, 2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Community Panel No. 2028, Map
No. 06065C2028G.
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Website:
http: / /mapl.mse.fema.gov /idms /IntraView.egi ?KEY= 42003571 &IFIT =1 [Accessed June 17, 2014]
Krazan and Associates. 2013. Geotechnical Report
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. August, 2013. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
RCTLMA, 2008 Riverside County General Plan Website: http: / /www.rctlma.org /genplan
/content/gp /chapter06.htm1
Riverside County General Plan. 2008. Figure S -8 Wind Erosion Susceptibility Map.
Riverside County General Plan. 2008. Figure S -10 Dam Failure Inundation Zones.
Riverside County. Santa Ana Region Applicability of WWMP Requirements Checklist. Website:
http : / /rcflood.org /downloads/NPDES /Documents /SA_WQMP /EXHIBIT %20E.pdf
Riverside County Transportation Commission, Congestion Management Program. December 14, 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2005. Guidance for Addressing Air Quality Issues in
General Plans and Local Planning. Website: http: // www. aqmd. gov /prdas /aqguide /doe /chapter05.pdf
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology,
Appendix C. Website: www.agmd.gov /CEQA /handbook /LST/LST.html
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011a. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Revised
March 2011. Website: www.agmd. gov /cega /handbook /signtlires.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2013
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2012. Air Quality Management Plan. Website:
http: / /www.agmd. gov /aqmp /2012agmp/ Final- Februaiy2Ol3 /index.htm]. February 2013
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2014 -01
Page 75
Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting 415. September 28, 2013. Website:
www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/201 0/sept28mtg/ghgrntg 15- web.pdf.
Trames Solutions, Inc. December 16, 2013. Traffic Analysis Memorandum.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory.
http: // 107.20. 228.18/ Wetlands /WetlandsMapper.html# [Accessed March 19, 2014
USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. EvegTile53B_02_03_v2 and EvegTile54_02_03_v2.
2007
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Deelaration No. 2014 -01
Page 76
FlrstCarbu
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN (MMRP)
FOR THE
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2014 -01
TRACTOR SUPPLY CO. PROJECT
(COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -01&
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014 -01)
City of LAKE ELSINORE, Riverside County, California
State Clearinghouse No. 2014071019
Prepared for:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
951.674.3124
Contact: Richard J. MacHott, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
FirstCarbon Solutions
621 E. Carnegie Dr, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
909.884.2255
Contact: Jason Brandman, Project Director
Charles Holcombe, Project Manager
C
a
a
a
c
i
O
N
ct6
Oi
G
O
Z
c0
C
O
t3
Ot
O
t0
a
bA
C
O
Q.
O
to
C
O
5O
G
C
O
t0
COD
G
lr-j
r
0
v
O
N
Z
O
u° a
b
L j
� �a+
a
ti
o v
a
a �
W
O Ln
'a
o
ry
M
L
O
u H
i d
O
u i O
w v:
N
i t4
L
':..0::.
1A U
O
CL
4)
o ,o
c41
O. O
0 to
U
cQ)N L
m
_3
m
l4
C4)
G
C
0
f0
LU
W
v
O
N
W
O:
Q
U_
C7
0
� O
m
dp
4) 3
L
O c
m
fn m
a v c
l6 C 4)
J O Q E
0 i O
