The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC Reso No 2016-140 Surface Mining Permit 2015-01 Nichols Road Final EIRRESOLUTION NO. 2016 -140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORINA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (SCH 2006051034) FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT 2015 -01 AND RECLAMATION PLAN 2006 -01 AMENDMENT NO. 2 Whereas, Eric Werner of Nichols Road Partners, LLC has requested approval of Surface Mining Permit 2015 -01 and Reclamation Plan 2006 -01 Amendment No. 2: A request by Nichols Road Partners for an expansion of the mining area within the existing 199 Nichols Road Mine, which are collectively referred to herein as the Project; and, Whereas, the Project consists of the Authority to conduct mining operations in the 24 —acre Expanded Disturbance Area (EDA) of the 199 acre existing mine. An increase in mining equipment operational hours from between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Holidays) and between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (Saturdays only) to between 4:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (Monday through Saturday, excluding Federal Holidays) for mining equipment and asphalt batch plant operation and 24 hours per day (Monday through Saturdays, excluding Federal Holidays) for aggregate and asphalt batch plant export activities A reduction of the Mine's annual permitted tonnage from 4,000,000 (tpy) to 856,560 tpy; and, Whereas, the City of Lake Elsinore (City) has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2006051034: the (EIR) on the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.: "CEQA "), the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.: the "State CEQA Guidelines "), and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines and its other procedures relating to environmental evaluation of public and private projects; and, Whereas, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR (DEIR) on or about June 25, 2015, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, Whereas, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Availability /Notice of Completion of a DEIR and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the DEIR to the State Clearinghouse, for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, Whereas, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the DEIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and the LEMC and posted at the Office of the County Clerk of Riverside County on January 8, 2016; and, Whereas, the State Clearinghouse posted the DEIR for a 45 -day public comment period which ran from January 8, 2016, to February 22, 2016; and, Whereas, based on comments received in response to the DEIR, the City prepared a Recirculated DEIR ( RDEIR) to inform the public of changes to the document since the DEIR was initially distributed for public review and to provide the public with the opportunity to provide additional comments on the Project's potential environmental effects; and, Whereas, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the RDEIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and the LEMC and posted at the Office of the County Clerk of Riverside County on August 23, 2016; and, CC Reso. No. 2016 -140 Page 2 of 3 Whereas, the State Clearinghouse posted the RDEIR for a 45 -day public comment period which ran from August 23, 2016, to October 7, 2016; and, Whereas, all actions required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation, circulation, and review of the DEIR and RDEIR have been taken; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) for certifying EIR Reports; and, Whereas, the City has prepared a Final EIR (FEIR) that contains responses to the comments that were received regarding the DEIR and RDEIR; and, Whereas, the DEIR was sent to the Commission Members on January 8, 2016, and the RDEIR was sent to the Commission Members on August 23, 2016. The DEIR, RDEIR and the FEIR (collectively referred to hereinafter in the singular as, "EIR ") were considered by the Commission on November 3, 2015, at a duly noticed Public Hearing where the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties on the adequacy of the EIR. The Commission adopted Commission Resolution No. 2015 -72 recommending that the Council certify the EIR for the Project; and, Whereas, on December 13, 2016, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2. The Council has considered and evaluated all written and oral staff reports and comments received from persons who have reviewed the EIR, the comments submitted on the EIR; the responses to those comments, the public testimony and such other matters as are reflected in the record of the public hearing on the Project and the EIR. Section 3. The Council finds that the EIR for the Project is adequate and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto. The Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and finds that the EIR represents the independent judgment of the City. Section 4. The Council hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates herein as its "findings of fact' regarding the potential environmental impacts of the Project, the analysis and conclusions set forth in the EIR (including, without limitation, the mitigation measures therein set forth) and in the Environmental Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the City Warner Mine Expansion Project (SCH #2014051093), attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Section 5. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA, and the Council hereby adopts the MMRP, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." Section 6. The Council finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under CEQA Section 21081(a)(3), that each of the social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant CC Reso. No. 2016 -140 Page 3 of 3 unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is attached hereto as Exhibit `A" (Findings of Fact) and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 7. Based upon all of the evidence presented and the above findings, the Council of the City certifies the EIR for the Project with Errata and Responses to Comments, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Section 8. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. Passed and Adopted this 13th day of December, 20 Brian is e, ayor Attest: Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2016 -140 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at a Regular meeting held of December 13, 2016, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hickman, Johnson, Manos; Mayor Pro Tern Magee and Mayor Tisdale NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None - Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk "Exhibit A" Environmental Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the Surface Mining Permit No. 2015 -01 and Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2006 -07 Project City of Lake Elsinore, California Surface Mining Permit No. 2015- 01(SMP 2015 -01) Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2006 -01 Al (RP 2006 -01 A2) SCH #2006051034 Lead Agency City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 CEQA Consultant T &B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Pro`ect Applican Nichols Road Partners, LLC 25555 Maitri Road Corona, CA 92883 October 28, 2016 ■ ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Pacie 1.0 Background and Introduction .............................................................................. ..............................1 1.1 Project Overview ........................................................................................ ............................... 1 1.2 Public Involvement and EIR Sc6ping ........................................................ ............................... 1 1.3 Final EIR Certification and Project Approval Process ............................... ............................... 2 1.3.1 Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures ................................. ............................... 2 1. 3.2 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program .......................... ............................... 3 1.3.3 Certification of the Final EIR and Adoption of Findings .............. ............................... 3 1.3.4 No Recirculation Required ............................................................ ............................... 3 2.0 Project Description ............................................................................................... ............................... 3 2.1 Project Location... ............................. ____ ............................................................................. 3 2.2 Project Description .................................................................................... ............................... 4 2.2.1 Scope of Physical Disturbance ...................................................... ............................... S 2.2.2 Scope of Operational Characteristics ........................................... ............................... 5 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .......................................................................... ............................... 7 3.0 General Findings on Mitigation Measures .......................................................... ..............................7 3.1 Finding ................................... .................... ..........8 4.0 Environmental Findings ........................................................................................ ..............................8 4.1 Areas Determined to Have No Significant Impact ..................................... ............................... 8 4.1.1 Agricultural Resources .................................................................. ............................... 9 4.1.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................ ............................... 9 4.1.3 Geology and Soils .......................................................................... ............................... 9 4.1.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................. ............................... 10 4.1.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................... ............................... 10 4.1.6 Land Use and Planning ............................................................... ............................... 11 4.1.7 Mineral Resources ...................................................... ....................... : ....................... . 12 4.1.8 Population and Housing .............................................................. ............................... 12 4.1.9 Public Services ............................................................................. ............................... 13 4. L I0 Recreation .......................................................................... ............................... . ......... 13 4.1.11 Transportation and Circulation ................................................... ............................... 14 4.1.12 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................... ............................... 14 4.2 Findings Regarding Less - than - Significant Impacts Identified in the EIR .............................. 14 Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Pagel No S8AP2015'01/RP2006'01A2 ��r-� HmALGmv|aOmxxemnxLIMPACT REPORT ��E��P|moumGS of FACT �� TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Pao Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page fl 4.2.} Aesthetics ............................................. ................................ ............... .. ................... J4 4.2.2 Air Quality ---.....—........—.—.—...—.-------..~~....'..—.....—J7 4.13 Cultural Resources ............................................... ............ .............. .......................... Jy 4(2.4 Geology and Soils .......................................... ..... . ..... — ........................... ................ J0 4(2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 29 4(2.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................ .................................................... 24 4.2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................. ~............................. 20 4(28 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 3J 4.2.9 Public Services .-----------------------------------..I9 4.2. 10 Transportation and Circulation .................................................................................. 34 4.l1JUtilities and Service Systems ----------------------------'J6 4.3 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Which Can Bn Mitigated to Level nfLess- than-Significant —.....----------.....~^-^~~-..^^..~..----------. 37 4.I1 Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 37 4.3.2 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 44 4.4 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated tnu Level nfLess- than- Si ................................ ..... — .... .... ......... ................... .................................... 46 4.4.1 .4/r Quality --------------------------------------4V 4.4.2 Biological Resources ................................................................................ ................. 4V 4.4.3 2Vuisc ........................................................................................................................... J] 4.4(4 Transportation and Circulation ................................................................... .. ......... j4 4.5 Findings Regarding Alternatives tn the Project ...................................................................... 59 4.5.1 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated .................................................................... 5V 4.5.2 Alternatives Selected For Analysis -------------------.------00 4.5.3 No Project Alternative ................................................................................................ 0/ 4.5.4 Reduced Expanded Disturbance Area Alternative ....................................... 62 4.5.5 Reduced ?rofficAlternative (R7A) ............................................................................. /U 4.I6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................................ 70 5,0 Statement of Overriding Considerations --'^^^.....~.^.--^........-_.^^......,--.....,....-......................79 5.1 Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects ..................... ................................................ 79 5.2 Overriding Considerations ...................................................................................................... Q3 Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page fl ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 N7 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Pa e 6.1 Findings ...................................................................................................... .............................86 6.2 Conclusions .............................................................................................. ............................... 87 7.0 Adoption of Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ...................... ............................... 87 8.0 Approval of the Project ...................................................................................... ............................... 88 9.0 Location and Custodian of Record ................................................................... ............................... 88 LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Definition AB Assembly Bill ADT Average Daily Trips AQMP Air Quality Management Plan APN Assessor's Parcel Number BACT Best Available Control Technologies BO Biological Opinion Cal -IPC California Invasive Plant Council CARB California Air Resources Board CDC California Department of Conservation CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CMP Congestion Management Program Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers C -SP Commercial- Specific Plan (land use designation) CUP Conditional Use Permit CWA Clean Water Act DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report EAPC Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (study scenario) EDA Expanded Disturbance Area EIR Environmental Impact Report ft feet or foot GHG Greenhouse Gas GPU General Plan Update Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page H M ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Page HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HRA Health Risk Assessment Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page ii ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 NOFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Definition I -15 Interstate 15 IS Initial Study IS/NOP Initial Study/Notice of Preparation ITP Incidental Take Permit LOS Level of Service MM Mitigation Measure MMP Mitigation Monitoring Program MRZ Mineral Resources Zone MSHCP (Western Riverside County) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MTCO2e Metric Tonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NOP Notice of Preparation NPA No Project Alternative (Project Alternative) NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OS Open Space /Manufactured Slopes (land use designation) OMP. Office of Mine Reclamation OPR Office of Planning and Research PCE Passenger Car Equivalent PTO Permit to Operate RCALUC Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission RCIP Riverside County Integrated Project RDEIR Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report REDA Reduced Expanded Disturbance Area (Project Alternative) RTA Reduced Traffic Alternative (Project Alternative) RTP /SCS Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SA /MOU Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCH State Clearinghouse SKR Stephens' Kangaroo Rat SMARA Surface Mining and Recovery Act of 1975 (Public Resources Code, §§ 2710 -2796) SNIP Surface Mining Permit SR State Route Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 1 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 EF-1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS of FACT - LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Definition SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan tpd tons per day tpy tons per year TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VMTs Vehicle Miles Travelled WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments WUS Waters of the United States Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page ii ■o SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 OF] FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 1.0 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Lake Elsinore (City) has completed an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2006051034) for the proposed Surface Mining Permit No. 2015 -01 and Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2006 -01 for the Nichols Canyon Mine (hereafter, the "Project" or "proposed Project "). The City is the Lead Agency for the purposes of preparing and certifying this EIR pursuant to §§ 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The purpose of this EIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Surface Mining Permit No. 2015 -01 and Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2006 -01 Project. In compliance with Section 21002.1 of the CEQA statute and Section 15002 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as Lead Agency, has prepared this EIR in order to (1) information the general public, the local community, responsible and interested public agencies and the City's decision - making bodies and other organizations, entities, and interested persons of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project, feasible measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and alternatives that could reduce or avoid the significant effects of the proposed project, (2) enable the City to consider environmental consequences when deciding whether to approve the proposed project, and (3) to satisfy the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA. 1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EIR $COPING This document complies with the provisions of CEQA - (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.) and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines. In compliance with CEQA the City h.as solicited and considered comments from Responsible and Trustee Agencies, members of the public, and other interested parties during the proposed project's various environmental review processes: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15082, the City prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR. The NOP was distributed on June 25, 2015. • Comments received from the public and agencies during the public review period for the NOP were considered in the preparation of the EIR prepared for the proposed Project. In January 2016, a DEIR was prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA regulations and guidelines. The DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review period on January 8, 2016. Notification was provided to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), Responsible and Trustee agencies, and all interested parties and jurisdictions pursuant to the requirements of Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Ten (10) comments were received by the City during this original 45 -day review period. These comments were evaluated and responded to in accordance with § 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines as part of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report ( RDEIR). In August of 2016, an RDEIR was prepared and recirculated for the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA regulations and guidelines. The RDEIR was circulated for an additional 45 -day public review period on August 23, 2016. Notification was provided to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), responsible and trustee agencies, and all interested parties and jurisdictions pursuant to the requirements of § 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Three (3) comment letters were received by the City during this second 45 -day review period, Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page ■ ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT including the standard letter received from the State Clearinghouse acknowledging that the Project has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents. Comments raised in these letters were evaluated and responded to in accordance with § 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, as part of the RDEIR public review process the City, as the Lead Agency, provided notice to every agency, person, or organization that commented on the original DEIR, and re- noticed all surrounding property owners and Responsible and Trustee Agencies who were notified during the initial public review period for the DEIR. 1.3 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS 1.3.1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA The City Planning Commission (the decision - making body) of the City (CEQA Lead Agency) certifies the Final EIR. The Final EIR, as required by State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15089 and 15132, consists of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "RDEIR ") (SCH No. 2006051034); the Draft EIR ( "DEIR "); comments and recommendations received on the DEIR and /or RDEIR; the responses of the City as "Lead Agency" to significant environmental points raised in the review, comments and recommendations received on the subsequent RDEIR; consultation process; and any other information added by the City. Since the RDEIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts, the City Planning Commission must also prepare "findings" as part of its action to certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and to approve the proposed Project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified, which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility andjurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by other such agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. 1.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The RDEIR identified several significant environmental effects (or "impacts ") resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided /mitigated through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. For those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the City Planning Commission is required to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the proposed Project. The State CEQA Guidelines at § 15093(a) provide that if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 2 ■® SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 N❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT As indicated in RDEIR Subsection 5.1, Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented, certain environmental effects of the proposed Project cannot be reduced to less than significant levels by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. Project -level and cumulative Air Quality, Project -level Biological Resources, Project -level and cumulative Noise, and Project -level and cumulative Transportation and Circulation impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable and require the preparation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 5.0, below, describes those effects and outlines the City's findings with respect to the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the proposed Project. 1.3.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared to monitor and report the implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the proposed Project. The MMP will be adopted by the City Planning Commission concurrently with these findings, and will be implemented by the City during the proposed Project's implementation phase. To the extent that these findings conclude that all mitigation measures outlined in the RDEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect if the City Planning Commission formally approves the proposed Project. 1.3.3 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS The City Planning Commission will review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR, as well as submissions from public officials, public agencies, and the general public. Prior to considering Project approval, the City Plannipg Cor ;mdssion shall certify that the Final EIR reflects the City's indr,)endent judgment and analysis. Having considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all other information in the record, the City Planning Commission shall make findings pursuant to CEQA § 21081. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Planning Commission shall adopt the Findings as part of its certification of the Final EIR for the proposed Project. 1.3.4 NO RECIRCULATION REQUIRED The City Planning Commission finds that none of the circumstances that trigger the requirement for recirculation of the EIR under CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 have occurred. Specifically, there was no significant new information (as defined in CEQA Guideline § 15088.5(a)) added to the EIR after the public review period. In fact, revisions to the RDEIR were not necessary as a result of public comments received by the City during the RDEIR's 45 -day public review period. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Lake Elsinore is located in the southwestern potion of Riverside County, and the proposed Project is located in the northeastern portion of the City of Lake Elsinore. Specifically, the Nichols Canyon Mine is located east of Interstate 15 (1 -15) and north and south of Nichols Road. I -15 abuts the Mine's western boundary. The property is divided into two segments by Nichols Road with approximately 156 acres located north of Nichols Road and approximately 43 acres located south of Nichols Road. Located to the north of the Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 3 ® SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Mine are undeveloped lands. To the west is the I -15 freeway, beyond which are open space and existing commercial development. To the south is open space and Temescal Canyon High School, and to the east is open space beyond which are single - family homes. The nearest residential home to the Mine's proposed mining and disturbance limits occurs approximately 386 feet to the southeast and the nearest building at the Temescal Canyon High School is located approximately 586 feet south of the Mine's existing and proposed mining and disturbance limits. The Nichols Canyon Mine comprises approximately 199 acres (Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN Nos) 389 - 200 -35, 389 - 200 -036, and 389 - 200 -38). 