T E > Q ;N
U U in ❑ ❑
ao
c
O
p)
Y O 3
O Y
Q w m
O cn
C
_O
U 0
C u
� U �-+
U y= U
•O 0 N
%
a
'a
a,
c
:a
0
a
v
a
a
c
a
a,
c
0
0
e
0
a
a,
Z
O
V'
O
N
Z
O
u° a
a
av
H �
O •�
o rn
a,
W '
a
co a
o in
W +a`
O '=
ti
o o a o
u a) U o
N m > :bA
] O 2i -6 E
T L N —
N O
(3) ,N > (:L) (3) m O -O = L
w > + N a) ro
u N U =
O +' U T> N Q Q! L U
Q v •� ,L +> ra + rp O O � F =
�+- a) O Q E o 41
-O C ro u O Q aJ Y �N ro " ..O O N ro a)
O a) 'O Z5 = U aJ U -p bA '�'' a) O = O_ N t
U _ "O a) O_ vim- o L N = 'O = _O — —
N +J m = C '' '� o rn O �_ O a)) N �! rLo ro O 'M CL rUa ro OU 4 Q) a' o }; H -O '� �-+ C: b0 N o ,u
U a) a'�-+ >� aJ m O v '0 4-- N to (3) �N �vu bpw
Cl _ = O = 7 = ro > a)
E '
_ c o 3 a) u y tiA u O O cl
a
w 'u a+) E o u
m o o L) v o ua Q o o 0 .� s •° a v v
U u 3 u= _ C Cl U N!E 3
C.L o Q o .�
M
Q
m
bA
a)
bA
bA
o O
_
c
_
u a) U
0
a) V o
ra
=
ro
=
•N
ro
=
�
ro
=
'ln
W
�
W
d
N
W
�
VI
W
U
a)
Y
Y
n_3
E
J = Q
E
= J =
Q. E =
J
L2
CC
E
J =
v– O
O E
i
0 O E
O i 0
aa) N
0
_
�+–
o E
ru
L
TO
U U o
C)
0 0 0
0 C) o
U U
o
C) 0
U U
o
Q
O
N
u
N +-+
i N +--+
- a) +•+
E
N O •Y
E
aJ
C:
(E L
N
CL
N L
i 7 aJ
Q
.S
L
7 a)
0-
a ai c
aJ V-
tn
O=
i N
i 0 0
E
t VJ
! 0 0
O u Q
u
Q
O u
o U)
'L o)
o Q>
'L
v v
o
rl vim- U
a v
(D
v
�n
Q
j
•i h0
•i bA
•i by
N
d N
i d r6
d fo
d .N
o o a o
u a) U o
N m > :bA
] O 2i -6 E
T L N —
N O
(3) ,N > (:L) (3) m O -O = L
w > + N a) ro
u N U =
O +' U T> N Q Q! L U
Q v •� ,L +> ra + rp O O � F =
�+- a) O Q E o 41
-O C ro u O Q aJ Y �N ro " ..O O N ro a)
O a) 'O Z5 = U aJ U -p bA '�'' a) O = O_ N t
U _ "O a) O_ vim- o L N = 'O = _O — —
N +J m = C '' '� o rn O �_ O a)) N �! rLo ro O 'M CL rUa ro OU 4 Q) a' o }; H -O '� �-+ C: b0 N o ,u
U a) a'�-+ >� aJ m O v '0 4-- N to (3) �N �vu bpw
Cl _ = O = 7 = ro > a)
E '
_ c o 3 a) u y tiA u O O cl
a
w 'u a+) E o u
m o o L) v o ua Q o o 0 .� s •° a v v
U u 3 u= _ C Cl U N!E 3
C.L o Q o .�
M
Q
m
w
v
o:
O
tA
w
J
U
= o
ro �
>
N O
N Q
W m
v +�
t U
t6
_
L
Q
bo
_
"O
L
M 41
Q
Q
U �
N u
a) a
-C a
o u
L N
.O_ O
1�
Q:
U
a
e
0
0
.a
a
W
a)
o O
_
O
_
u a) U
0
a) V o
ra
E E =
v bA
E = v
by
� Q N
�
a
U
Y a1 a!
to
n_3
E
o
v
CL
_6
E
a)
++'
.� cN
G E
aa) N
E O
v
L
TO
oa + a)
'o
Q
a)
v
U
U
=O
=
N
u
Q =
Q)
CL
a)
N O •Y
E
aJ
c m O
c a)
.S
ro a =
a ai c
c
N o
E
E
O
a)
O u Q
u
Q
o U)
'L o)
o Q>
'L
v v
o
rl vim- U
a v
(D
v
�n
Q
m
m
w
v
o:
O
tA
w
J
U
= o
ro �
>
N O
N Q
W m
v +�
t U
t6
_
L
Q
bo
_
"O
L
M 41
Q
Q
U �
N u
a) a
-C a
o u
L N
.O_ O
1�
Q:
U
a
e
0
0
.a
a
W
z
a
'a
a
e
0
a
v
s
a
e
a
o,
c
0
0
e
0
0
a,
Ez
0
N
Z
O
v° a
3 O
a
� 2
;W '
a
CO a
� o
o �n
000
O
ti
bA j
j w
w
C i
i O C
C
� c
ca
W
N Y
Y N
J � O_ E
N
O i
4- E O i
C O J
4O E _Q O
O
N r
ra •�
� O
Q U c
bA _0
C
U i N
i o E
CL
L
oc ca cc a
i
O a U C
o g `° ° o O tin o E
S
N o U o ? v o° 3> o a O 0
+, a z
fa N a > i w Q m M 0 N _ _Q UA av- -O C
Z c v v _ f6 X= O v v u t '> m
p C— i N? cLa N cc° .a U L L, U hA O N
,U 0 L "s hA '�-' h0 ° L G N Q �� a--+ bn
}, (6 .O O � i U _a O N C to N O L O -a
L _
o C N L �, L s N— O N E N a O in E 41
0 O c o' a c v a) E y" E� c v
ca E `° u c o -0 E L° v 0 — a 0 E c
0 o c-0 u +, o v v u .� c E o
+� v m o c F an c ao c c• c o o Q
a L N° v O i i- +� O cn in a >i O H 0 0 C O N
U O C > +� i O_ =� - W U N O O_ C W N [6 N L
ra O + o C > L d1
N C— C U U >, O.. >� ..Y F Y v U '6 ai O >
O O �a 7 OJ ca @ m O 4- .L C "a o c� O
+- o f - O c v 0 a +- 5 'A
'a C cCa T vai ro N C '� O 0! C C ° E O m chi) a '6 Qj > U O „> v 0' O O p ,>, ra E� a C U c
2 CL c ±
a s ra -2 a Ln U a a Z (3) tw u O L
N
U
"a O.
C O v
m
> 110
O O
0-
N O_ L
0� is 110
N Q
U v o 0
o >
3> o o a v
O L
a, o o w ° -0 •t o 'ao
±' N p I!= er., c6 a
=Q Y •� O N~ m
Cr
•N a• O L L U L O
v O O ip v � Li N N L O
Q- E L U C L U ) (6 Q_ C
w co -0 cp O L v v 0 ca 0 0
c tw v N fl" E X L 0 Q E
in C 41 "0 4J C N Q ca
0 W v W ° ° 0 o
@ m — a) 41
C 41 °' > .- o m N U 3 O
o— ++ O o 0 c C +•+ C;-- L to ra u LA N >, -s-- - .o L O
C .F, E :t — ca N tl0 7n u ca
0 w u -0 tw '0 c ra u O
cn O p a 0 0 0 '.�,
o O on C: @ C p
u O
° UU :t m m u v M N-O 0> O O
CL c E
a CU tin n M U m. -.0 N
m
V
Ln
G
O
h
c
0
`a
u
i
a
a
o,
c
o
�
cc
a
c
a
i
e
0
.o
e
a
o,
an
c
en
C
L
o
CD v
ao
p
C
O
=
C O
C
N
_
to
C
cc
(0
CL
LLJ
C W
C
I J
C
E
J
C
o.
E
U J
C a E
4-
O
a
E o
C
O
0
7
E
O
C
i O
C
C
E O i 0
>
E > o-
>
E
>
a•�
C >
E > CL
U
U O
D
U
U U
U M r) 0
v-
i O
N
pO
C
OO
C
c
E
t
1
a)
Q
tao
UO
•a)
.a+
O
u
n
bA
N
L
O coo
L
O
IO a)
i-
L
17i(
a
.....
cr- o
.
o
..............
.
a)
o a
C)
a)
.E °'
4-
U
C
+
O
O
C
C C
0
a) C
+�-+
O
'n
U Q aJ
N
C
O
Q
Ln
C Q
v=
O" aL l
Q.
vim-
C
C
C C
m
a)
N 7
L O u
p
,,-+
a!
L
Ub
71
a,
u
o
> '� C c
C
! N "O
—
p
"O
In a1
O
N
c
O
"C~,
O M p
.O a1
(y0
c hA
.0 v- LO
O o 4-
a)
N
(6 a)
— E
C
C
L
O
a-'
U
to
O
N
N vC u
N ns O p
cn C
o 0
rn
O
Q co a!
—_
U
-
O O c
O
v
U' n3
Q p
t 0) in N
L
,+,,
V
p-
in �-+
(6 y
u
/n
u
N ca
N
C
N
CO
,�
','' E
-p Q L (Li
O C
•~
U
O S
C O-
Q) ,
-O U
T
'a
•{-'
i
�, a)
U
'�
Q L
m
i-+ O mow-+ i
U
u
(SS •}r
an V1
o
a)
� u o
i
v
a
+�
v
aa) U o
.w
a `�°
a
v o D
v a
n3 0
v
3
v
c
:°,-°
E
a) o •M
a)
o L
v
L o E
o
v v
cuo :
bA
O
O
�
U
s
3-+
a
°-
N -p
U
Q. u U
n c
m M LO
E
O
N
S
u i
`n m Q.