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project consists of. (l) approval of a surface mining permit (SMP No. 2015 -01); and (2) the second amendment to an existing approved Reclamation Plan 2006 -01AI (Reclamation Plan No. 2006 -01A2 [RP 2006- O1A2]) for an existing aggregate mining site known as the Nichols Canyon Mine (CA Mine ID # 91 -33- 0098). The Nichols Canyon Mine is a vested mining operation, as the City has previously confirmed. The City requested and the Project Applicant agreed to apply for a surface mining permit notwithstanding the Mine's vested status in order to more clearly define and condition the activities proposed as part of the Project. In agreeing to apply for a surface mining permit, the Project Applicant expressly did not waive and reserves all vested mining rights at the Mine to the fullest extent under the law. The proposed SMP No. 2015 -01 and RP 2006-01A2 are amendments to valid, existing entitlements allowing for operations at an existing vested mining operation. The proposed approval of SMP No. 2015 -01 and RP 2006 -01A2 includes: 1) authority to conduct mining operations in the 24 -acre Expanded Disturbance Area (EDA); 2) an increase in mining equipment operational hours from between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Holidays) and between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (Saturdays only) to between 4:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (Monday through Saturday, excluding Federal Holidays) for mining equipment and asphalt batch plant operation and 24 hours per day (Monday through Saturdays, excluding Federal Holidays) for aggregate and asphalt batch plant export activities; and 3) reduction of the Mine's annual permitted tonnage from 4,000,000 tons per year (tpy) to 856,560 tpy. The proposed revisions to the approved RP 2006 -OIAI describe reclamation requirements applicable to the EDA, in compliance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Public Resources Code, § 2710 et seq.) ( "SMARA ") and the City's certified surface mining ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.04, Surface Mining and Reclamation) (Lake Elsinore, 1999). The proposed Project also refers to the changes that would result from approval of the proposed Project, such as increased traffic and additional employees, pursuant to CEQA's requirements for evaluating revisions to on -going permits. Figure 3 -3, Reclamation Plan No. 2006 -01A2- Interim Mining Conditions, in the RDEIR depicts the interim mining conditions associated with proposed RP 2006 -01A2. Figure 3 -4, Reclamation Plan No. 2006 -01A2- Reclamation Conditions, in the RDEIR, depicts the reclamation conditions associated with proposed RP 2006 -01A2. The Project -would not affect the existing vested mining areas for the Nichols Canyon Mine, which encompasses the entire 199 -acre site. The proposed change to the Mine's operating hours also would apply to the previously- approved asphalt batch plant on -site. Thus, the batch plant has already been approved by the City along with an environmental clearance that was not challenged by any third party. During the public comment period on the DEIR, several third parties incorrectly asserted that the DEIR failed to adequately analyze the proposed Project's impacts. Several of these commentators also incorrectly claimed that the DEIR needed to re- analyze and include the batch plant's impacts as part of this RDEIR. While the City disagrees with these claims because the batch plant has already been approved, in an effort to provide a conservative analysis of Project impacts (as opposed to underestimating Project impacts), and to remove this issue from Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 4 ME SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 011 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT being a point of contention, this RDEIR analyzed 100% of the batch plant's impacts in all relevant and identified Appendix G CEQA topics. Under the existing approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 -07 (CUP 2014 -07), operation of the asphalt batch plant may occur between the hours of 7:00am to 12:00am Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 7:00am through 7:00pm on Saturday, with no operation of the asphalt batch plant allowed on Sundays or legal holidays. Under the proposed Project, asphalt batch plant operations would be allowed to occur during the same hours of mining activities (i.e., between 4:00 am and 12:00 am [Monday through Saturday, excluding Federal Holidays]). All other components of mining and processing activities at the Mine site would be identical to what was permitted pursuant to the Mine's existing entitlements. With approval of the proposed Project, the total aggregate reserves that would be available at the Nichols Canyon Mine would increase from approximately 6,078,121 tons within the areas that are currently entitled as part of Reclamation Plan No. 2006 -01AI, to approximately 15,033,034 tons (representing an increase of 8,154,913 tons). Please refer to Subsection 3.3.2.K in the RDEIR for information regarding the remaining aggregate reserves on the Project site. The Mine is subject to the SCAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO Permit No. AN 5604010). The PTO imposes standard conditions of approval on activities at the Mine, and prohibits on -site equipment from processing more than 149,970 tons of material per month (or an average of approximately 5,554 to 6,249 tons per working day, depending on the number of working days per month). The PTO is on a monthly basis, and there are no restrictions on the amount of processing that occurs on a daily basis, as long as the processing does not exceed 149,970 tons per month. ( SCAQMD, n.d.) 2.2.1 SCOPE OF PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE As indicated in RDEIR Subsection 3.3.2, physical disturbance at the Mine site will continue to occur within areas that have in the past and /or are currently subject to mining activities, and the Project proposes an expansion of mining areas on the Nichols North site to encompass an additional approximately 24 acres. Areas subject to new disturbance as part of the Project would occur along the eastern and northern limits of the existing approved mining limits for the Nichols Canyon Mine. Mining activities would occur on the sides of hillsides and not in an open pit, which ultimately would achieve the final grades of the proposed Reclamation Plan RP 2006 -01A2. The Project would not affect the existing vested mining areas for the Nichols Canyon Mine, which would continue to encompass the entire 199 -acre Nichols Canyon Mine site (refer to RDEIR Subsection 2.6.1, Land Use, for a discussion of vested rights). The physical limits of new disturbance attributable to Project- related mining activities would be limited to the proposed 24 -acre expansion area. RDEIR Figure 3 -5, Existing and Proposed Limits of Physical Disturbance, depicts the existing limits of disturbance and the proposed limits of disturbance associated with the proposed Project. The difference between the existing and proposed limits of physical disturbance is approximately 24 acres. 2.2.2 SCOPE OF OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS A. Proiect- Related Annual Tannage Estimates Although the proposed Project would reduce the permitted annual tonnage of exported materials from 4,000,000 tpy to 856,560 tpy, historical data recorded by the Mine operator and provided to the Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) indicates that the Mine produced an average of approximately 556,348 tpy between 2007 and 2014. As more fully described in RDEIR Subsection 2. 1, and in consideration of CEQA requirements for proposed projects that seek to modify existing on -going permits, the difference between the proposed permitted quantities must be compared to the historical baseline average. The Project proposes a total annual production Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 5 ME SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■u -„ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT limit of 856,560 tpy, inclusive of operation associated with the previously - entitled asphalt batch plant. Because the historical baseline average for the Nichols Canyon Mine is 556,348 tpy (see Table 2 -1 of the RDEIR), the annual production amount attributable to the Project would be 300,212 tpy (856,560 -tpy — 556,348 tpy = 300,212 tpy). Although the Mine has not produced at the proposed production limit of 856,560 tpy in recent years, for purposes of providing a complete, conservative analysis, the RDEIR assumed that the Mine would produce at that level under the proposed Project. Additionally, and for purposes of analysis throughout the RDEIR, it was assumed that the asphalt batch plant would produce up to 330,000 tpy of asphalt material. If the same assumptions are applied to the asphalt batch plant as is applied above to overall annual mining production amounts, then the Project evaluated in the RDEIR would be responsible for approximately 115,665 tpy of asphalt material (35.05% of 330,000 tpy = 115,665 tpy). However, in an effort to provide a highly conservative analysis of Project impacts, the analysis throughout the RDEIR assumed that the Project would result in the processing of approximately 330,000 tpy of asphalt material. B. Project- Related Daily Tonnage Estimates As more thoroughly discussed in the RDEIR, based on the physical and operational characteristics of the Nichols Canyon Mine, and based on data reported to OMR for the year 2015, the Mine operator estimates that a maximum total of 5,000 tons of material per day (inclusive of both aggregate mining and asphalt material) represents a reasonable high -end estimate of the amount of material that could be processed on the site. Although it is possible that individual days may exceed 5,000 tpd, historical data reported to OMR demonstrate that the Mine only exceeded 5,000 tpd on three days during 2015, and the average amount of materials processed comprised 1,441 tpd. Thus, based on physical and operation characteristics of the Nichols Canyon Mine, a maximum total of 5,000 tpd represents a reasonable high -end estimate of the amount of material that would be processed on the site. Increased tonnage attributable to the proposed Project (300,212 tpy) would comprise approxima +Ply 35.05% of the total 856,560 tpy that would be permitted under the proposed Project (as described in Subsection 2.2.2.A, Project- Related Annual Tonnage Estimates, above). For purposes of analysis it is estimated that the Project would account for up to 35.05% of the total 856,560 tpd that would be permitted under the proposed Project. This would result in (.3505 x 856,560= 1,752 tpd) 1,752 tons per day (tpd) of aggregate and asphalt material processing. For the asphalt batch plant, the analysis in this EIR accounts for 100% of the potential environmental effects that could result from asphalt batch plant operations. Specifically, for purposes of evaluating air quality and greenhouse gas impacts for the proposed Project, the analysis assumes that asphalt batch plant daily production would comprise approximately 2,000 tpd, or approximately 40% of the 5,000 tpd assumed as the reasonable high -end estimate for daily aggregate mining activities. Although the Project evaluated herein technically would be responsible for only 35.05% of the asphalt batch plant production, or approximately 701 tpd, the analysis throughout the RDEIR nonetheless assumes that the Project would produce 2,000 tpd of aggregate materials. This is a highly conservative estimate, as the Project evaluated herein only would be responsible for up to 1,752 tpd of aggregate mining, as described in further detail in Subsection 2.2.2.A, above. C. Operational Hours Under existing conditions, mining, processing, and export activities on -site are limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Holidays) and between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (Saturdays only). Under the proposed Project, the time limits for both mining and asphalt batch plant operation would be extended to between 4:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (Monday through Saturday, excluding Federal Holidays) for mining equipment and asphalt batch plant operation and 24 hours per day (Monday through Saturdays, excluding Federal Holidays) for aggregate and asphalt batch plant export activities. It should be Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 6 M■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 f „ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT noted that export activities associated with the asphalt batch plant were previously permitted by CUP 2014 -07 to occur 24 hours per day. 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES CEQA Guidelines § 15124 requires an EIR to include a statement of objectives sought by the proposed Project. The objectives assist in developing the range of proposed project alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. The Project's fundamental purpose is to increase the availability of high - quality aggregate resources within the local area in order to help meet the regional demand for aggregate material. The objectives of the proposed Project include the following: (1) expand current mining operations by 24 acres; (2) accept a reduction in the Mine's permitted annual production level from 4,000,000 tons per year (tpy) to 856,560 tpy (inclusive of aggregate materials); and (3) lengthen the hours of operation for mining, processing, and export activities from between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Holidays) and between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (Saturdays only) to between4:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (Monday through Saturday, excluding Federal Holidays) for mining equipment and asphalt batch plant operation and 24 hours per day (Monday through Saturdays, excluding Federal Holidays) for aggregate and asphalt batch plant export activities. The following is a list of specific objectives that the proposed Project is intended to achieve. A. To increase the availability of high - quality aggregate reserves within the local area in order to help meet the regional demand for aggregate material, to make the best use of the Mine's aggregate resources, and by revising approved Reclamation Plan 2006 -OIAI to accommodate an expansion to the approved limits of aggregate mining activities. B. To facilitate more efficient export processing of aggregate materials from the Mine site by extending the permitted operational hours for mining activities on -site. C. To better reflect actual mining capacity for the Mine site by reducing the annual tonnage allowed to be mined and exported from the Nichols Canyon Mine site. D. To reclaim the 199 -acre Mine site to a usable condition by revising Reclamation Plan 2006 -OIAI to identify ultimate site elevations in conformance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 ( SMARA) and the regulations and requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore. E. To minimize environmental impacts associated with mining and reclamation activities at the Nichols Canyon Mine site in conformance with the requirements of SMARA and the City of Lake Elsinore. F. To establish updated standards for operational mining activities at the Nichols Canyon Mine site in a manner that complies with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and requirements. G. To maximize the use of aggregate ,reserves and create the most usable space from the Mine's disturbance by designing slopes that accomplish this objective. 3.0 GENERAL FINDINGS ON MITIGATION MEASURES In preparing the Conditions of Approval for this Project, City staff incorporated the mitigation measures recommended in the RDEIR as applicable to the Project. In the event that the Conditions of Approval do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, in each such instance, the adopted Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 7 ■E SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Conditions of Approval are intended to be identical or substantially similar to the recommended mitigation measures. Any minor revisions are to improve clarity or to better define the intended purpose of the mitigation and are not designed to substantively alter the purpose of such mitigation. 3.1 FINDING Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, it is the City's intent to adopt all mitigation measures recommended by the RDEIR which are applicable to the Project. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the RDEIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the RDEIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS This Subsection discloses the Project's potential impacts to the environment. Subsection 4.1 summarizes those issues that were identified either by the Project's Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) to result in no impacts to the environment. Subsection 4.2 summarizes those issue areas that were determined to be less than significant as part of the RDEIR. Subsection 4.3 identifies those impacts which were determined by the RDEIR to ,be potentially significant, but for which mitigation measures have been identified and imposed on the proposed Project to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Subsection 4.4 summarizes those issue areas for which impacts -+ ddermiitied to be potentially significant, but for which no mitigation n,c-asures are available to fully reduce the Project's impacts to less- than - significant levels, thereby requiring adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the City Planning Commission. Where the discussion below cites a reference source, please refer to Subsection 7.0 of the RDEIR, which identifies the reference materials and where the reference materials may be available for public review, if not available at the City of Lake Elsinore. 4.1 AREAS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The City, through the Initial Study (IS) process, determined the proposed Project has the potential to cause or result in significant environmental impacts, and warranted further analysis, public review, and disclosure through the preparation of an EIR. The IS and associated EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP), dated June 25, 2015, were forwarded to the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), State Clearinghouse (SCH), and circulated for public review and comment. The State Clearinghouse established the public comment period for the IS/NOP as June 25, 2015 through July 27, 2015. The IS/NOP concluded that no impacts would occur under the issue areas of Agricultural Resources, Hazards /Hazardous Materials, Land Use /Planning, Mineral Resources, Population /Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. The Project's RDEIR also incorporated analyses of certain issue areas that were identified as potentially significant in the IS/NOP, but which were determined to result in no impacts as part of the analysis contained in the RDEIR. The following discussion summarizes the environmental impacts that were determined in the IS/NOP, RDEIR, and public review processes to pose no potentially significant impacts. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 8 n■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 NoFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.1.1 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The Nichols North site, including the Project's expanded disturbance area (EDA), is identified by the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as "Grazing Land" and "Farmland of Local Importance," while the Nichols South site is designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" and "Urban and Built -Up Land." There are no portions of the-Mine or its immediate surroundings that are classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to directly or indirectly convert Farmland to non - agricultural use, and no impact would occur. (CDC, 2012a) The Mine and surrounding areas are not subject to Williamson Act contracts. The Mine and surrounding areas are zoned for residential, public institutional, commercial, and open space land uses. There are no lands subject to Williamson Act contracts or that are zoned for agricultural use within the Project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed Project has not potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with an existing Williamson Act contract. (CDC, 2012b) The Project site does not contain forest land, and no forest land is located adjacent to or within the vicinity of the Project site. Furthermore, no portion of the proposed Project site or surrounding area is zoned for forest' land or timberland. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land or a non - forest use. (Lake Elsinore, 2011a, Figure 2.1A) Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Project would result in no impacts to Agricultural Resources, and this issue area was scoped out of the RDEIR accordingly as part of the IS/NOP process. 4.1.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES One previously recorded historic site, RIV -8116, was present within the Project site and it has since been relocated by BNSF. Surface artifacts were observed and collected during the relocation of RIV -8116. Additionally, because Site RIV -8116 does not contain any subsurface cultural deposits and lacks any further research potential, the site was evaluated as not unique and not significant under CEQA criteria. Thus, and as concluded in the RDEIR, the Project would have no impacts to historical resources. The Project's NOP was distributed for public review on June 25, 2015. Accordingly, the Project is not subject to the provisions of AB 52. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard. Moreover, consistent with the public participation prerogatives of CEQA, during the public comment period on the revised and recirculated DEIR, the City did provide written notification to several tribes of the City's willingness to consult and meet with them should they so desire, notwithstanding the inapplicability of AB 52. Thus, and as concluded by the RDEIR, no impact would occur with respect to AB 52 compliance. 4.1.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS According to the California Geological Survey, portions of the City of Lake Elsinore are affected by the Elsinore Fault Earthquake Fault Zone (CDC, 1980). This zone is mapped from the northern boundary of the City and continues south of the City boundary (Lake Elsinore, 2011b p. 3.11 -13). However, the- Nichols Canyon Mine is not located within this or any other known fault zone. The RDEIR concluded that because there are no faults located on the Mine, there is no potential that the proposed Project could expose people or structures to adverse effects related to ground rupture. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 9 ■ ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT The Project would not install septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, the RDEIR concluded that no impact would occur associated with soil compatibility for wastewater disposal systems. 4.1.4 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Significant Hazards to the Environment from Contaminated Sites The City's General Plan Update (GPU)-EIR Figure 3.10 -1, Hazardous Materials Site & SARI Line, indicates that there may be a hazardous materials site located south of Nichols Road. However, no hazardous materials sites are located on the Nichols Canyon Mine site, including within the proposed EDA. In addition, the Mine is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, and as concluded in the IS/NOP, no impact would occur. (Lake Elsinore, 201 1b) B. Safety Hazards from Public Airports No airports are located within two miles of the Mine. March Air Reserve Base is located approximately 11.8 miles northeast of the Mine, and the Mine is nots located within the Airport Influence Area of the March Air Reserve Base. Therefore, the IS/NOP concluded that Project would not result in a safety hazard for people working at the Mine and no impact would occur. (Lake Elsinore, 2011a, Figure 2 -7; Google Earth, 2013) C. Safety Hazards from Private Airstrips Skylark Field is a private airport facility located approximately 5.7 miles southeast of the Mine, although the Mine is not located within the Airport Influence Area of the Skylark Airport. Thus, the IS/NOP concluded that the Project would not expose future site workers to hazards associated with public or private airport operations and no impact would occur. D. Conflicts with Emergency Evacuation Plan The Nichols Canyon Mine is not identified as an emergency access route on any local or regional plans. Although Nichols Road could serve as an emergency access route for the residences located east of the Mine, there are no components of the Project that would obstruct access along Nichols Road. Moreover, emergency egress for the residential uses to the east of the Mine is available via SR -74 to the southeast. Accordingly, the IS/NOP concluded that there would be no impact due to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Project would result in no impact to Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and this issue area was scoped out of the RDEIR as part of the IS/NOP process. 4.1.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY There are no components of the proposed Project with a potential to substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, the RDEIR concluded that no impact would occur. The proposed Project does not involve the construction of housing and is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, the RDEIR concluded that no impact would occur. The proposed Project is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area, and would not result in the construction of new structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area which could impede or redirect flows. Therefore, the RDEIR concluded that no impact would occur. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 10 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 01-1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT The proposed Project is not subject to inundation from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, the RDEIR concluded that no impact would occur. 4.1.6 LAND USE AND PLANNING The Nichols Canyon Mine comprises approximately 199 acres of land, of which approximately 116 acres are currently used for mining activities. Expansion of the site's disturbance limits to accommodate an additional 24 acres of mining area would not physically disrupt or divide the arrangement of an established community. The Mine is located adjacent and to the east of I -15 and undeveloped land is located to the east and north of the site. The only existing residential community in the Project's vicinity occurs to the east of the Mine's southeastern boundary. As such, there are no components of the proposed Project with the potential to physically divide any existing communities. The Mine site does not provide access to established communities and would not isolate any established communities or residences from neighboring communities. Therefore, the IS/NOP concluded that Project implementation would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur. The Nichols Canyon Mine is designated for "Open Space /Manufactured Slopes (OS)" and "Commercial - Specific Plan (C -SP)" land uses by the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (Lake Elsinore, 1997, Exhibit 3). In addition, the City's General Plan Land Use Plan applies an "Extractive Overlay" designation to a majority of the Mine (including the EDA), which "...provides for continued operations of extractive uses, such as aggregates, coal, clay mining, and certain ancillary uses" (Lake Elsinore, 201 la, Figure 2.1A and p. 2 -18). Expanded mining operations proposed as part of the Project would be fully consistent with the Extractive Overlay designation. The proposed Project also would not conflict with any policies of the General Plan or the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, as the proposed Project is limited to the expansion of an existing condition recognized by the General Plan and Specific Plan. Accordingly, the IS/NOP concluded that no impact would occur. The IS/NOP for the proposed Project concluded that impacts due to a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan would not occur because the Project is exempt from the requirements of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ( MSHCP). Please refer to Subsection 4.4.2.13 and RDEIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, Threshold f., which conclude that impacts due to a conflict with the MSHCP would comprise a significant and unavoidable impact under the issue area of Biological Resources. Additionally, and as concluded by the IS/NOP, the Project would comply with Chapter 19.04 of the City of Lake Elsinore's Municipal Code, which requires payment of fees pursuant to the Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat conservation plan (SKR HCP). Payment of fees as required by Chapter 19.04 would ensure compliance with the SKR HCP, as no portion of the Project site is targeted for conservation under the SKR HCP. There are no other adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that are applicable to the Nichols Canyon Mine. Accordingly, no impact would occur, other than the Project's conflict with the MSHCP which is evaluated and discussed separately in RDEIR Subsection 4.3. For the reasons stated above, the proposed Project would result in no impacts to Land Use and Planning, and this issue area was scoped out of the RDEIR. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 11 ■ ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.1.7 MINERAL RESOURCES According to mapping information available from the California Department of Conservation (CDC), the southern portions of the Mine are located within Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ) 3b, with the remainder of the Mine occurring within MRZ -4. MRZ -3b represents "[a]reas containing inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resources significance..." and occurs on sites "...that appear to be favorable environments for the occurrence of specific mineral deposits." MRZ -4 represents "[a]reas of no known mineral occurrences where geologic information does not rule out either the presence or absence of significant mineral resources." (CDC, 1991) The proposed Project would involve the continuation and expansion of an existing mining operation, which would result in the continued commercial extraction and production of the property's mineral resources. Accordingly, the proposed Project would make productive use of the property's mineral resources, as planned for and expected by the California State Mining and Geology Board, which oversees the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). The Project would not result in any adverse impacts due to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State. The Project would allow continued use of the property's aggregate resources, which are of value to the State and the region. Accordingly, impacts to Mineral Resources would not occur and were scoped out of the EIR as part of the Project's IS/NOP. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan applies an Extractive Overlay to a majority of the Mine site (including the EDA), which allows for "...provides for continued operations of extractive uses, such as aggregates, coal, clay mining, and certain ancillary uses" (Lake Elsinore, 201 la, Figure 2.1A and p. 2 -18). The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan does not address mineral resources, nor does it preclude on -going reclamation activities (Lake Elsinore, 1997). As noted under Threshold 4.11(a), the proposed Project would involve the continuation and expansion of an existing mining operation, which would result in the continued commercial extraction and production of the property's mineral resources. Accordingly, thP- proposed Project would make productive use of the property's mineral resources, as planned for and expected by the California State Mining and Geology Board. The Project would not result in any adverse impacts due to the loss of availability of a locally - important resources recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. On the contrary, the Project would allow continued use of the property's aggregate resources, in conformance with the General Plan's Extractive Overlay designation for the site. As such, the IS/NOP concluded that no adverse impact would occur. For the reasons stated above, the proposed Project would result in no impacts to Mineral Resources, and this issue area was scoped out of the RDEIR. 4.1.8 POPULATION AND HOUSING The proposed Project would expand an existing mining operation and would result in up to two (2) new employees on -site. Although increased employment opportunities would occur on -site, the relatively minor increase in employment on -site would not induce substantial population growth. In addition, the Project does not involve the construction of any infrastructure that could otherwise induce substantial population growth. Accordingly, the IS/NOP concluded that no impact would occur. The Nichols Canyon Mine does not contain any residential structures or residents under existing conditions. As such, the IS/NOP concluded that the expansion of mining operations on -site would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people or existing housing, and no impacts would occur. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 12 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to Population and Housing, and this issue area was scoped out of the RDEIR. 4.1.9 PUBLIC SERVICES A. Public Schools The proposed Project does not involve the construction of any new homes, would not affect local demographics, and would only result in two new employees on -site. As such, there would be no discernible increase or decrease in demand for school services resulting from Project implementation and no need for physical alterations to school facilities. As concluded in the IS/NOP, no impact would occur. B. Parks Facilities The proposed Project does not involve the construction of any new homes, would not affect local demographics, and would only result in a few new employees on -site. As such, there would be no discernible increase or decrease in demand for parks resulting from Project implementation and no need for physical alterations to park facilities. As concluded in the IS/NOP, no impact would occur. C. Other Public Facilities The proposed Project does not involve the construction of any new homes, would not affect local demographics, and would only result in two new employees on -site. As such, there would be no discernible increase or decrease in demand for library services or other public services resulting from Project implementation and no need for physical alterations to library or other public facilities. As concluded in the IS/NOP, no impact would occur. For the reasons stated above, the proposed Project would result in either no impact to Public Services, and this issue area was scoped out of the RDEIR. 4.1.10 RECREATION The Project does not propose any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities in such a manner as to result in or accelerate a discernible physical deterioration of recreational facilities. The Project only would result in an increase of two employees, which would not generate a regional population with a potential for causing or contributing to physical deterioration of any recreational facility. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park or include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As concluded in the IS/NOP, no impact would occur. The Project does not involve or propose any recreational facilities. Implementation of the Project would result in an increase of two employees, which would not generate a regional population that would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Accordingly, the Project would not result in the construction or expansion of recreational faciliti.Ps which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As concluded in the IS/NOP, no impact would occur. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts associated with Recreation and this issue area was scoped out of the RDEIR. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 13 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.1.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION There is no potential for the Project to change air traffic patterns or create substantial air traffic safety risks. Thus, the RDEIR concluded that no impact would occur. 4.1.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The Project would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, the RDEIR concluded that no impact would occur. The Project would result in a net decrease in demand for water resources, as SMP No. 2015 -01 requires the use of soil binders in lieu of water trucks to meet a portion of the Mine's demands for dust suppression. Specifically, areas subject to water usage for dust control would decrease from approximately 24.90 acres to approximately 13.20 acres. Accordingly, and as concluded in the RDEIR, the Project would have no potential to result in or require new or expanded entitlements. The RDEIR concluded that the Project would result in a net decrease in demand for water on -site, and would therefore not require or result in the construction of new or expanded water treatment facilities, and no impact would occur. The wastewater haul company would dispose of all wastewater generated by the Project at permitted facilities with sufficient capacity to handle Project - generated wastewater, and the Project would not result in or require expanded wastewater treatment capacity. Accordingly, the RDEIR concluded that no impact would occur. "The Project would not result in the construction of new electrical, natural gas .or telecommunication facilities or expansion existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, the RDEIR concluded that no impact would occur. 4.2 FINDINGS REGARDING LESS- THAN - SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR The RDEIR completed in August 2016 found that the proposed Project would have a less - than - significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas. The less -than- significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the RDEIR. 4.2.1 AESTHETICS A. Scenic Vista Impacts No unique or scenic vistas would be impacted by the Project. The Project site does not contain any scenic vistas, nor does it offer unique views of any visually prominent features; therefore, the RDEIR concluded that impacts to scenic vistas resulting from the Project would be less than significant. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 14 ®® SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 EDFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings for the Project, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon scenic resources would be less than significant. The Nichols Canyon Mine property, including the proposed EDA, is not a scenic vista and does not contribute to a scenic vista. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR states that the City is surrounded by small hills and larger mountains to the south and west. The Santa Ana Mountains in the southwest are visible from much of the City, which are scenic. The Project site is not located in any important hillside areas, which are designated by the General Plan as Hillside Residential in General Plan Figure 2.1A, City of Lake Elsinore Land Use Plan. (City of Lake Elsinore, 201 lb, p. 3.3 -28) The Santa Ana Mountains /Cleveland National Forest are located approximately 3.6 miles northwest, 3.0 miles west, and 3.3 miles southwest of the Project site. The Project proposes to expand mining activities on the Nichols Canyon Mine by 24 acres. No buildings are proposed, nor are any structures that would have the potential to block or obscure views to the Santa Ana Mountains. The previously- approved asphalt batch plant is a low - stature structure that would have no potential to block scenic views. As such, the Project would have no impact on views of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Nichols Canyon Mine and its proposed EDA are located within Landscape Viewshed Unit 12, which is the location of the Lake Elsinore Outlet stores and of which "a large portion to the east is vacant for future [development] expansion" (City of Lake Elsinore, 201 la, p. 4 -73). The proposed Project is compatible with the description for Viewshed Unit 12 because mining and subsequent reclamation would occur on -site, leaving the Mine property available for the future establishment of an end -use east of the Lake Elsinore Outlet stores. No unique or scenic vistas would be impacted by the Project. The Project site does not contain any scenic vistas, nor does it offer unique views of any visually prominent features; therefore, impacts to scenic vistas resulting from the Project wc„ ald be less inan significant. - Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5. B. Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Hi- hchwway Impac The RDEIR concluded that the Project has no potential to damage scenic resources within a scenic highway corridor, because the property is not visible from a designated scenic highway corridor. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon scenic resources within a state scenic highway would be less than significant. The Nichols Canyon Mine site is not located within or adjacent to a scenic highway corridor, nor is it visible from any state - designated scenic highway corridor. I -15, located immediately to the west of the Mine site, and SR -74, located approximately 1.4 miles south of the Mine site, are identified by Caltrans as "State Eligible" scenic highways (Riverside County, 2003a, Figure C -9; Caltrans, 2011). Mining activities within the EDA would impact existing rock outcroppings; however, these rock outcroppings are generally sparse and covered with natural vegetation, which primarily consists of native grasses. There are no trees within the EDA. Because the City of Lake Elsinore has not identified the sparse Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page IS ■ E SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■E] FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT rock outcroppings or native grasses on the Project site as being a scenic resource or part of a scenic resource, the Project would have a less -than significant- impact to scenic resources. Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on scenic resources visible from a state scenic highway; as such, impacts would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5. C. Visual Character or Quality of the Site Impacts The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surrounding areas during mining operations. Although the Project would expand the permitted limits of mining by 24 acres, the expansion would be viewed as a logical extension of existing mining activities at the Nichols Canyon Mine, and would be visually similar to other mining activities that occur to the west, south, and southwest of the EDA. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to the visual character of the Project site. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon the visual character of the site. Expansion_ of the permitted mining area by +/- 24 acres would result in a visual change to tW Jawer and upper elevations of an undeveloped hillside. The hillside would be mined, and then reclaimed. The proposed mining of these +/- 24 acres is compatible with the visual character of existing and previously - permitted mining operations at the Nichols Canyon Mine and mining operations that occur on other properties to the west, of the Project site. Following completion of the mining activities at the Nichols Canyon Mine, all mining equipment would be removed and the mined areas would be reclaimed and revegetated. Project- related changes to local visual character and quality by expanding the mined area by 24 acres would be less than significant in the context of existing, on -going and previously - permitted mining activities at the site. During mining of the EDA, the aesthetics and natural look of the hillside would change from an untouched state to one with active mining and reclamation activities. However, less- than - significant impacts would occur because the Project is a 24 -acre expansion of mining activities within an already vested and active mining site, and would appear as a continuation of existing and previously - permitted mining activities on site. Thus, new disturbances and future reclamation within the EDA would not substantially change the ultimate conditions on site when considered in the context of mining activities that would occur with or without the proposed Project. Although the aesthetic changes to the Project site during mining activities would be noticeable, reclamation of the EDA after mining activities have ceased would result in a less -than- significant alternation to the visual character of the Project site. Moreover, implementation of the proposed Project, which for visual quality purposes would affect only the +/- 24 -acre EDA, would appear as a continuation of the existing and planned disturbance areas that would occur in conformance with RP 2006 -01AL The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surrounding areas during mining operations. Although the Project would expand the permitted limits of mining by 24 acres, the expansion would be viewed as a logical extension of existing mining activities at the Nichols Canyon Mine, Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 16 No SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 N❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT and would be visually similar to other mining activities that occur to the west, south, and southwest of the EDA. As such, the Project would result in a less- than - significant impact. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5. D. Light and Glare Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts due to a new source of substantial light or glare. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required, however out of an abundance of caution, the following mitigation measure was imposed by the RDEIR: MM 4.1 -1 All portable lighting elements used for mining activities shall be required to use low pressure sodium light bulbs in order to follow the recommendation of City Municipal Code Chapter § 17.112.040. This requirement shall be enforced by the Mine Operator. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon light and glare would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in an expansion of the approved mining boundaries to accommodate an additional +/- 24 acres of mining area, and an increase in the Mine's hours of operation. Lighting for the EDA would be supplied from current lighting elements on the site. Lighting elements on the site are portable, and the c A"isting iighcingelements on the Project site would be moved from current and previously approved mining areas to the EDA as mining of the hillsides progresses. No new lighting elements would be required in the EDA, however existing lighting would be used over a longer duration to provide light during the expanded hours of operation. The Project would not create substantial amounts of light or glare. Compliance with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code § 17.112.040 would ensure less - than - significant impacts associated with light and glare affecting day or nighttime views in the area. Although not required because impacts would be less than significant, Mitigation Measure MM 4.1 -1 has nonetheless been identified to be required on the Project to ensure the use of low pressure sodium lighting on -site, consistent with the recommendation of City Municipal Code §17.112.040. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5. 4.2.2 AIR QUALITY A. Exposure of Sensitiye_Receptars to Pollutant Concentration lmgacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 17 ■ N SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentration impacts would be less than significant. Under all Project related traffic scenarios, all study area intersections would receive fewer than 44,000 vehicles per hour, thereby indicating that a CO "Hot Spot" would not occur due to Project - related traffic when combined with traffic from cumulative (long -term) developments. Therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed Project, and localized air quality impacts related to CO "Hot Spots" would therefore be less than significant. An air toxics health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared for the proposed Project and is included as EIR Technical Appendix C (Urban Crossroads, 2016b). As detailed in the HRA, the Project would not result in a significant adverse health impact to sensitive receptors and would not result in a significant health risk impact. Thus a less - than - significant impact to sensitive receptors during operational activity is expected. The Project would not result in or contribute to a CO "Hot Spot." The Project also would not result in a significant adverse health impact to sensitive receptors and would not result in a significant health risk impact. Thus a less- than - significant impact to sensitive receptors during operational activity is expected. The carcinogenic risk attributable to DPM emissions from the proposed Project would be less than 10 in one million for the residential, worker, and school child exposure scenarios. Thus, the Project's DPM emissions would be below the SCAQMD's threshold for direct and cumulatively considerable emissions and would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.2.5 and 4.2.6. B. Odor Impacts The Project does not propose any uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational - source odor impacts. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts due to the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant. The Project does not propose any uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational- source odor impacts. Potential sources of operational odors generated by the Project would include disposal of miscellaneous refuse and the operation of the asphalt batch plant. Consistent with City requirements, all Project - generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations. Odors associated with the asphalt batch plant would be less than significant on both a direct and cumulative basis due to the low level of odors affecting sensitive receptors, likely production schedules, and prevailing wind patterns. Accordingly, operational- source odor impacts would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.2.5 and 4.2.6. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 18 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 N❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.2.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Paleontological Resources impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts to paleontological resources. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon paleontological resources. As detailed in the Paleontological Resource and Monitoring Assessment for the proposed Project (Technical Appendix E1), the geologic units within the bounds of the Nichols Canyon Mine are either assigned a Low Potential to yield fossiliferous materials, or are regarded as unlikely to yield fossiliferous materials on the basis of the geologic field investigation. There is a very low likelihood that the Project's construction activities could uncover paleontological resources that may be buried beneath the ground surface. As such the Project would have a less- than - significant impact to these resources because the likelihood of finding fossiliferous materials within the Project site during any further excavation/grading activities is very low to nil. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5.. B. Discovery of Human Remains Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to human remains. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required, 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon human remains would be less than significant. The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. Field surveys conducted on the Project site did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the site (BFSA, 2015b). Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project construction. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground disturbing activities, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code § 5097 et. seq. Mandatory compliance with State law would ensure that human remains, if encountered, are appropriately treated and would preclude the potential for significant impacts to human remains, and a less - than- significant impact would occur. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 19 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ®a FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.2.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS A. Geologic ,hazards 1m acts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts due to geologic hazards. 1. Mitigation Although potential impacts associated with slope stability and topple - related rock fall during mining operations would be less than significant with the required implementation of the recommendations contained in the Project's Report of Slope Stability Investigation (EIR Technical Appendix F), the following measures are included to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. MM 4.5 -1 Prior to mining activities in the +/- 24 -acre EDA, the Director of the City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Division (or his /her designee) shall verify that all of the recommendations given in the Project's April 15, 2015 "Report of Slope Stability Investigation Proposed Nichols Mine Expansion, Lake Elsinore, California" (Job No. 15082 -8) by CHJ Consultants are incorporated into the mining specifications for SMP 2015 -01 and Reclamation Plan No. 2006- O1A2., The recommendations shall including but not be limited to the following: Conduct annual slope inspection during excavation of rock slopes, consistent with State requirements, and include the development plan in the slope inspection to address the potential for unknown or newly exposed discontinuities. Prepare the final benched slope faces to include scaling to ensure removal of loose or potentially mstablP bb: cks. If raveling or instability is evident, the bench width should bF increased to provide a suitable buffer to daylighted or unstable features and a sufficient surface area to mitigate rockfall. Based on the dip angle of the planar, and wedge and topple structures identified in kinematic evaluation, it is anticipated that these features can be mitigated by the proposed benching scheme. Adjustments may be made to prevent daylighted slip planes or unstable wedges. • Ensure overall final cut slopes in the rock materials are no steeper than design angles up to the maximum proposed height. Contacts between geologic units may influence the geometry of finished slopes. • Remove or stabilize unstable, rounded boulders on slopes steeper than approximately 1- 1/2(h) to 1(v), where accessible. Areas below loose rock, if left in place during mining, should be restricted from access and indicated by means of signage or fencing. Scale finished slopes above areas proposed for development with commercial or residential uses of all loose blocks during excavation and include sufficient benching to mitigate potential rockfall. A v- ditch, dry moat, or physical barrier (wall, fence) of sufficient strength /capacity to mitigate rockfall should be constructed along the base of slopes steeper than 1- 1 /2(h) to 1(v) in areas adjacent to commercial or residential development. Based on the proposed bench configuration for the slopes, a 25 -foot wide fenced area at the base of the slope is expected to provide catchment for rockfall. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 20 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 011 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Conduct periodic observation of mine benches for indicators of potential instability above working areas during mining operations. Monitoring of slope conditions for failure warning signs is the most important means for protecting mine workers (Girard & McHugh, 2000, p. 2) as it can prevent exposure of personnel to potentially hazardous conditions. • Protect slopes with berms or drainage improvements as necessary to prevent slope erosion in the areas where natural slopes drain onto the reclaimed slopes. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts due to geologic hazards would be less than significant. The Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse seismic risks. No active faults are located on the Mine site so there is no potential for fault surface rupture. As with all properties in southern California, the Project site is subject to seismic ground shaking associated with earthquakes. With implementation of the recommendations contained in the Project's Report of Slope Stability Investigation, potential seismically induced hazard impacts would be reduced to less- than - significant levels. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5. B. Soil Erosion Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts due to soil erosion and /or the loss of topsoil. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts due to soil erosion and /or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Dust control is proposed during mining, the site would be revegetated as mining activities conclude, and a sedimentation basin is proposed as part of the Mine's revised reclamation plan. The Project would have a less- than - significant impact regarding soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5. C. Soil Instability Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts due to soil instability. Mitigation Although potential impacts associated with slope stability and topple- related rock fall during mining operations would be less than significant with the required implementation of the recommendations contained in the Project's Report of Slope Stability Investigation (EIR Technical Appendix F), Mitigation Measure MM 4.5 -1, Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 21 M■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 EnFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT as summarized above under Subsection 4.2.4.A, shall apply to ensure that the recommendations of the Project's Report Slope Stability Investigation are implemented. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts due to soil instability would be less than significant. Based on slope stability analyses conducted by CHJ Consultants, the whole rock strength in the proposed slope areas of the Mine is sufficient to accommodate the proposed overall slope angles. Based on the analyses, the proposed overall approximate 45- degree mine and cut - slopes up to approximately 480 feet in height are suitably stable against gross failure for the long -term conditions, including the effects of seismic shaking. (CHJ, 2015, p. 20) Thus, the proposed Project would have a less- than - significant impact regarding landslides, subsidence, or collapse. In existing quarry exposures, topple potential is removed /mitigated by scaling of loose blocks during excavation. Scaling and inclusion of safety benches would effectively mitigate topple- related rock fall in the final reclaimed slope face, and the Project is designed to address this topple potential. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. (CHJ, 2015, p. 17) Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure 4.5 -1 is included in the EIR to ensure that the recommendations made in the Report of Slope Stability Investigation, are implemented. The potential for the Project to cause rock falls and soil instability during mining activities would be reduced to less- than - significant levels with design approaches for scaling and benched slope faces per the recommendations of the Project's Report of Slope Stability Investigation. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.5.4 and-4.5J. D. Expansive Soii 1mgocts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts due to the Project being located on an expansive soil. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts due to expansive soils would be less than significant. Due to the nature of the proposed activity on site (a surface mine), a less- than - significant impact associated with expansive soil would occur because soils would be removed during mining activities. Any future use of the Project site for other land uses would require environmental review and a separate analysis regarding potential impacts from expansive soils. Thus, the Project would have a less- than - significant impact in this regard. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 22 NN SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 EL,,,,,,,,.,, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT i� 4.2.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS A. Greenhouse Gas Generation Impacts The proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year; therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts due to greenhouse gas (GHG) generation. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon greenhouse gas generation would be less than significant. The Project would result in approximately 9,836.53 MTCO2e per year (of which 7,464.05 MT CO2e /yr would be from the previously- approved asphalt batch plant and 2,372.48 MT CO2e /yr attributable to expanded Mine operations). Thus, the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year and a less - than - significant impact would occur. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 31) Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.6.5 and 4.6.6. B. Conflict with an A olicabl_e Plan.. Policy, or Regulation Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts to conflicting with an applicaule plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissivas of greenhouse gases. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project would result in less - than - significant impacts due to a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHGs. Project GHG emissions would not result in or cause a potentially significant impact on the environment because Project emissions would be below SCAQMD's interim screening threshold for industrial uses of 103000 MT CO2e /yr. The analysis demonstrates that the Project is consistent with, or otherwise not in conflict with, recommended measures and actions in the CARB December 2008 Scoping Plan (CARB Scoping Plan). The CARB Scoping Plan establishes strategies and measures to implement in order to achieve the GHG reductions goals set forth in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, P. 1) Moreover, and as noted in Appendix D to the CAP: "If it is determined that a proposed project does not fall within the assumptions of the General Plan and/or is not consistent with the CAP, incorporating all applicable measures as binding and Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 23 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ®CI FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT enforceable components of the project, further CEQA analysis would be required. The applicant must demonstrate to the City's satisfaction how the project will achieve its share of the established targets... The project would also be required to demonstrate that it would not substantially interfere with implementation of the CAP strategies or measures." (Lake Elsinore, 2011 c, p. D -3) Accordingly, because the Project's GHG emissions would not be significant based on SCAQMD guidelines, and because a Project - specific analysis was conducted demonstrating that the Project would not interfere with CAP implementation, the Project would not result in any impacts due to a conflict with the City's CAP. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.6.5 and 4.6.6. 4.2.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Hazard Due to Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. The or, y- hazardous materials associated with existing and planned operations of the Nichols Canyon Mine are associated with oils and fuels for mining - related equipment. However, no such fuels or oils are stored on -site, as fuel is delivered to the Mine on an as- needed basis. The proposed Project would result in an extension in the hours of operation at the Mine and would therefore result in an incremental increase in the need for fuel and oil deliveries to the Mine. However, it is not expected that the increased fuel deliveries to the Mine would substantially increase hazards to the public or the environment as compared to existing conditions. The routine transport of aggregate materials would not result in any significant hazards to the public or the environment. Waste generated on -site is limited to non- hazardous waste piles and refuse from site workers. On -site waste piles ultimately would be graded level of as proposed by RP 2006 -01A2, while refuse would be disposed of in accordance with City and County requirements. Accordingly, potential impacts due to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsection 5.5.2. B. Release of Hazardous Materials Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts due to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 24 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 OF] FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts due to the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. The routine transport of aggregate materials and fuels to and from the Mine would not result in any significant hazards to the public or the environment because these fuel delivery trucks are required to comply with federal and state safety regulations governing the transport of hazardous materials. Accordingly, potential impacts due to the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsection 5.5.2. C. Hazardous Emissions Near a School Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to the emission of hazardous materials within one - quarter mile of a school. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon emitting hazardous materials near a school would be less than significant. The Project's proposed EDA would occur as close as 0.15 mile from an existing school factlity_(Zeme oLCanyon High School). However, the Project involves aggregate mining �. and processing activities; and the Mine does not store any petroleum products on -site that could pose a risk to the Temescal Canyon High School. There are no other components of the Project that would result in the emission or storage of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Accordingly, hazardous materials impacts to nearby school facilities would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsection 5.5.2. D. Wildfire Hazards Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts due to wildland fire hazards. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon wildland fires would be less than significant. According to Figure 3.10 -2, Wildlife Susceptibility, of the GPU EIR the Nichols Canyon Mine is located in an area with "Very High" susceptibility to wildfires. However, the Project would not involve the construction of any structures that could result in significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 25 ■E SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 EI J FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT fire hazards. Accordingly, a less - than - significant impact due to fire hazards would occur. (Lake Elsinore, 2011 b). Reference: RDEIR Subsection 5.5.2. 4.2.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY A. Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Dfschar e Imp-acts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts due to violations of water quality or waste discharge standards. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon violating water quality or waste discharge standards would be less than significant. The Nichols Canyon Mine is required to comply with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and obtain coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permit. The currently approved and implemented SWPPP includes BMPs, which include, but are not limited to, the following: minimizing the amount of area exposed; watering of roads to control dust; covering or vegetating exposed areas at the completion of mining activities; routine inspections by the Mine operator; employee training; and directing runoff to sediment basins (AE, 2015, pp. 30 -32). The currently approved BMPs along with any additional BMPs identified by the revised SWPPP that is a mandatory regulatory requirement pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act that authorizes the NPDES permit program would ensure the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Thus, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5. B. Groundwater im acts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to groundwater resources. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required, 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon groundwater resources would be less than significant. The Project does not propose the installation of any water wells on the Project site that would extract groundwater. Also, because the Project would result in a net reduction in the amount of water used on site, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in an aquifer volume or lowering of the groundwater table. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 26 ME SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 EF -1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5. C. Alteration of Drainage Patterns Resulting in Erosion Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts due to erosion hazards on- or off -site resulting from changes to the drainage patterns on the site. Mitigation Although impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required, the following measure shall be incorporated into the Project's post- reclamation sedimentation basins to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements for stormwater runoff. MM 4.7 -1 Prior to final inspection for reclamation activities, the City of Lake Elsinore shall ensure that sedimentation basins are designed to include spillways capable of passing the 1000 -year flow rates, and shall ensure that the sedimentation basins are designed to allow for percolation of the basin volume within 72 hours. If percolation rates exceed 72 hours, then an outflow pipe shall be installed to ensure the basins drain completely within 72 hours, in conformance with California Stormwater Quality Association requirements. Where physically feasible, a paved slope interceptor drain shall be provided along the top of cut slopes where the drainage path is greater than 40 linear feet towards the cut slope in accordance with the County of Riverside Department of Building and Safety requirements. The City also shall ensure the sedimentation basins comply with all stormwater regulations in effect at the time of final inspection for reclamation activities. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon alternation of the drainage of the site which would result in substantial erosion on- or off -site would be less than significant. During on -going mining activities, all runoff within the areas subject to mining activities, including the asphalt batch plant site, would be retained on -site by retention basins. Runoff within the Nichols North mining area would be retained on -site in the southwestern corner of the Nichols North site, and runoff within the Nichols South mining area would be retained on -site within the Nichols South site in temporary sedimentation basins which would be strategically placed to ensure that all runoff from the disturbed portions of the site are conveyed to one or more of the sedimentation basins, as required by SMARA § 3503(b). Areas not subject to disturbance would continue to drain via Stovepipe Creek, located in the southeastern portion of the Nichols South site. As such, under ongoing mining operations, no impact due to siltation would occur. Two sedimentation basins are proposed under reclamation conditions. The two sedimentation basins would be designed to provide the minimum required capacities (see Tables 12 and 13 of Technical Appendix H) as the basins are not required to reduce peak flow rates but instead are proposed to provide sediment control. The sedimentation basins are required by the Project's approved Reclamation Plan, and are a part of the proposed amendment to Reclamation Plan (RP 2006- 01AI). Because the sedimentation basins are required by the Project's approved Reclamation Plan (and would be required with the proposed amendment to the Reclamation Plan), and because the sediment basins are not designed to reduce peak flow rates, spillways capable of passing the 1,000 -year flow rates would be incorporated in the outlet of each basin. If basin infiltration rates do not allow for percolation of the basin volumes within 72 hours, design features would be incorporated in Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 27 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ■� FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT accordance with County of Riverside Department of Building and Safety requirements. Thus, the runoff flows from both the Nichols North and Nichols South sites would not cause substantial erosion or siltation with construction of the proposed sedimentation basins. Accordingly, the Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area through the alternation of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion on -or- off -site. The Project would not result in substantial erosion on -or- off -site. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5. D. Hoodino im acts due to Alteration of Drainage Pattems and Increased Rate of Surface Runoff Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant flooding impacts due to the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site and /or due to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff. Mitigation Although impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required, the requirements of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7 -1 (presented above in Subsection 4.2.7.C) shall be incorporated into the Project's post - reclamation sedimentation basins to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements for stormwater runoff. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based uron the anar-fsis.presented in the RDEIR and considering the information cont, ;nin Jtbe. i�r_. R_-cord of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site, resulting in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site would be less than significant. During on -going mining activities, all runoff within the areas subject to mining activities, including the asphalt batch plant site, would be retained on -site within the existing sedimentation basin within Nichols North and the proposed temporary sedimentation basins within Nichols South, while areas not subject to disturbance would continue to drain via Stovepipe Creek, located in the southeastern portion of the Nichols South site. Upon final reclamation of the site, runoff that had been detained on -site in the sedimentation basins within Nichols North and Nichols South would instead be conveyed to one of the two sediment basins proposed under reclamation conditions in both Nichols North and Nichols South. Where feasible, a paved slope interceptor drain with down drains would be provided along the top of cut slopes where the drainage path is greater than 40 linear feet towards the cut slope in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Building and Safety Division requirements. Following water quality treatment, the flows would be conveyed by Stovepipe Creek via existing culverts beneath 1 -15 to the west. A decrease in runoff flows would occur during the reclamation phase of the Project. The decrease in flow rate is a result of the longer path lengths which in turn reduce peak flow rates, with the exception of a slight increase at Location B2 due to a shift in drainage area as a result of reclamation. (Bonadiman, 2016, Table 14 and p. 16). The two sedimentation basins would be designed to provide the minimum required capacities (see Tables 12 and 13 of Technical Appendix H) as the basins are not required to reduce peak flow rates but instead are proposed to provide sediment control. As the sediment basins are not designed to reduce peak flow rates, spillways capable of passing the 1000 -year flow rates would be incorporated in the outlet of each basin. Where feasible, a paved slope interceptor drain with down drains would be provided along the top of cut slopes where the drainage path is greater than 40 linear feet towards the cut slope in accordance with the Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 28 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 011 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT City of Lake Elsinore Building and Safety Division requirements. Design features would ensure that runoff rates would be reduced compared to the existing condition and that substantial flooding would not occur. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5. E. Runoff Exceeding the Capacity of Stormwater Drainage Facilities The proposed Project would not result in runoff exceeding the capacity of stormwater drainage facilities and has no potential to result in additional sources of polluted runoff; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 1. Mitigation Although impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required, the requirements of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7 -1 (presented above in Subsection 4.2.7.C) shall be incorporated into the Project's post - reclamation sedimentation basins to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements for stormwater runoff. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon runoff exceeding the capacity of stormwater drainage facilities and providing additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant. During on -going mining activities, all runoff within the areas subject to mining activities, including the asphalt batch plant site, would be retained on -site within the existing sedimentation basin within Nichols North and the proposed temporary sedimentation basins wILhin Nichols youth, while areas not subject to disturbance would continue to drain via Stovepipe Creek, located in the southeastern portion of the Nichols South site. Upon final reclamation of the site, runoff that had been detained on site in the sedimentation basins within Nichols North and Nichols South would instead be conveyed to one of the two sediment basins proposed under reclamation conditions in both Nichols North and Nichols South. Where feasible, a paved slope interceptor drain with down drains would be provided along the top of cut slopes where the drainage path is greater than 40 linear feet towards the cut slope in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Building and Safety Division requirements. Following water quality treatment, the flows would be conveyed by Stovepipe Creek via existing culverts beneath I -15 to the west. A decrease in runoff flows would occur during the reclamation phase of the Project. The decrease in flow rate is a result of the longer path lengths which in turn reduce peak flow rates, with the exception of a slight increase at Location B2 due to a shift in drainage area as a result of reclamation. (Bonadiman, 2016, Table 14 and p. 16). The two sedimentation basins would be designed to provide the minimum required capacities (see Tables 12 and 13 of Technical Appendix H) as the basins are not required to reduce peak flow rates but instead are proposed to provide sediment control. As the sediment basins are not designed to reduce peak flow rates, spillways capable of passing the 1,000 -year flow rates would be incorporated in the outlet of each basin. Where feasible, a paved slope interceptor drain with down drains would he provided along the top of cut slopes where the drainage path is greater than 40 linear feet towards the cut slope in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Building and Safety Division requirements. Design features would ensure that runoff rates would be reduced compared to the existing condition. Runoff within the Nichols Canyon Mine also would be subject to the existing SWPPP which provides BMP measures that ensures that runoff does not exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 29 HE SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 O❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT systems, does not provide substantial, additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. The Project would be required to revise the SWPPP to include additional BMP measures, as necessary and appropriate, to address the expanded mining limits. The proposed Project also would be required to comply with the SWPPP, which identifies required BMPs to be incorporated into the Project to ensure that the proposed Project would not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. Thus, with mandatory compliance with the Project's SWPPP, the proposed Project would not create or contribute substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5. F. Construction of Stormwater Drainage Facilities Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to construction of new stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant. No new storm drainage facilities would be required in support of on -going mining activities, as the existing and proposed basins on -site are adequately sized to detain all runoi'Urow tbe . iiied areas, including the asphalt batch plant site. However, as_ parolhe._ Project's proposed Reclamation Plan Amendment, two sediment basins would be constructed (one each on Nichols North and Nichols South). A decrease in runoff flows is expected as a result of reclamation. The decrease in flow rate is a result of the longer path lengths which in turn reduce peak flow rates, with the exception of a slight increase at location B2 due to a shift in drainage area as a result of reclamation (Bonadiman, 2016, Table 14 and p. 16). Accordingly, reclamation would result in an overall reduction of flow rates from the site, and the Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5. G. Flooding as a Result of the Failure of a levee or I]am Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts due to flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam would be less than significant. According to Figure 10, Flood Hazards, of the Riverside Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 30 ■ ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 NoFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT County General Plan's Elsinore Area Plan, the Nichols Canyon Mine is not located within a dam hazard zone related to the Railroad Canyon Dam or any other dam hazard zone. As depicted on RDEIR Figure 3 -2, Vicinity Map, the Nichols Canyon Mine is located approximately 2.0 miles north of the levee that is present in association with Lake Elsinore. Thus, due to the location of the Nichols Canyon Mine approximately 5.0 miles north of the Railroad Canyon Dam and approximately 2.0 miles north of the levee at Lake Elsinore and the direction of sheet flow, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Impacts would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5. 4.2.8 NOISE A. Vibration impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts to exposure to groundborne vibration. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon exposure to groundborne vibration would be less than significant. Project- related mining equipment would result in a maximum PPV value of - 0.0044 in /sec at the nearest residence. This value is below the 0 01 in/sec t` reshold established by the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code § 17.176.020. Based on these calculations, the Project would result in less - than- significant impacts associated with groundborne vibration or groundborne noise during on -going mining operations. Blasting to loosen hard -rock deposits under the proposed Project would increase from approximately five to six blasts per year, to a maximum of eight blasts per year, with an expected average of between six to eight blasts per year. The relationship between tonnage production and number of blasts is not fixed; rather, it varies based on production needs, benching /pit development, and drilling equipment availability (Project Applicant, 2016c). Under the proposed Project, the location of blasting would move north or east -ward in the EDA. As the area of blasting moves into the EDA, the separation distance to the Temescal Canyon High School to the south and the closest homes to the southeast will decrease. Blasting is an existing condition and charge weights would decrease as activities move closer to existing homes for vibration protection. Blasting noise levels would not be substantially greater at off -site sensitive uses, particularly since the blasting frequency would only increase by up to 2 -3 blasts per year, although the total duration that the site may be subject to blasting (i.e., years) would increase under the Project. (Giroux, 2016a, p. 21) Furthermore, all blasting operations in the City require a permit from the Director of Community Development authorizing such activities and are subject to the standards established in Lake Elsinore Municipal Code § 17.144.080, requiring the attenuation of noise. All blasting also would be subject to the conditions of the blasting permit. Accordingly, the Project would have a less- than - significant impact regarding ground borne vibration associated with blasting, and no mitigation is warranted. The Project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration noise levels. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 31 OIL SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 OF]- FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.8.7 and 4.8.8. B. Public Al port Noise Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts due to the exposure of Project workers to excessive noise levels from public airports. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon excessive airport noise would be less than significant. The nearest public airport to the Project site is the March Air Reserve Base, located approximately 11.8 miles northeast of the Project site. The Project site is located outside of the Influence Area of this airport as shown in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission March Air Reserve Base Map, and is not subject to substantial noise levels associated with existing airport operations (RCALUC, 2014, Map MA -1). The nearest private airport to the Project site is the Skylark Field Airport, a small private airport located approximately 5.7 miles southwest of the Project site (Google Earth, 2015). The Project site is located outside of the Influence Area of this airport as shown in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Skylark Airport Map, and is not subject to substantial noise levels associated with existing airport operations (RCALUC, 2004). There are no conditions associated with the proposed Project that would contribute to airport noise or the exposure of additional pe.oplP,.to unacceptable levels of airport noise. Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact regarding exposure of people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.8.7 and 4.8.8. C. Private Airstrip Noise impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts due to the exposure of Project workers to excessive noise levels from private airstrips. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding The Project site is not located near any private airfields or airstrips. The nearest private airstrip to the Project site is the McConville Airstrip located approximately 6.0 miles southwest of the Project site. The Project does not include construction, operation, or use of any private airstrips, and would not introduce any new sensitive receptors to the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project has no potential to result in a safety hazard for people living or residing in the Project area. No impacts would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.8.7 and 4.8.8. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 32 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 .F] FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.2.9 PUBLIC SERVICES A. Fire Protection Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to fire protection services. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon fire protection services. The proposed Project involves the continuation and expansion of an existing mining operation, which is provided fire protection services under existing conditions by the Riverside County Fire Department. The closet fire station to the Nichols Canyon Mine is Station 85, which is located approximately 2.9 miles to the southwest (Coogle Earth, 2013). The Project would result in a net increase of two employees at the site. The existing Nichols Canyon Mine site already generates a demand for fire protection services. The Project would extend the Mine's operating hours; however, the increased hours of mining, processing, and export activities would not result in nor require new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection. There are no components of the proposed Project that would require an expansion of fire protection services or facilities that could result in adverse environmental effects. Accordingly, there would be a less-than- significant ),upact to fire protection services. Reference: RDEIR Subsection 5.5.6. B. Police Protection Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less - than - significant impacts to police protection services. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon police protection services. The existing Nichols Canyon Mine site already generates a demand for police protection services, and the Project would not substantially increase the existing demand on this public service. In addition, the Project does not propose any change in the scope of operations or hours of operation that would require an expansion of law enforcement. Accordingly, there would be a less- than - significant impact to police protection services and no need for physical alterations of police stations to service the Project. Reference: RDEIR Subsection 5.5.6. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 33 ■o SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 OF] FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.2.10 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION A. Transportation Hazards lmloacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to traffic hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon traffic hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The Project's proposed expanded hours for aggregate and asphalt batch plant export activities would have the effect of reducing the potential for conflict with traffic compared to existing baseline conditions because export activities would occur over an extended period of time, including during the late evening /early morning hours when there is little traffic on nearby roadways. Although implementation of the proposed Project would contribute to several deficiencies under 2016 cumulative (i.e., Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative [EAPC]) and Horizon Year (2035) conditions, these deficiencies would occur even in the absence of Project- related traffic. Thus, the Project would not substantially contribute to the projected deficiencies and would have a less- than - significant impact due to design hazards. Moreover, the proposed Project would be compatible with existing mining activities on site, and given the relatively short distance between the Project's driveways and nearby on- and off -ramps at the I- 15/Nichols Road interchange, Project - related true_ traffic would not represent a safety hazard for passenger cars, pedestrians, or bicyclists. The Project does not propose, nor does it require as mitigation for direct Project impacts, any new circulation improvements. The City of Lake Elsinore Public Works Department reviewed the Project's application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Therefore, the Project would result in less- than - significant impacts. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.9.7 and 4.9.8. B. Ade uate Emergency Access Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to emergency access. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon emergency access would be less than significant. No changes are being proposed to the Project site's access, and the existing driveway access points provide for adequate emergency access; thus, emergency access would continue to be provided as it is Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 34 ■ ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 O❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT under existing conditions. There are no components of the proposed Project that would substantially interfere with traffic along Nichols Road, including traffic that may occur during emergency conditions. Thus, the Project would result in no impacts related to inadequate emergency access. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.9.7 and 4.9.8. C, Aiternative Transportation impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The Project involves mining and reclamation and as such, is not likely to attract large volumes of pedestrian, bicycle, or transit traffic. Under the proposed Project, two new workers would be employed on -site. Due to the nature of the proposed Project and the limited number of new workers on -site, the Project would not result in the need for any new or expanded public transit service, bicycle paths, or pedestrian facilities. Due to the rural nature of areas east of the Project site, and the fact that the Project's increase of two new employees at the Project site would not result in a substantial increase in demand bus transit services, no accommodations for bus stops appear necessary alo.rg thy- Pf0je6t's -frontage with Nichols Road. (Urban Crossroads, 2016d, p. 27) ?urtherinore, there are no policies within the Lake Elsinore General Plan related to bus service (Lake Elsinore, 2011a, Chapter 2.0). Accordingly, the Project has no potential to conflict with any planned local public transit service routes or policies related to bus service. According to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Figure 2.6, a regional trail is planned along Nichols Road, east of the I -15 Freeway and north along Collier Avenue. Class Il bike lanes also are proposed for Nichols Road. (Lake Elsinore, 201 la, Figures 2.5 and 2.6) However, the Project would not result in or require any improvements along Nichols Road, as the Project comprises the continuation and expansion of an existing mining operation that is adequately served by the existing Nichols Road configuration. Ultimate development of the site following reclamation would require improvements to Nichols Road along the Project's frontage, although no such future development is proposed as part of the Project. Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict with the policies of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS), Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP), or the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). There are no other adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities that are applicable in the Project area. Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs related to alternative transportation, nor would the Project otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Therefore, a less -than- significant impact would occur. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.9.7 and 4.9.8. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 35 SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.2.11 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS A. Exceedance of Wastewater Treatment Re uirements Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts due to exceeding the waste water treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant. The Project would result in only a nominal increase in demand for wastewater treatment capacity due to the addition of two new employees. Additionally, all wastewater generated on -site would be collected by a wastewater haul company that would dispose of the wastewater at a treatment plant that meets the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.10.5 and 4.10.6. B. landfill Capacity Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to landfill capacity. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon landfill capacity would be less than significant. The Project would generate a nominal increase in the amount of solid waste produced on -site due to the addition of two new employees. This nominal increase in solid waste generation would not cause or substantially contribute to diminished landfill capacity. Therefore, because the Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste, and because the Project's incremental increase in solid waste generation would be negligible, impacts would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.10.5 and 4.10.6. C. Solid Waste Regulations Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less- than - significant impacts to solid waste regulations. 1. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCHMIo. 2006051034 Page 36 ■ ® SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 jI FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impacts upon solid waste regulations would be less than significant. The Project would be required to comply with City and County waste reduction programs pursuant to the State's Integrated Waste Management Act and Chapter 14.12 of the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Project - generated solid waste would be conveyed to one of several landfills operated or managed by RCWMD. These existing landfills are required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Compliance with federal, state, and local statutes would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the proposed Project and diverted to landfills which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. The Project would comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.10.5 and 4.10.6. 4.3 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO LEVEL OF LESS - THAN - SIGNIFICANT Environmental impacts identified in the RDEIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in this section. 4.3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A. Sensitive Si2ecies impacts Implementation of the proposed Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); however, implementation of the required mitigation would reduce impacts to less - than - significant levels. 1. Mitigation The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measures: MM 4.3 -3 Prior to any mining activities within the EDA, the Project Applicant shall mitigate impacts to 21.4 acres of brittlebush scrub at a ratio of 1.5:1. The mitigation site for brittlebush scrub (a subset of coastal sage scrub) shall support the coastal California gnatcatcher and shall have long -term ecological value based upon patch size and spatial relationship to other natural lands, as determined by the City of Lake Elsinore, CDFW, and /or USFWS. Additionally, the Project Applicant shall mitigate impacts to 2.1 acres of non - native grassland at a 0.5:1 ratio. The mitigation ratios for brittlebush scrub and non - native grassland were selected based on ratios used in many other cities and counties in southern California. The ratios are within the range of ratios established by other jurisdictions and agencies. The 32.1 -acre mitigation requirement for brittlebush scrub and the 1.1 -acre mitigation requirement for non - native grassland shall be met through one or a combination of both of the following two options: Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 37 ■E SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT In Lieu Fee Option: Mitigation can be fully or partially satisfied via an in -lieu fee payment to a mitigation bank pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 1797 - 1799.1, which establishes a system of conservation and mitigation banks in order to provide a means of mitigating impacts to wetlands, endangered /threatened species, and otherwise sensitive resources. The Project Applicant would contribute funds to such a bank that would in turn be used to create; restore, protect, or enhance streambed habitats . The CDFW- approved Soquel Canyon Mitigation Bank that serves Riverside County has coastal sage scrub credits for sale and is one option for this mitigation (CDFW, 2016). Other options also may be available. b. Preservation -of Habitat: Mitigation can be fully or partially satisfied by preservation of suitable habitat. Habitat proposed to be preserved as brittlebush scrub mitigation must meet the general criteria for coastal sage scrub habitat (Holland 1986), support the coastal California gnatcatcher, have long -term ecological value based upon patch size and spatial relationship to other natural lands, and be of high quality. Habitat preserved for nonnative grassland impacts must meet the criteria for non - native grassland habitat (Holland 1986). Non - native grassland impacts also may be mitigated through preservation of coastal sage scrub habitat as it is considered to be a higher quality habitat. The location(s) for habitat preservation shall be approved by the City of Lake Elsinore. MM 4.3 -4 Prior to any mining activities within the +/- 24 -acre EDA, the Project Applicant shall provide a completed Biological Opinion /Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the USFWS to the Director of the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division (or his /her designee). 1lFM 4`3 -5 As required by the Project's Surface Mining Permit and Ame .dhiCht 'No. z to Reclamation Plan No. 2006 -01AI, the removal of habitat, including brittlebush scrub or non - native grassland, in the +/- 24 -acre EDA during the general avian breeding season (February 1 to September 15) shall be prohibited. If vegetation must be removed during this season, the Project Applicant shall direct a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey of potentially suitable nesting vegetation prior to removal. Surveys shall be conducted no more than three (3) days prior to scheduled removals. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish buffers around the vegetation containing the active nest (300 feet for the California gnatcatcher and raptors; 100 feet for other non - raptors). The vegetation containing the active nest shall not be removed, and no clearing or mining activities shall occur within the established buffer, until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). If clearing is not conducted within three days of a negative survey, the nesting survey shall be repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds. The Project Applicant shall maintain records of. a) all new clearing activities that occur during the general avian breeding season; b) the results of all pre- construction nesting surveys; c) mitigation or avoidance measures that were undertaken during the breeding season; and d) areas within the EDA that have been disturbed outside of the general avian breeding season. These records shall be maintained on -site at all times and made available for City inspection upon request. MM 4.3 -6 Prior to any mining activities within the EDA, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence (in the form of a letter from a qualified biologist) to the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division that a qualified biologist has met with the mine operator to explain the Project's biological Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore ,SCH No. 2006051034 Page 38 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT mitigation requirements and techniques to minimize indirect effects. The biologist shall be contracted by the Project Applicant to perform any necessary follow up to ensure that mine personnel are informed and minimizing indirect effects to areas outside of the approved limits of mine disturbance. MM 4.3 -7 Mining activities located more than 500 feet away from the open space area within or east of the EDA can occur without limitations. If between February 15 and August 30 (the breeding season of the coastal California gnatcatcher) mining activities will move within 500 feet of the open space within or east of the EDA, or if mining activities are already occurring within 500 feet of the open space within or east of the EDA and will move closer to the open space within or east of the EDA, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting survey for the coastal California gnatcatcher in the open space area that falls within 500 feet of the planned mining activity. The survey shall be conducted no more than three days before the mining activity moves closer to the open space. If the nesting survey is negative, then mining activities may move closer to the open space within three days of the nesting survey. In the event that a nesting survey is positive, then mining activities shall not be allowed to move within 500 feet of the bird's nest (or any closer to the nest if mining is already occurring within 500 feet) until the nesting period ends (August 30) or until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Areas subject to avoidance shall be marked with orange construction fencing. Compliance with these requirements will be assured through the annual mining inspection "s, as required and reviewed by the Office of Mine Reclamation and Department of Conservation. MM 4.3 -8 Within three days prior to any blasting activities within the proposed EDA from February 15 through August 30, a nestinfy survey for the coastal California gnatcatcher shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 1,250 feet of the blasting site. If any costal California gnatcatcher nests are located within 1,250 feet and within line -of- sight of the blasting site, no blasting shall occur until August 30 or until a qualified biologist has determined that the coastal California gnatcatcher young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. If any active coastal California gnatcatcher nests are located more than 500 feet but not within line -of- -sight of the blasting site, blasting may proceed after verification by the biologist that the nest is not in the line of sight. All vegetation within areas that would be subject to mining during the next coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season (February 15 through August 30) must be cleared outside the nesting season at least 2 weeks prior to blasting and no more than 1 year prior to blasting. MM 4.3 -9 For blasting activities that occur outside the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season (September 1 through February 14), or blasting activities during the nesting season subject to the requirements Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -8, vegetation shall not be present within 75 feet of the charge location (i.e., the location in which the charge is placed) for the blast site. Vegetation within 75 feet must be cleared at least 2 weeks and no more than 1 year prior to blasting. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which can mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 39 No SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 20 FINAL- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that implementation of the proposed Project would directly and indirectly impact sensitive species, and the impact is potentially significant but would be reduced to less- than - significant levels with implementation of the required mitigation. Implementation of the Project would not impact any sensitive plant species. The Project would impact the habitat of the federally - listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and could potentially directly impact the coastal California gnatcatcher during blasting activities by displacing or potentially harming individual gnatcatchcrs in the area subject to blasting. Impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat would be significant. Impacts to other sensitive plant or animal species not identified on -site during biological field surveys would be less than significant based on substantial evidence that the species do not occur on -site. Cumulatively- considerable impacts to nesting raptors may occur if construction occurs within the raptor breeding season (February 1 to September 15), and impacts to 2.1 acre of raptor foraging habitat (non- native grassland) also represent a cumulatively considerable impact. Also, based on the positive gnatcatcher survey results, there is potential for significant indirect noise impact to breeding gnatcatchers that may be .located within the open space areas located east and north of the EDA. Mining operational noise and noise from blasting activities also would indirectly impact coastal California gnatcatchers in areas within the range of a startle response reaction, prior to mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -3 would ensure that the Project's impacts to 21.4 acres of brittlebush scrub, which provides habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, and impacts to 2.1 acres of non - native grassland,'which provides foraging habitat for raptors, are mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -4 would ensure that impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat are addressed through a Biological Opinion with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA. In the case of the proposed Project, the Corps would be required to issue a Section 404 permit pursuant to the federal L oar Water Pict- (CWA), requiring consultation between the Corps and the U'S AV -S, regar6if►g-- planned impacts to critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher and /or for incidental take of this species. Refer to RDEIR Subsection 4.3.2.E.1 for a description of the Section 7 process. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat would be reduced to less- than - significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -5 would ensure that indirect impacts to nesting birds or raptors, including birds protected by the MBTA, are protected during the nesting season (February 15 to September 15). With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's cumulatively considerable impacts to nesting birds and raptors would be less than significant. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -6 would ensure that potential inadvertent impacts to biological resources located outside of the proposed EDA would be precluded through education of construction personnel, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -7 would reduce potential indirect mining operational noise impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher during the nesting season (between February 15 and August 30) to below a level of significant by ensuring an adequate distance is maintained if breeding coastal California gnatcatchers are present. Mitigation Measures MM 4.3 -8 and MM 4.3 -9 also would ensure that blasting activities and noise do not impact the coastal California gnatcatcher during the breeding season, thereby reducing impacts to less - than - significant levels. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.3.4 through 4.3.8. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 40 ■® SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 EDFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT B. Sensitive Natural Community Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS; however, implementation of the required mitigation would reduce impacts to less - than - significant levels. Mitigation The impact will be mitigated to less- than - significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3 -3 through MM 4.3 -9, presented above in Subsection 4.3.1.A. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project could result in significant impacts related to impacting sensitive natural communities that would conflict with provisions of applicable policies, plans, or regulations, but that such impacts would be reduced to less- than - significant levels with implementation of the required mitigation. The Project would result in the loss of 21.4 acres of brittlebush scrub (a subset of coastal sage scrub) and 2.1 acres of non- native grassland. The loss of brittlebush scrub is considered significant on a direct and cumulatively - considerable basis because this vegetation community provides habitat for sensitive wildlife, including the coastal California gnatcatcher. Impacts to 2.1 acres of non - native grassland would be significant on a cumulatively considerable basis because it would cumulatively affect foraging habitat for raptors. Additionally, the clearing of non- native grassland areas in the EDA during the breeding season for MBTA - protected birds and raptors (February 1 to September 15) represents a potential significant direct and cumulatively considerable impact. Implementation of Mitigation- Measure MM 4.3 -3. would ensure that the Project's impacts to 21.4 acres of brittlebush scrub, which provides habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, and impacts to 2.1 acres of non - native grassland, which provides foraging habitat for raptors, are mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -4 would ensure that impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat are addressed through a Biological Opinion with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA. In the case of the proposed Project, the Corps would be required to issue a Section 404 permit pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), requiring consultation between the Corps and the USFWS regarding planned impacts to critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher and /or for incidental take of this species. Refer to RDEIR Subsection 4.3.2.E.I for a description of the Section 7 process. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat would be reduced to less - than - significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -5 would ensure that indirect impacts to nesting birds or raptors, including birds protected by the MBTA, are protected during the nesting season (February 15 to September 15). With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's cumulatively considerable impacts to nesting birds and raptors would be less than significant. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -6 would ensure that potential inadvertent impacts to biological resources located outside of the proposed EDA would be precluded through education of construction personnel, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -7 would reduce potential Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 41 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 NFI FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT indirect mining operational noise impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher during the nesting season (between February 15 and August 30) to below a level of significant by ensuring an adequate distance is maintained if breeding coastal- California gnatcatchers are present. Mitigation Measures MM 4.3 -8 and MM 4.3 -9 also would ensure that blasting activities and noise do not impact the coastal California gnatcatcher during the breeding season, thereby reducing impacts to less - than - significant levels. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.3.4 through 4.3.8. C. Federally rotected Wetlands Im ants Implementation of the proposed Project could have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands As defied by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, but implementation of mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less- than - significant levels. 1. Mitigation The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s): MM 4.3 -1 Prior to any activities affecting jurisdictional waters within the EDA, the Project Applicant shall obtain the necessary authorizations from the Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB for impacts to 0.17 acre of jurisdictional waters. Authorizations,may include a Section 404 Permit from the Corps, Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from' the CDFW, and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. Evidence of all required authorizations shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore. MM 4.3 -2 Prior to anyuk'-Jivities affecting jurisdictional waters within the EDA, the Project shall mitiga.d- impacts to 0.17 acres of jurisdictional waters and 0.05 acre Corps non - wetland Waters of the U.S. at a minimum 1:1 ratio. This mitigation ratio was selected based on ratios used in many other cities and counties in southern California. The minimum 1:1 ratio is within the range of ratios established by other jurisdictions and agencies. The 0.17 acre jurisdictional mitigation requirement shall be met by the Project Applicant through one or a combination of both of the following two options: a. In Lieu Fee Option: Mitigation can be fully.or partially satisfied via an in -lieu fee payment to a mitigation bank pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 1797 - 1799.1, which establishes a system of conservation and mitigation banks in order to provide a means of mitigating impacts to wetlands, endangered /threatened species, and otherwise sensitive resources. The Project Applicant would contribute funds to such a bank that would in turn be used to create, restore, protect, or enhance streambed habitats. The CDFW- approved Soquel Canyon Mitigation Bank that serves Riverside County has jurisdictional water credits for sale and is one option for this mitigation (CDFW, 2016). Other options also may be available. b. ' Habitat Restoration Option or Equivalent: Mitigation can be fully or partially satisfied by creation, restoration, and /or enhancement. The methods and location for this mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the regulatory agencies during the federal and state permitting process. Plant species used for any of these mitigation methods must be locally native (seeds, container, and /or cuttings) and mitigation by any of these methods Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 42 ME SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 O❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT must be accompanied by a three -year mitigation monitoring plan prepared by a professional restoration ecologist. The mitigation monitoring plan is required to identify performance, schedule, monitoring, and maintenance criteria. Mitigation for impacts to State streambeds shall be considered complete only when monitoring is complete and the following success criteria is met: (1) At least 50% of the vegetation present is dominated by locally native species, (2) there is evidence of natural recruitment of multiple locally native species, (3) no more than 15% cover by California Invasive Plant Council (Cal -IPC) List A and B species, and (4) no more than 15% cover by other weedy species. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that Project activities could result in substantial adverse impacts on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Project would impact approximately 0.05 acre of Corps non - wetland Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and 0.17 acre of CDFW streambed. Impacts to this jurisdictional feature would be significant on a direct and cumulatively considerable basis and require permits from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), RWQCB, and the CDFW. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -2 would ensure the Project impacts to 0.05 acre of Corps non - wetland WUS and 0.17 acre of CDFW streambed are mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -1 would ensure that impacts to WUS and CDFW streambed are properly permitted by the Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts to jurisdictional areas would be reduced to less than significar., Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.3.4 through 4.3.8. D. Migrafory Wildlife Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project could interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species within an established resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Mitigation Mitigation Measures MM 4.3 -3, MM 4.3 -5, MM 4.3 -8, and MM 4.3 -9, presented above in Subsection 4.3. LA, would reduce Project impacts to less- than - significant levels. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that impact could result in significant impacts related to the interference of movement of native or migratory species. There is no potential for the Project to interfere with the movement of fish or impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site. The Project has the potential to Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 43 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 01:1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT impact nesting birds protected by federal and State regulations on a cumulatively considerable basis, if clearing of 2.1 acres of non - native grassland were to occur during the nesting season (February 1 to September 15). Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -5 would ensure that impacts to nesting birds or raptors, including birds protected by the MBTA, are protected during the nesting season (February 1 to September 15), thereby reducing impacts_ to less than significant. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -3 would ensure that the Project's cumulatively considerable impacts to raptor foraging habitat are reduced to less- than - significant levels through the mitigation of habitat through payment of in -lieu fees and /or preservation of habitat. Moreover, Mitigation Measures MM 4.3 -8 and MM 4.3 -9 also would ensure that blasting activities and noise do not impact nesting coastal California gnatcatcher during the breeding season. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's cumulatively considerable impacts to non - native grassland habitat that can support nesting birds and raptors would be less than significant, Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.3.4 through 4.3.8. 4.5.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES A. - Arch aeolo gic al Resource Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts on significant archeological resources pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines; however, this impact would be reduced to less- than - significant levels with the implementation of mitigation. 1. Mitigation The impact will be mitigated with implementation oftl following mitigation measure: MM 4.4 -1 If during ground disturbing activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed. Unanticipated cultural resources may include previously unknown sacred sites and items, midden deposits, artifacts, hearths, bedrock outcrops, human remains and other resources, etc. (a cultural resource site is defined as being a feature and /or three or more artifacts in close associated with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to sacred or cultural importance): All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the Applicant, the Project archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative (or other appropriate ethnic /cultural group representative), and the City Archaeologist to discuss the significance of the find. If not already employed by the Project Applicant, a City- approved archaeologist shall be employed by the Project Applicant to assess the value /importance of the cultural resource, attend the meeting described, and continue monitoring of all future site grading activities as necessary. b. The Applicant shall call the City Archaeologist immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting. c. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made with the concurrence of the City Archaeologist, as Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 44 E■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ■0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. Consistent with California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) and Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), avoidance shall be the preferred method of preservation for tribal cultural resources, sacred sites, and archaeological resources, if feasible. d. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made with the concurrence of the City Archaeologist, as to the appropriate mitigation measures. If the Project Applicant, Project archaeologist, and Tribe cannot agree on the significance of, avoidance of, or mitigation for such resources, these issues shall be presented to the Planning Director for determination. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the information submitted by the Tribe, the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe, and the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act regarding tribal cultural and archaeological resources. Notwithstanding any other rights available under law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and /or City Planning Commission. f. The Project Applicant shall waive any and all claims to ownership of Native American ceremonial and cultural artifacts that may be found on the Project site. Upon completion of authorized and mandatory archeological analysis, the Applicant should return said artifacts to the Tribe within a reasonable time period agreed to by the Parties and not to exceed (30) days from the initial recovery of the items. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the, significant effects on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information containing the in Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the project has the potential to destroy an unknown unique archeological resource by disturbing earth in which the resources lie. Disturbance of an archeological resource that is considered significant pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5 would be a significant impact. The Project would not impact any known or suspected prehistoric archaeological resources. No prehistoric archaeological resources have been identified on the Project site or in the surrounding area. However, the potential nonetheless exists for resources to be unearthed during ground disturbing activities. Thus, the Project's potential to physically impact an archeological resource that could be buried beneath the surface represents a significant impact for which mitigation is required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4 -1 would ensure that the Project's potential impacts to previously - unearthed cultural resources are mitigated to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure MM 4.4 -1 would ensure that any cultural resources unearthed during ground disturbing activities would be properly identified and mitigated in consultation with the Archeologist and Native American Tribes. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's impacts to unearthed cultural resources would be less than significant. Reference: RDEIR Subsections 4.4.4 through 4.4.8. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 45 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 NoFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.4 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS - THAN - SIGNIFICANT Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in this Subsection. The applicable environmental issue areas include Air Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, and Transportation /Circulation. 0 4.4.1 AIR QUALITY A. Air Quality Plan Impacts The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to conflicting with, or obstructing, implementation of, the SCAQMD 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). 1. Mitigation The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s): MM 4.2 -1 The Project Applicant shall ensure that all net new Project equipment horsepower hours as summarized in Table 3 -2 of the "Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2006 -001 Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Lake Elsinore," dated July 14, 2016, by Urban Crossroads, shall be California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Certified or better. A list of construction equipment shall be maintained on -site by the Mine operator demonstrating compliance with this requirement, and the list shall be made available tc the, City upon request and during annual reporting for the Mine. MM 4.2 -2 Prior to operation of the asphalt batch plant on -site, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division that a Permit to Operate (PTO) for the asphalt batch plant has been obtained through SCAQMD. The PTO shall specify Best Available Control Technologies (BACT), which may include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, the operation of a natural gas with low NOx burner, consistent with SCAQMD BACT Guidelines for operation of asphalt batch plants (SCAQMD, 2008c, Part D). 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less- than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project could conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and this impact would be significant and unavoidable. - The 2012 SCAQMD AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the Project area, and estimates long -term air quality conditions for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The 2012 AQMP was based on assumptions provided by both CARB and SCAG in the latest available EMFAC model for the most recent motor vehicle and demographics information, respectively. The air quality levels projected in the 2012 AQMP are based on Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 46 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■® FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT several assumptions. For example, the 2012 AQMP has assumed that development associated with general plans, specific plans, residential projects, and wastewater facilities will be constructed in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG in its 2012 RTP. The 2012 AQMP also has assumed that such development projects will implement strategies to reduce emissions generated during the construction and operational phases of development. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 50) Based on the level of regional emissions of VOCs, NOx, and PM2 s that would be generated by the Project, as well as the level of localized emissions of PMio and PM2.5, the Project has the potential to result in a significant impact with respect to AQMP consistency. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 40) Project attributes and features are consistent with and support AQMP air pollution reduction strategies and promote timely attainment of AQMP air quality standards. However, the Project's operational impacts would exceed the SCAQMD localized thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5, and also would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOCs, NOx, and PM2 s. As such, prior to mitigation the Project would not be consistent with the AQMP. Impacts would be significant on a direct and cumulatively- considerable basis. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project's localized emissions of PMio and PM2 5 to below a level of significant. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's regional operational emissions of VOCs and PM2 5 also would be reduced to below a level of significance. However, the required mitigation would not reduce the Project's emissions of NOx to below a level of significance. Although the Project would not exceed the regional growth forecasts, the Project's impacts due to a conflict with the AQMP is a significant direct and cumulatively- considerable impact of the proposed Project that cannot be reduced to a level below significant. References: RDEIF, Subsections 4.2.5 through 4.2.9. B. Air Quality Standards and Violations The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to exceeding a regional air quality standard and contributing to an existing air quality violation (ozone). 1. Mitigation Mitigation Measures MM 4.2 -1 and MM 4.2 -2, provided above in Subsection 4.4.1.A, shall apply and would reduce the Project's level of air quality emissions, although not to below a level of significance. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less- than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to violation of air quality standards and for contributing to an existing air quality violation (ozone). The Project would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOCs, NOx, and PM2 s emissions during Project operation. Emissions of VOCs and NOx would contribute to the regions non - attainment status for ozone, and the Project's emissions of PM2 s would contribute to the region's non - attainment status for particulate matter. As such, Project - related air emissions would violate SCAQMD air Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 47 ■ ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 O❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT quality standards and contribute to the non - attainment of a criteria pollutants (ozone and PM2.5), which is a significant direct and cumulatively considerable impact. With implementation of the required mitigation the Project's peak operational emissions of VOCs and PMio would be reduced to less - than - significant levels. However, the Project's emissions of NOx, an ozone precursor, still would exceed the SCAQMD's Regional Thresholds even with the incorporation of mitigation. NOx emissions would contribute to the region's non - attainment status for ozone. Accordingly, the Project's impacts due to a violation of air quality standards for an ozone precursor (NOx) and a contribution to air quality violations for ozone represent significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project on both a direct and cumulatively - considerable basis for which additional feasible mitigation is not available. References: RDEIR Subsections 4.2.5 through 4.2.9. C. Cumulatively-Considerable Increases of Criteria Pollutants for which the Pro"ect Region is Jon- Attainment The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to a cumulatively - considerable increase of NOx emissions (a precursor to ozone) because the SCAB is considered non - attainment for ozone. Mitigation Mitigation Measures MM 4.2 -1 and MM 4.2 -2, provided above in Subsection 4.4.1.A, shall apply and would reduce the Project's level of air quality emissions, although not to below a level of significance. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less - than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to cumulatively - considerable increases of criteria pollutants for which the region is considered non - attainment (ozone). Pfior to mitigation, the Project would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOCs, NOx, and PM2.5 emissions during Project operation. Emissions of VOCs and NOx would contribute to the regions non - attainment status for ozone, and the Project's emissions of PM2 s would contribute to the region's non - attainment status for particulate matter. As such, Project - related air emissions would violate SCAQMD air quality standards and contribute to the non - attainment of a criteria pollutants (ozone and PM2.5), which is a significant direct and cumulatively considerable impact. With implementation of the required mitigation the Project's peak operational emissions of VOCs and PMIo would be reduced to less - than - significant levels. However, the Project's emissions of NOx, an ozone precursor, still would exceed the SCAQMD's Regional Thresholds even with the incorporation of mitigation. NOx emissions would contribute to the region's non - attainment status for ozone. Accordingly, the Project's emissions of NOx, represents a cumulatively- considerable increase of a criteria pollutant (ozone) for which the region is considered non - attainment, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable on both a direct and cumulatively - considerable basis because additional feasible mitigation is not available. References: RDEIR Subsections 4.2.5 through 4.2.9. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 48 O ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ®❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A. Conflict with Local Policies and Ordinance Impacts The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to non - compliance with City Ordinance 1124 and the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Mitigation There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project's operational impacts. beyond those already incorporated into the Project. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less - than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due conflicts with a local ordinance protecting biological resources. The Project is not subject to the requirements of the MSHCP, and would therefore not be subject to Ordinance 1124 which created a development mitigation fee in accordance with the MSHCP. Project impacts to habitat, sensitive species, and jurisdictional areas would be mitigated to below a level of significance through the implementation of the mitigation measures provided in RDEIR Subsection 4.3.7, which includes a requirement for the Project Applicant to obtain -pl?i'opriate permits directly through the Wildlife Agencies. Permits that may be required include a Section 404 Permit from the Corps, Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement' from the CDFW, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and a Biological Opinion /Incidental Take Permit (BO /ITP) from the USFW S. Thus, the Project would provide direct mitigation for impacts to biological resources on -site and would not rely on the take authority granted by the MSHCP and Ordinance 1124; thus, payment of the fees pursuant to Ordinance 1124 is not required and would not serve to mitigate any of the Project's direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources. Nonetheless, the Project's direct impact due to rion- compliance with City Ordinance 1124 represents a significant and unavoidable direct impact of the proposed Project that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. However, because the vast majority of properties within the City and surrounding areas are subject to Ordinance 1124 or other MSHCP implementing ordinances of other local jurisdictions, and would not conflict with these ordinances; therefore, the Project's non - compliance with Ordinance 1124 and the MSHCP would be less- than - cumulatively considerable. The Project would not conflict with any other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. References: RDEIR Subsections 4.3.4 through 4.3.8. B. Conflict Local Habitat Conservation Plan lmoacts Although the Project would comply with the Chapter 19.04 of the City's Municipal Code with respect to the Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to non - compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 20060510. 34 Page 49 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 NQFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Mitigation The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s): MM 4.3 -10 Prior to any mining activities within the EDA, the Project Applicant shall pay fees pursuant to Chapter 19.04 of the City of Lake Elsinore's Municipal Code for the planned 23.5 -acre impact to SKR habitat that would result from mining in the EDA. Such fees shall be used to support the formation of the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Authority Core Reserves as identified in the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County, California. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less- than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due conflicts with the MSHCP. The Project site is exempt from the Western Riverside County MSHCP due to a Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (SA /MOU) that was executed in 2004 between the County of Riverside and a former property owner. The SA /MOU is included in the administrative record for the proposed Project as "Riverside County, 2004." Notwithstanding the fact that the Project is exempt from the MSHCP, the Project would.r.it irnplemefit the MSHCP conservation goals for MSHCP Cell Group W. As ,uch,ar,d f4 purposes of fully disclosing impacts that may result from the proposed Project, the Project's non - compliance with the MSHCP represents a significant direct impact. The Project Applicant is required to contribute mitigation fees pursuant to the SKR HCP, which would ensure Project consistency with the SKR HCP; accordingly, impacts due to a coi flict with the SKR HCP would be less than significant. Although impacts are less than significant, Mitigation Measure MM 4.3 -10 has been imposed on the Project to ensure the timely payment of fees pursuant to Chapter 19.04 of the City of Lake Elsinore's Municipal Code. The proposed Project is not subject to any additional Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. Therefore, no additional impacts due to a conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan would occur beyond the Project's significant direct impact due to non - compliance with the MSHCP. The Project would result in direct impacts due to non - compliance the MSHCP. Although the Project would mitigate its impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance, the Project's non - compliance with the MSHCP nonetheless represents significant and unavoidable direct impact of the proposed Project that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. However, because the vast majority of properties within the MSHCP area would be required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP and all MSHCP - related requirements, the Project's non - compliance with the MSHCP would be less- than - cumulatively considerable. References: RDEIR Subsections 4.3.4 through 4.3.8. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 50 M■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4.4.3 NOISE A. Noise Level Exposure Impacts CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to the exposure of persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans and municipal codes. Mitigation The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s): MM 4.8 -1 A sign shall be placed at each of the Mine's egress driveways indicating that truck trips are prohibited from turning onto eastbound Nichols Road except during deliveries to areas east of the Mine and /or during emergency conditions. MM 4.8 -2 Noise - generating mining activities in the Expanded Disturbance Area (EDA) shall be prohibited from occurring within 1,820 feet of any occupied residential structure located southeast of the EDA during the nocturnal hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am if a direct line -of- sight exists between the mining activity and the occupied structure(s). Noise generating mining equipment activities shall also be prohibited from occurring within 3,200 feet of any occupied structure located southwest of the Mine; however, aggregate processing and asphalt batch plant operations shall be permitted due to their noise generation being less than significant when no mining equipment is operating concurrently within the 3,200 feet of the nearest residence. If the line -of -site is blocked, noise - generating activities may extend to within 603 feet of occupied residential structures to the southeast between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No buffer is required to homes to the southwest. The line -of -sight is considered "blocked" if bench mining maintains a minimum 15 -foot high headw,�fl between- the noise - generating mining activity and any occupied residential structure. Areas subject to nocturnal activity restrictions shall be identified by markers placed at the 1,820 -foot or 603 foot - distance (depending on whether a line -of -sight exists) in the eastern portion of the Mine, and at the 3,200 -foot distance in the western portion of the Mine, as measured from the nearest residential structure to the southeast or southwest. MM 4.8 -3 When mining operations during the daytime occur in the EDA within-794 feet of any residential structure, the Mining Operator shall provide and maintain a minimum 15 -foot high headwall between noise - generating mining activities in the EDA and off -site residences to the east, whenever physically feasible. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less- than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to increased noise levels exceeding County Noise Ordinance criteria for residential structures located east of El Toro Road and south of Nichols Road during both daytime and nighttime hours when mining activities occur within 794 feet of the residential structures (daytime) where a direct line of sight Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 51 ■o SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 N1_1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT exists, or within between 1,820 or 603 feet (nighttime) of the residential structures depending on whether line of sight exists. Additionally, residences to the southwest of the Mine and located within 3,200 feet of the Mine could be impacted during nighttime hours where a direct line of sight exists and when mining activities are occurring within 3,200 feet of the nearest home. These operational impacts also are cumulatively considerable because the Project's operational noise would combine with background noise levels, such as traffic- related noise. Operational (mining) related noise would be less than significant at the nearest Temescal Canyon High School building and at the nearby gas station. Impacts associated with Project- related traffic would be less than significant on both a direct and cumulatively considerable basis. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.8 -1 and MM 4.8 -2 would reduce the Project's operational - related noise impacts during the extended nocturnal hours (i.e., between 4:00 am and 7:00 am Monday through Friday, and between 7:00 pm and 12:00 am and between 4:00 am and 7:00 am on Saturdays, excluding Federal Holidays) to below a level of significance. However, during daytime operations, nearby residential structures located within 794 feet of mining activities would be periodically exposed to noise levels up to 58 dB Leq (10- min) when line of sight exists, which would exceed Riverside County's daytime noise standard of 50 dBA L50 for uses southeast of the Project site. Although Mitigation Measure MM 4.8 -3 requires the Mining Operator to design mining activities in such a manner as to maintain a minimum 15 -foot high headwall when feasible, which would attenuate noise levels at residential structures to below the County's daytime standard, during the course of mining operations it is likely that there will be periods of time where mining within 794 feet of the nearest residential structure may not be fully shielded, because it is not physically feasible to maintain a 15- foot high headwall while achieving the final site elevations as proposed by RP 2006 -01A2. Accordingly, the Project's daytime operational noise within the southeastern portions of the EDA represent a significant direct and cumulatively - considerable impact for which no additional feasible mitigation is available. (Giroux, 2016a, p. 23) References: RDEIR Subsections 4.8.7 through 4.8.11. B. Permanent Noise Increase Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation Mitigation Measures MM 4.8 -1 through 4.8 -3, provided above in Subsection 4.4.3.A would apply and would serve to reduce the Project's long -term increase in ambient noise levels. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less- than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR. and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to increased noise levels exceeding County Noise Ordinance criteria for residential structures located east of El Toro Road and south of Nichols Road during both daytime and nighttime hours Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 52 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ■CJ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT when mining activities occur within 794 feet of the residential structures (daytime) where a direct line of sight exists, or within between 1,820 or 603 feet (nighttime) of the residential structures depending on whether line of sight exists. Additionally, residences to the southwest of the Mine and located within 3,200 feet of the Mine could be impacted during nighttime hours where a direct line of sight exists and when mining activities are occurring within 3,200 feet of the nearest home. These operational impacts also are cumulatively considerable because the Project's operational noise would combine with background noise levels, such as traffic- related noise. Operational (mining) related noise would be less than significant at the nearest Temescal Canyon High School building and at the nearby gas station. Impacts associated with Project - related traffic would be less than significant on both a direct and cumulatively considerable basis. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.8 -1 and MM 4.8 -2 would reduce the Project's operational - related noise impacts during the extended nocturnal hours (i.e., between 4:00 am and 7:00 am Monday through Friday, and between 7:00 pm and 12:00 am and between 4:00 am and 7:00 am on Saturdays, excluding Federal Holidays) to below a level of significance. However, during daytime operations, nearby residential structures located within 794 feet of mining activities would be periodically exposed to noise levels up to 58 dB Leq (10- min) when line of sight exists, which would exceed Riverside County's daytime noise standard of 50 dBA L50 for uses southeast of the Project site. Although Mitigation Measure MM 4.8 -3 requires the Mining Operator to design mining activities in such a manner as to maintain a minimum 15 -foot high headwall when feasible, which would attenuate noise levels at residential structures to below the County's daytime standard, during the course of mining operations it is likely that there will be periods of time where mining within 794 feet of the nearest residential structure may not be fully shielded, because it is not physically feasible to maintain a 15- foot high headwall while achieving the final site elevations as proposed by RP 2006 -01A2. Accordingly, the Project's daytime operational noise within the southeastern portions of the EDA represent a significant direct and cumulatively- considerable impact due to a permanent noise level increase for which no additional feasible mitigation is available. (Giroux, 2016a, p. 23) References: RDEIR Subsections 4.8.7 through 4.8.11. C. Temporary or Periodic Noise Increase frnpacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation Mitigation Measures MM 4.8 -1 through 4.8 -3, provided above in Subsection 4.4.3.A would apply and would serve to reduce the Project's temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less - than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to increased noise levels exceeding County Noise Ordinance criteria for residential Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 53 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 OF] FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT structures located east of El Toro Road and south of Nichols Road during both daytime and nighttime hours when mining activities occur within 794 feet of the residential structures (daytime) where a direct line of sight exists, or within between 1,820 or 603 feet (nighttime) of the residential structures depending on whether line of sight exists. Additionally, residences to the southwest of the Mine and located within 3,200 feet of the Mine could be impacted during nighttime hours where a direct line of sight exists and when mining activities are occurring within 3,200 feet of the nearest home. These operational impacts also are cumulatively considerable because the Project's operational noise would combine with background noise levels, such as traffic- related noise. Operational (mining) related noise would be less than significant at the nearest Temescal Canyon High School building and at the nearby gas station. Impacts associated with Project - related traffic would be less than significant on both a direct and cumulatively considerable basis. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.8 -1 and MM 4.8 -2 would reduce the Project's operational - related noise impacts during the extended nocturnal hours (i.e., between 4:00 am and 7:00 am Monday through Friday, and between 7:00 pm and 12:00 am and between 4:00 am and 7:00 am on Saturdays, excluding Federal Holidays) to below a level of significance. However, during daytime operations, nearby residential structures located within 794 feet of mining activities would be periodically exposed to noise levels up to 58 dB Leq (10- min) when line of sight exists, which would exceed Riverside County's daytime noise standard of 50 dBA L50 for uses southeast of the Project site. Although Mitigation Measure MM 4.8 -3 requires the Mining Operator to design mining activities in such a manner as to maintain a minimum 15 -foot high headwall when feasible, which would attenuate noise levels at residential structures to below the County's daytime standard, during the course of mining operations it is likely that there will be periods of time where mining within 794 feet of the nearest residential structure may not be fully shielded, because it is not physically feasible to maintain a 15- foot high headwall while achieving .Lie final -site tlevations as proposed by RP 2006 -01A2. Accordingly, the Project's daytime operational noise within the southeastern portions of the EDA represent a significant direct and cumulatively - considerable impact due to a permanent noise level increase for which no additional feasible mitigation is available. (Giroux, 2016a, p. 23) References: RDEIR Subsections 4.8.7 through 4.8.11. 4.4.4 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION A. Conflicts with Applicable Plans Ordinances or Policies Establishing' Measures of Effectiveness for Circulation System Performance The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to several intersections and roadways because it would conflict with applicable level of service standards under existing plus ambient plus project plus cumulative (2016) conditions as well as horizon year (2035) conditions. Mitigation The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s): MM TR -1 Within 60 days of approval of SMP 2015 -01 and the revised Reclamation Plan No. 2006 -01 A2, the Project Applicant shall pay appropriate Development Impact Fees /Traffic Impact Fees at the rates then in effect pursuant to Chapter 16.74.040 of the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 54 ■® SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT MM TR -2 Within 60 days of approval of SMP 2015 -01 and the revised Reclamation Plan No. 2006-01A2, the Project Applicant shall pay applicable Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) fees at the rates then in effect in accordance with Chapter 16.83 of the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less- than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts with addition of Project - related traffic under EAPC (2016) conditions and Horizon Year (2035). The addition of Project - related traffic under EAPC (2016) conditions and Horizon Year (2035) conditions would contribute to intersection operational LOS deficiencies at the intersections of Nichols Road and the I -15 Northbound and Southbound Ramps and also would contribute to a need to signalize these intersections. Although Project traffic at the intersection of Nichols Road at the I -15 Southbound Ramps would be below the threshold at which Caltrans would normally require a traffic impact study, impacts to this intersection are nonetheless considered to be cumulatively considerable. The Project would contribute more than 50 peak hour trips to the 1 -15 Northbound Ramps at Nichols Road during both the AM and PM peak hours, representing a cumulatively - considerable impact. Because the projected LOS deficiencies would occur both with and without the addition of Project traffic, the Project's contributions to the projected LOS deficiencies and need for signalization at the Nichols Road and I -15 Northbound and Southbound Ramps represent cumulatively considerable impacts under both EAPC (2016) and Hc„ izon Year (2035) conditions. The Project would generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips to nearby segments of I -15, which operates at LOS B and C under existing conditions. The Project's contribution of traffic to the I -15 mainline is below the threshold used by Caltrans for determining when a traffic impact study is required (Caltrans, 2002). Nonetheless, and in an effort to provide a conservative estimate of the Project's potential impacts to traffic, the Project would result in cumulatively_ considerable impacts to the following I -15 facilities under Horizon Year (2035) conditions: • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Freeway Segments (LOS F during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound Freeway Segments (LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable freeway off -ramp queuing impact to the I -15 Northbound Off -Ramp at Nichols Road (2,838 ft. queue during the AM peak hour and 3,520 ft. queue during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the 1 -15 Southbound Off- Ramp/Nichols Road Freeway Ramp Junction Merge /Diverge (LOS F during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound On- Ramp/Nichols Road Freeway Ramp Junction Merge /Diverge (LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour); Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 55 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ■D FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TR -1 and MM TR -2 and installation of traffic signals, the LOS for the intersection of the I -4 5 Northbound ramps at Nichols Road would improve from LOS F to LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2016 conditions. Additionally, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TR -1 and MM TR -2, the LOS for the intersection of the I -15 Southbound Ramps at Nichols Road would improve from LOS F to LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2016 conditions. Similarly, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TR -1 and MM TR -2 and installation of traffic signals, the LOS for the intersection of I -15 Northbound ramps at Nichols Road would operate at an acceptable LOS D with implementation of the Project under long -term (Year 2035 conditions). With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TR -1 and MM TR -2, the LOS for the intersection of the I -15 Southbound Ramps at Nichols Road would operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour under long -term (Year 2035) conditions. Thus, with improvements, the Project's cumulatively - considerable impacts to the intersections of the, I -15 Northbound On- and Off -Ramps at Nichols Road and I- 15 Southbound On- and Off -Ramps at Nichols Road under Year 2016 and Year 2035 conditions would be reduced to less - than - significant levels. However, no schedule is prescribed by the TUMF or TIF program for these improvements, and it is not practical to assume that-the improvements would be installed by 2016 (when operations pursuant to SVP 2015- 01 and RP2006 -01A2 are expected to commence). Improvement schedules for these improvements are partially dependent on the pace of new development and associated pace of fee collection that occurs under the TUMF and the TIF. Under CEQA, a fair -share monetary contribution to a mitigation fund is adequate mitigation if the funds are part of a reasonable plan that the relevant agency (in this case WRCOG and the City of Lake Elsinore) is committed to implementing. As such, while the proposed Project can mitigate its cumulatively considerable contribution to these impacts through the payment of fees, the improvements would likely not be in place at their time of need (before the deficiency occurs). As such, the RDEIR recognizes a short -term and unavoidable cumulatively consider.. tale 4mpact.dt these locations, which would occur until the TUMF and TIF improvements are in place. The proposed Project would contribute to, but would not cause, impacts to ,the I -15 Northbound freeway segments (LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour) and the I -15 Southbound freeway segments (LOS F in the PM peak hour) under Horizon Year (2035) conditions. Although the Project's level of traffic affecting these facilities would be below the threshold at which Caltrans normally would require a traffic study, the Project's contribution tb these deficiencies are nonetheless considered cumulatively considerable. Long -range plans by Caltrans for the I -15 Freeway include the construction of two tolled Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to Central Avenue (SR =74), which are improvements that are subject to available funding. Planned improvements to the I -15 Northbound and Southbound mainlines would improve LOS along these freeway segments. With improvements, the 1 -15 Southbound freeway segments would improve to LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour. Additionally, the Northbound freeway segments would improve to LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Thus, while planned Caltrans improvements to these freeway segments would improve the LOS, both the Northbound and Southbound freeway segments would continue to operate at a deficient LOS during at least one peak hour. There is no additional feasible mitigation to reduce these cumulatively - considerable impacts to below a level of significance. Moreover, the timing of Caltrans' improvements is not currently known. Therefore, the EIR recognizes the Project's cumulatively - considerable impacts to the 1 -15 Northbound and Southbound freeway segments as cumulatively - considerable and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project. Project- related traffic would contribute to, but would not directly cause, the defic4nt LOS at the merge /diverge ramp junctions of 1 -15 Northbound Off -Ramp at Nichols Road (LOS E in the AM peak hour) and the 1 -15 Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 56 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■ D FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Southbound On- and Off -Ramps at Nichols Road (LOS E in the PM peak hour) under Horizon Year (2035). Although the Project's level of traffic affecting these facilities would be below the threshold at which Caltrans normally would require a traffic study, the Project's contribution of traffic to these merge /diverge ramp junction under Horizon Year (2035) conditions nonetheless would be cumulatively considerable. Long -range plans by Caltrans for the I -15 Freeway include the construction of two tolled Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to Central Avenue (SR -74), which are improvements that are subject to available funding. As shown in Table 4.9 -31, with construction of the planned improvements, the queuing issues at the I -15 Northbound Off -Ramp at Nichols Road and I -15 Southbound On- and Off -Ramps at Nichols Road would be reduced to acceptable levels. However, it is possible that queuing deficiencies may still be experienced in the interim period prior to the completion of the improvements to I -15. As such, the Project's impacts to the 1 -15 Freeway Northbound Off -Ramp and the I -15 Freeway Southbound On- and Off -Ramps under Horizon Year (203 5) represent a near - term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed Project for which no feasible mitigation is available. Under Horizon Year (2035) conditions, the Project would contribute to, but would not directly cause queuing issues during the weekday peak 95th percentile traffic flows at the I -15 Freeway Northbound and Southbound Freeway Off- Ramps. Although the Project's level of traffic affecting these facilities would be below the threshold at which Caltrans normally would require a traffic study, the Project's contribution to this projected deficiency is evaluated as a cumulatively considerable impact. As noted above, long -range plans by Caltrans for the I -15 Freeway include the construction of two tolled Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to Central Avenue (SR -74), which are improvements that are subject to available funding. As shown in Table 4.9 -32, Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) Conditions with Improvements, even with the planned Express Lanes, the I -15 Northbound and Southbound Off -Ramps at Nichols Road would continue to operate at a deficient LOS during at least one peak hour. As such, the Project's contribution to the I -15 Northbound and Southbound Off -Ramps queuing deficiencies under Horizon Year (2035) conditions represent cumulatively- nons.iderabi 2impacts of the proposed Project for which no feasible mitigation ;a_ayailable..,_ References: RDEIR Subsections 4.9.7 through 4.9.11. B. Congestion Mangaament Plan Facilities Impacts The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) freeway facilities because it would conflict with applicable level of service standards under existing plus ambient plus project plus cumulative (2016) conditions as well as horizon year (2035) conditions. Mitigation Mitigation Measures TR 4.9 -1 and TR 4.9 -2, as described above in Subsection 4:4.4.A, shall apply. 2. Finding /Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed Project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less - than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RDEIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to level of service standards for several CMP facilities. Interstate 15 (I -15) is the only CMP designated facility in the Project area. It should be noted the Project would not contribute more than 50 peak hour trips to any SHS facilities, with exception of the intersection of I -15 Northbound Ramps at Nichols Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 57 M ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 01-1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Road. Because both directions of the I -15 freeway operate at LOS B or C under existing conditions and because the Project would contribute fewer than 50 peak hour trips to the 1 -15, a traffic study for these facilities normally would not be required based on guidance from Caltrans' Guidelines ( Caltrans, 2002). Nonetheless, and in order to provide a conservative analysis of Project - related impacts, the Project's contribution to impacts to I -15- related facilities is considered cumulatively considerable. The Project would contribute to, but would not directly cause, a deficient LOS at the following SHS facilities: EAPC (2016) Conditions: • Cumulatively considerable impact to the (LOS F AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the (LOS F AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact due Ramps/Nichols Road intersection; and • Cumulatively considerable impact due Ramps/Nichols Road intersection. I -15 Northbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection I -15 Southbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection to the need to signalize the I -15 Northbound to the need to signalize the I -15 Southbound Horizon Year (2035) Conditions: • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Freeway Segments (LOS F during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 N(,Ahbourid Freeway Segments (LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable freeway off -ramp queuing impact to the I -15 Northbound Off -Ramp at Nichols Road (2,838 ft. queue during the AM peak hour and 3,520 ft. queue during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Off- Ramp/Nichols Road Freeway Ramp Junction Merge /Diverge (LOS F during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound On- Ramp/Nichols Road Freeway Ramp Junction Merge /Diverge (LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the I -15 Northbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection; and • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the 1 -15 Southbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection. Because the above - listed LOS deficiencies would occur both with and without Project- related traffic, the Project's contribution to the above - listed CMP roadway deficiencies represents cumulatively - considerable impacts of the proposed Project for which no additional feasible mitigation is available. _ References: RDEIR Subsections 4.9.7 through 4.9.11. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 58 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ,,,,,, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.5 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6[a]). According to the State CEQA Guidelines, alternatives should be those that would attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6). The "range of alternatives" is governed by the "rule of reason," which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6[f]). CEQA also requires the feasibility of alternatives be considered. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(0(1) states that among the factors that may be taken into account in determining feasibility are: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans and regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and (when evaluating alternative project locations) whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. Furthermore, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The alternatives addressed in the RDEIR were identified in consideration of the following factors: • The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project; • The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of the proposed project; • The feasibility of the alternative; and • The requirement of :ire Statc CEQA Guidelines to consider a "no project" alternative. - 4.5.