-0
'n
L
u
n o
ao
[a
a-+
v a) a)
L
+
-O
.a) C U
O O o
Q C
E "p
O
Y O
.�
;
do Q
N
O
"-
O
O
a)
O_
o
L O
:-
++
L
-2 s
0 m ''''
c
in
E
.},
O u—
m O a1
N '+-� aJ
m i
aJ
N
.*_'
3
s=
to M
u
Q'
N
E Q
O
—_
*'' E O
u �°
O
N
s
L =+
>
o
'a,
O
+
C
c
a)
a on
C O
-p
v
m
O_ L
l6
(U
O
v
U
3 C
al — vi
ti
Q a�
C `�
a)
v o
C C
v
o
Q o
a
°
; v
+�
u o
-a !
�,
—>
v u
L
+� v
v E o_
E
C
v
-0 u
C
o" m
t
+�
s
O
`—+°
o
}
a1
o n
O
a)
U
o C o
CL
a a,
o
O S
is
'E m n3
cOV
O
u
+Z
v
O
n
N >
o
W
rLo c=o
n >�
U°
U 'bn U ro
o —
vai O
tlA '+''
vCi
i
N U
i
'^
-6
U
i-'
C O
a!
C
aJ > C) O
a
a) ;
C ,�,
>� .0 cn
to
y0
E-0 M
C
L
i (LO
a)
bA
u
b�O
U Q.
—
S
m `�
C O U
C a)
8 Oi
cO
O
N C
CL)
n3
C
Q)
U_
E
va--'i
`�
a1
L
F-
.0
bO
C
w
N -6
"O
O O O }'
O `�-
O E
Z
In
a
�'
do
o@
UO U
o
L
w?
Y_ }�
4J
o
.{.,
L L
v
U V1
v °—'
a,
v
a
O a
>
v
o p
— ro p
>
o
o c
c a
c
a c c
O
E°
c o
'L-°
c
ca
v°
-p - of a)
c
-a v
c o
>
°v
t
v
•tin
o
p
v
C E •° -a
o
•°-°
a
o
E
L E °
u p
U N
O '�"�
m
U
O E 'U
.� U
a!
O_
s cn 4'
.`-'
N "O "Q
C N
p�
X N
+_
u
L i L
C O C
O
L_
E
L
7
U a1
L J-
C (-,j
w
O aJ m
C L
Q
T O
C C S
`� M
CU M
m
m H
u w O
O_
n3
"O
co ,,-+
t6
c0
U 'O -0
W m
[o
— S C
w d in
n3
c 3
o 'n
M p
Rt
lA
l0
O
0
e
0
3
h
0
.a
v°
i
U.
c
0
Z:
o,
0
a
v
a
_
0
o,
e
0
0
c
0
C3
o,
E§
0
N
Z
0
v° o
a
0 o
l j
a
~ Z
v
W
a
a
N a3+
O V1
a
o •�
ti
Y
.L O Y
ns v E t Qj
a) C ;Z M W O W O U
fD C = t a) Cl0
E U (:U N Y u m C a)
Q L =a a)
Q) a) v O -0 �
++ Q � .N � 0
Z O V)
> E v Y
> — Y
v E a) Y u
-0 n3 'A O vi C QJ
Z N U O O --o
0 Z v o E .�
C
.m
E cuo c v° E u
E C
L C O v c O>
w °u � u Q- M Ou u O
*' N 0 C v C O_
N= O E C U a) O
C n' n E o 4 '�-, co
v v v E E rn
O > ❑ > O c E
O 'o
a)
v° v rn
-a Ou U Z Y °u on
rl
e
0
c
0
.o
U
L
v
an
=
L
b.
an
c
0
C
C
rcco
C
ra
c@@
w
o
O>
v c
O
U
E a)
U
n3
C
O E C
O
i
4
i O_
E
i
C
O
>.
E > O- •>
>_
t
+
C
U
Y
V
U Q Q Q
......_.._...
U
bA
�
a
'a
�
�
m
a)
Y
a!
N
v)
C
C
......
._......
_. _....... .._....
____.
.............
_...
_. ...........
....._.. i
_.
_..._.....
C
C
O
O
>
i
C
O
O
a)
Ln
p y—
O
y_
v
U >
u
u
v
L
>
o
Q
o
n3
Y
Q > N O a)
O
'� E
aJ
"O
>.
Q
m
a)
O "p
a) i N
•L O
Q
x
co
Cl) 0
s C
C
v(
(3)
C
Y Q ° Q.
N
do `�— N
"6
-O
—
t0
°) a
a o
v
4
v_
a
O +L- v
•C
n3
o
c
° cLa -0 m a
a
°
v v Y
E
m
a '`E
0
-o
O
a) iiA VI O
a)
N N-
,1--i
Qj
U
V f
-o C
E
_� a
E
u>
r- O
v
Q)
~
O
m Q) j
n3
>
O
o L°
O
L
fS3 V1 �"' > a)
0 v E C
E
o
.�
v
u (� Y
v E-0
Y
0
�%- Q
L o
m
O
a)
L
o
x
ti4
v—
_�
L L N
oU
rn-0
o
v ao :
•L
a)
U o>>
E
C
N
3
O
iY
Y -
N
C
v
E-
a) Q) -o ao ,Y
O
M v
m
un =—
v � ao Y
L
a
c v
E
O
E w
Q
o
a)
ao
= E
c0
a) O .E 4.a
In
Y
a) .Y Y
Ln
cn >
L
E
O
fl- °
u°
° o
E
°°
a
Y a) ;;
Z5
m
CL
ON
a) Y 3 00
0
>
_�
p
v
o
> 's's
)
a)
C
E m O Y cn a)
u
},
u
'6 O
L
Y
m O
a
aA
_u
>,
Y
O
o
v�
o
N o
n o v
a
x
fi u
C
v
E
u
3""
•Y
O
co +' C E },
C
v
N
Qj
`n 10
i
.E
0 x l.tl
0
i
a) CL
c
Y
axi
LL m
O
Q N
O 4 'O
O
O
_O
L
�
O_
u m
E Q_0
m
Q
�O
�O
0
0
C7
!
C7
ui
C7
rl
e
0
c
0
.o
U
a
'a
a,
_
0
v
a
c
0
_ .... .......
C
L
�
E
E
i
O
rz
o
c
o
N
d
G
N
d
N
Uwj
+•
O
W
W
? a) A
N
C
O
a)
a) C
7 E
O
i 0
L
O E
O p
O
c
> E
>
a
C
>, E
> a .N
€
>,
an
U U
�.. ..
in
_._....
__
_.
U
___.
U U
....._
M 0
__... ...._..
i
U
...........
W
____. ._......
N
D >
4= a)
-.
a1 O
E
N
C
a1
v— Q.
0a
'
O
v u
u
tx)
C
(O
ca
LL m
7
Q
L
p
L
u (3)
N U Q
I
ss
0 N
O
CL
O O
C
o
N
lC: Y
v a
a
_
CL J a
> C
N 0
0
4--
O
p
E *' W
j a) U 41
v-
U
p p t
>
>
C
Q Q +
CL
O
cr
m -0 W
m
N
bA
E N
o
>>
N
ii
o
C
o
O O
-� �'
'}'
p
t >, n5 •C
C
E
W
:t
O
>
M Cl
O
O
�_
Q
j@
Q) 3
C
N
C:
O
O
O
'6 �O
m
u F— O
..Q
�—
a)
a) �a
L bA
C
I u
Q a) C J
v
a uj
a)
E �-
O
(6
Q) O°
Q
"p
a)
> N
ca
M
C N
N
~
Q=
Q L O
O
,1N-
u1 Q O
,�
E
O
y
O
@
y O
N
-0
"— O a1
N
a) �-+
C_
co
-O -p
Ol
Q
p
C v— O
O
Z
C C
C
v
O
—
N
C
-p L
C a)
O
—
\ Q)
O
N
h0
O
11q
O
Z
C
•y 7 C
'o
C
E m c
O
N
m'
O
—
u
E -a
O
"-
Q ro
v a
E
E v=
o
L
+°
>
-o
E
Q
O
n3 >
a
p N
Q
u v°-
E
v
�% °
v
'C n
J
o
Q t
3
i O
C
C m
C Q)
C
C 7
N N
C Q
E >
C
a) a) +
D
E
C
U
CC)
O -O O
N
'Z
c
-O
ate--+ tO
f0
U
'^
Q O
U
u a
Q-
-�
o
v-
o
,�
c
Q)
v N°
O
•�
E d
C
cll) a
v
v
N N
c
v
Z
O N
O Ci
C O
Q 7
.0
v E
U
o
`O
.0
U 7
Z
p
aN+ C m
a
v
E .E in
>
u
C
N
N>
—
C .E n
x
i
L
E i n E
o
u
o x i n
`°
M
m N
-p
L
a) a)
v
m
°o
E 6 Ln
o
v
o@
E o
x
E
c
o
v
H
x
a)
o �n
u
Q
o o
U N N
—
a)
0
w
L
a
0
00
m
Z
a
m:
o
a
co
0
0
•a
v°
U.