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in an EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid or substantially reduce any significant environmental effects (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6[c]). Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, also do not need to be considered (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6[f][3]). As allowed by CEQA, the lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible and warrant further consideration and which are infeasible (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125.6[f][3]). CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternative sites always be included in an EIR. However, if the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternative site then this alternative should be considered and analyzed in the EIR. In making the decision to include or exclude analysis of an alternative site, the "key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR" (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[f][2]). Based on a review of aerial photography, the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Plan Map and a list of approved /pending development proposals within the City of Lake Elsinore and nearby portions of unincorporated Riverside County and the City of Wildomar which are included in the Project's Traffic Impact Analysis ( RDEIR Technical Appendix J; refer to RDEIR Table 4.9 -12 for a list of cumulative developments), Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 59 SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT there are no other available properties under control of the Project Applicant that are designated for surface mining operations and that have the potential for expansion to encompass 24 acres of new mining area. All lands in the Project vicinity that are already being mined are under ownership of other parties and are being mined in accordance with existing vested and /or approved mining operations. If alternative sites located within the Project vicinity not zoned for mining are considered, it is likely that the impacts of such a new mining operation on lands not previously subject to mining activities would result in increased impacts to the environment. This is because there are very few sites that are as close in proximity to regional transportation corridors (such as I -15) as the Project site. Thus, any alternative location would likely result in increased impacts to traffic and related issue areas, such as air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions, as compared to the proposed Project. Furthermore, mining on alternative site locations would result in new physical impacts as compared to the proposed Project because any such site would need to include a site for aggregate processing equipment outside of the proposed mining areas, while the proposed Project would site processing equipment within previously- disturbed areas. Furthermore, it would not be viable to establish a new mining operation on an alternative location that encompasses only 24 acres. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in fewer environmental impacts in the local area than would result from expanded mining activities on other active mines or on undeveloped properties in the Project vicinity. For these reasons, an alternative sites analysis is not required for the proposed Project 4.5.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS Alternatives were selected because they would either reduce Project - related impacts or describe what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future on the Project site,,and were selected for further 19.11 r.lysis reps °senting a reasonable range of alternatives that would be feasible from a develonwaent perspective. These alternatives include: No Project Alternative (NPA): The No Project Alternative (NPA) considers no mining activities within the Expanded Disturbance Area (EDA). Mining would be permitted within the existing approved Nichols Canyon Mine Reclamation Plan limits. This alternative was selected by the Lead Agency for the purpose of conducting a comparative analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed Project to the environmental effects of the No Project Alternative which would leave the EDA in its existing condition. Under existing conditions mining occurs within the existing approved Nichols Canyon Mine Reclamation Plan limits. If the proposed Project were not approved, it is reasonable to expect that the EDA's undeveloped property would remain vacant and no mining would occur within the EDA. Reduced Expanded ll sturbance Area (REDA) Alternative: The Reduced Expanded Disturbance Area (REDA) Alternative, as depicted on RDEIR Figure 6 -1, Reduced Expanded Disturbance Alternative, considers a reduction in the proposed EDA from approximately 24 acres under the proposed Project to approximately 17 acres. All other components of the REDA would be the same as described for the proposed Project in RDEIR Section 3.0, Project Description. This alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to consider an alternative that would reduce to a level below significant the Project's daytime operational noise impacts to sensitive noise receptors (i.e., residential uses southeast of the EDA) that are located within 794 feet of mining operations (i.e., eight homes located east of Dexter Avenue and south of Nichols Road that would be exposed to daytime mining - related noise levels exceeding 55 dB Leq (10 -min) under the proposed Project). Additionally, this alternative also would reduce the Project's impacts to biological resources, but would not avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impact due to a conflict Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 60 ■ ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT with the MSCHP. Nonetheless, because this alternative would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts due to daytime operational noise, and would reduce impacts to biological resources, this alternative has been selected as the "Environmentally Superior Alternative" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15123.6(e)(2). • Reduced Traffic Alternative (RTA): Under near -term cumulative (Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative [EAPC] 2016) conditions and Horizon Year (2035) conditions, the Project would contribute more than 25 peak hour trips to the intersection of Nichols Road at I -15 Northbound On- and Off -Ramps and the intersection of Nichols Road at I -15 Southbound On- and Off - Ramps. Project- related traffic would therefore contribute to the need for improvements to these intersections under near -term conditions, and to the need for freeway improvements under long -term (2035) conditions to address freeway mainline segment, freeway merge /diverge, and queuing issues. While improvements are currently planned by Caltrans, the TUMF program, and /or the City's TIF program, the improvements would likely not be in place at their time of need (before the deficiency occurs). The Project Applicant has no control over the pace of Caltrans, TUMF, or TIF improvements. Thus, the only viable alternative that would reduce the Project's cumulatively considerable traffic impacts would be to reduce the maximum allowed daily tonnage such that the proposed Project would contribute less traffic to the I -15 Northbound On- and Off -Ramps at Nichols Road and the I -15 Southbound On- and Off -Ramps at Nichols Road. Accordingly, the Reduced Traffic Alternative (RTA) considers a reduction in maximum daily tonnage at the Mine from 5,000 tons per day (tpd) to 4,250 tpd, with approximately 1,490 tpd attributable to the proposed Project and 2,760,tpd attributable to baseline operational conditions. Using the values presented in RDEIR Table 4.9 -11, 1,490 tpd would result in approximately 361 average daily trips (ADT), with 55 AM peak hour trips and 45 trips during the PM peak hour. Due to the restriction in tpd, it is expected that this alternative may take longer to achieve the final grades as specified by RP 2006 -01A2 due to the reduction in daily maximum operating capacity at the Mine. All other components of the RTA would be identical to the proposed Project. This alternative was selected to eliminate the Project's near -term EAPC (2016) cumulatively considerable impacts to transportation and traffic, and reduce the Project's Horizon Year (2030) cumulatively considerable impacts to transportation and traffic, which also would reduce the Project's daily emissions of air quality pollutants and traffic - related noise. 4.5.3 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE A. Description The No Project Alternative (NPA) allows decision - makers to compare the environmental impacts of approving the proposed Project to the environmental impacts that would occur if the Mine were to continue operating under approved Reclamation Plan RP 2006 -01A1. Under this alterative, no mining would occur within the EDA. Under RP 2006 -01AI, approximately 116 acres of the Mine are currently subject to mining and reclamation activities and would continue to be mined until the final grades established by RP 2006 -01AI are achieved on -site. Under this alternative, there would be no change in the Mine's annual tonnage limit of 4,000,000 tons per year (tpy), and mining, asphalt batch plant, processing, aggregate export activities on -site would continue to be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Holidays) and between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (Saturdays only), and export of asphalt would continue to be allowed 24 hours per day. For purposes of analysis herein, it is assumed that under the No Project Alternative a maximum of 3,248 tons per day (tpd) would be mined (as 1,752 tpd are assumed by this EIR to be attributable to SMP 2015 -01A2 out of a maximum daily production average of 5,000 tpd). Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 61 ■o SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT B. Summa of Ma'or Environmental Effects Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in no new physical environmental impacts. Impacts to the following issue areas would be reduced under the NPA in relation to the proposed Project: aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; greenhouse gases; noise (daytime); and traffic and transportation. Impacts to cultural resources and geology /soils would be similar under the proposed Project and the NPA. Impacts to hydrology /water quality, noise (nighttime), and utilities /service systems would increase under the NPA in relation to the proposed Project, primarily because the Project would reduce water usage on -site as compared to the NPA. Because the NPA would avoid many of the Project's significant impacts (including the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to noise and traffic /transportation), it warrants consideration as the "environmentally superior alternative." However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2), if a no project alternative is identified as the "environmentally superior alternative" then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Reduced Expanded Disturbance Alternative, as described in RDEIR Subsection 6.3.2, is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. C. Feasibility Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in the continuation of existing permitted mining activities at the site. Although this alternative would not eliminate all of the Project's impacts to the environment, implementation of the No Project Alternative would be feasible. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project's objectives; as such, the No Project Alternative is not a viable alternative under CEQA, although it is presented in the RDEIR for disclosure purposes, as required by CEQA. D. Comparative Merits The No Project Alternative would fail to meet most of the Project's objectives. This alternative would fail to increase the available high - quality aggregate reserves available within the local area in order to help meet the regional demand for aggregate material. This alternative would not allow for an expansion of operating hours, and would therefore lead to less efficient operations, at the Mine as compared to the proposed Project. The NPA also would continue to allow for the export of up to 4,000,000 tpy, as compared to the 856,560 tpy that would occur under the Project. Furthermore, this alternative would not maximize the use of aggregate reserves and create the most usable space from the Mine's disturbance. This alternative would fail to establish updated standards for operational mining activities at the Nichols Canyon Mine site in a manner that complies with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and requirements. Moreover, selection of the No Project Alternative, while preventing mining within the EDA, would not reduce demand for aggregate materials in Riverside County and the southern California region. Therefore, the Project's impacts would likely be displaced to another property and not avoided by selection of this alternative. 4.5.4 REDUCED EXPANDED DISTURBANCE AREA (REDA) ALTERNATIVE A. Description As depicted on RDEIR Figure 6 -1, the Reduced Expanded Disturbance Area Alternative (REDA) considers a reduction in the limits of the EDA from 24 acres under the proposed Project to 17 acres under the REDA. This alternative was selected for consideration by the Lead Agency (Lake Elsinore) because it would completely avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impact due to daytime mining - related noise within the EDA impacting existing residences located within 794 feet of the EDA. This alternative also would reduce impacts Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 62 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT to biological resources (jurisdictional areas and sensitive habitat), but would not avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impact due to a conflict with the MSHCP conservation goals for the site. All other components of the REDA, including daily and annual tonnage estimates /limits and hours of operation, would be identical to the proposed Project described in RDEIR Section 3.0, Project Description. B. Environmental Analysis Aesthetics No unique or scenic vistas would be impacted by the Project or the REDA, as the Project site does not contain any scenic vistas, nor does it offer unique views of any visually prominent features. Thus, impacts to scenic vistas and unique views, and resource visible from a designated scenic highway corridor would be similar to the Project's less- than - significant impacts. Impacts to the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surrounding areas would be less than significant under both the REDA and proposed Project, but would be slightly reduced under the REDA. Both the proposed Project and the REDA would include the expansion of mining hours. Although no new lighting elements would be introduced to the Project site, the increased hours of operation would extend the length of time lighting is used on -site. As discussed in RDEIR Section 4. 1, impacts due to lighting would be less than significant under the proposed Project and the REDA, and would be similar. 2. Air Quality Under the REDA, daily emissions of criteria pollutants would be the same as the proposed Project as the reduction in areas subject to mining activities would not affect daily mining quantities. As with the proposed Project, the REDA would be consistent with the growth forecast assumptions for the site; however, NOx emissions associated with the REDA would exceed she SCAQMI D Regional Threshold even after the incorporation of mitigation. NOx is a precursor for ozone, a pollutant for which the region is considered non - attainment by both Federal and State standards. Therefore, both the REDA and the proposed Project would conflict with the 2012 AQMP, and this represents a significant and unavoidable impact for which additional mitigation is not available. With mitigation for VOCs and PMIo emissions, the proposed Project and REDA would not exceed the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds of significance for VOCs and P-Mio. Under the REDA, total daily mining - related emissions from the Project site would be identical to the proposed Project. Thus, and as with the proposed Project, impacts due to the emissions 'of NOx would be significant and unavoidable under the proposed Project and REDA even after the incorporation of mitigation. There is no potential for the Project or the REDA to contribute to impacts associated with CO "Hot Spots," as there are no intersections within the Project site's vicinity that experience the levels of traffic needed to form a CO "Hot Spot." Furthermore, impacts due to odors under both the REDA and the proposed Project would be similar and would be less than significant. 3. Biological Resources Under the REDA, the Project's 24 -acre Expanded Disturbance Area (EDA) would be reduced to 17 acres. As such, this alternative would reduce the Project's significant but mitigable impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher and nesting birds and raptors protected by the MBTA. Additionally, the Project's impacts to 21.4 acres of brittlebush scrub and 2.1 acres of non - native grassland habitat would be reduced to 15.5 acres of Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 63 ■ o SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 soFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT brittlebush scrub and 1.5 acres of non- native grassland habitat. Although direct and indirect impacts to sensitive animal species and sensitive habitats would be reduced to less - than - significant levels through mitigation under both the proposed Project and REDA, impacts (and required mitigation) would nonetheless be reduced under the REDA due to the reduction of the EDA by seven acres. Although there is no riparian habitat on -site, implementation of the proposed Project would result in direct impacts to 21.4 acres of brittlebush scrub and 2.1 acres of non - native grassland, which provide habitat for sensitive animal species (i.e., coastal California gnatcatcher and MBTA - protected birds and raptors). Under the REDA, these impacts would be reduced to 15.5 acres of brittlebush scrub and 1.5 acres of non - native grassland habitat. Although both the Project and the REDA would require mitigation to reduce these impacts to less- than - significant levels, impacts (and required mitigation) would nonetheless be reduced under the REDA due to the reduction of the EDA by seven acres. The proposed Project would impact approximately 0.05 acre of Corps non - wetland Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and 0.17 acre of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambed. Under the REDA, impacts to 0.05 acre of Corps non - wetland WUS would be the same, although the REDA would affect only approximately 1,327 linear feet of Corps non - wetland WUS as compared to 1,627 linear feet under the proposed Project. Additionally, impacts to CDFW jurisdictional features (streambed) would be reduced to 0.15 acre, and would include of 1,327 linear feet of CDFW streambed, which is a reduction from the 1,627 linear feet that would be impacted by the proposed Project. Although impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significant under both the proposed Project and the REDA, impacts under the REDA would nonetheless be reduced under the REDA due to the reduction of the EDA by approximately seven acres. Neither the proposed Project nor the REDA have the potential to result in impacts to any native resident or migratory fish, established wildlife corridor, or native wildlife nursery sites. However, both the proposed Project and the REDA have the potential to impact native, migratory, and nesting birds protected by the MBTA that may exist within the EDA. Although mitigation would reduce impacts to below significant under the proposed Project and REDA, impacts would nonetheless be reduced under the REDA due to the reduction of the EDA by seven acres. Under the REDA, the site still would not be subject to the MSHCP, and payment of fees pursuant to Ordinance 1124 would not be required for the REDA. As with the Project, the REDA would be required to implement direct mitigation and obtain permits from the Wildlife Agencies to reduce impacts to below a level of significant. Nonetheless, the non - payment of fees pursuant to Ordinance 1124 under the Project and the REDA represent significant and unavoidable impacts, and such impacts would be similar under both the Project and the REDA. Both the REDA and the proposed Project would be required to contribute fees pursuant to Chapter 19.04 of the City's Municipal Code in order to ensure compliance with the SKR HCP. Thus, no impact due to a conflict with the SKR HCP would occur under the proposed Project or REDA. Both the Project and the REDA would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to non - compliance with the MSHCP's conservation objectives for the site. However, impacts would be slightly reduced under the REDA due to the reduction by seven acres of areas within the EDA that would be subject to mining activities. 4. Cultural Resources There are no historical resources as defined in § 15064.5 within the Nichols Canyon Mine site. Thus, there would be no impacts to historical resources under the proposed Project or the REDA, and impacts would be similar. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 64 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT No archeological resources meeting the definition of § 15064.5 within the Nichols Canyon Mine site, and none are expected within the areas already disturbed by mining activities or the EDA. However, the potential nonetheless exists for resources to be unearthed during ground disturbing activities, which would require mitigation under both the proposed Project and REDA. Accordingly, a less - than - significant impact to archaeological resources would occur under the REDA or the proposed Project, though impacts under the REDA would be slightly reduced due to the reduction in area subject to mining activities by seven acres. According to GPU EIR Figure 3.2 -3, the Nichols Canyon Mine has a "low" and "undetermined" potential for paleontological resources to be uncovered (City of Lake Elsinore, 2011b, Figure 3.2 -3). Accordingly, impacts to paleontological resources would not occur under the proposed Project or REDA, and impacts would be similar. Mining activities under the REDA and the proposed Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code, § 7050.5 "Disturbance of Human Remains," which would ensure that any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American descent, would be less than significant. Accordingly, impacts to human remains would be less than significant under both the proposed Project and the NPA, and such impacts would be similar. 5. Geology and Soils Although the REDA proposes mining over seven fewer acres than would occur under the proposed Project, risks associated with seismic hazards, earthquake faults, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic - related ground failure (including liquefaction) and landslides would be similar under both the proposed Project and the REDA and would be less than significant. Under the REDA and proposed Project, dust control would be required on all disturbed portions of the Mine and all runoff from areas subject to mining activities would be conveyed to sedimentation basins on -site under interim conditions, and would not allow for any runoff. Likewise, under both the Project and the RDDA, upon final reclamation the site runoff would be directed towards detention basins to control erosion. Therefore, under both the Project and the REDA, impacts due to erosion would be similar and less than significant. Impacts due to on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be similar under the proposed Project and the REDA and would be less than significant. Due to the nature of the proposed activity under both the proposed Project and REDA (i.e., surface mining), a less- than - significant impact associated with expansive soil would occur because soils would be removed during mining activities. Any future use of the Project site for other land uses would require environmental review and a separate analysis regarding potential impacts from expansive soils. Thus, the Project and REDA would have a less -than- significant impact in this regard, and impacts would be similar. The Project and REDA do not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Both the Project and the REDA would utilize portable toilets, as is the case with the existing mining operation. Accordingly, no impact associated with septic tanks or alternative waste water systems would occur under either the Project or the NPA, and impacts would be similar. 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions As indicated in RDEIR Subsection 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, net new Project- related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. Because daily and annual operational characteristics of the REDA would be identical to the proposed Project, the REDA also would result in similar less- than - significant GHG impacts. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 65 ®■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 O❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the analysis of Threshold b. in RDEIR Subsection 4.6.5, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. It can be reasoned that the REDA similarly would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, based on the discussion in RDEIR Subsection 4.6.5. Accordingly, impacts due to a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases would be similar under both the proposed Project and the REDA, and impacts would be less than significant. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality 0 Because the Project and REDA would comply with mandatory SWPPP requirements and all runoff from actively mined portions of the Mine would be retained on -site during ongoing mining activities and would not affect any downstream properties or facilities, impacts would be less than significant and would be similar. Due to the rocky nature of the Mine, the potential for sedimentation is considered low, and the proposed sedimentation basins for both the REDA and the proposed Project have been designed in accordance with Santa Ana RWQCB requirements to ensure runoff from the Mine does not result in any new violations or water quality objectives. (Bonadiman, 2016, p. 16) As such, impacts would be less than significant under both the REDA and the proposed Project, and impacts would be similar. Neither the proposed Project nor the REDA would directly result in the depletion of groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge, as the Project site would remain undeveloped with pervious surfaces that would allow for infiltration of runoff at the site. As with the proposed Project, water usage at the site would be reduced by 46.99% as compared to what occurs under historic baseline conditions. Thus, the REDA would have similar less - than - significant impacts to groundwater levels. „, Interim and ultimate drainage patterns associated with both the proposed Project and the REDA would be similar, and all runoff from the slopes within the EDA would ultimately be conveyed west towards Stove Pipe Creek. Accordingly, impacts due to changes to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area would be less than significant under both the proposed Project and REDA, and would be similar. The Project and REDA would result in similar less- than - significant impacts associated with an increase in the rate of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site. With mandatory compliance with the existing or revised SWPPP, the proposed Project and REDA would not create or contribute substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Thus, impacts would be less than significant under both the Project and REDA, and impacts would be similar. There are no other conditions associated with the proposed Project or REDA that could result in the substantial degradation of water quality beyond what is discussed above and in RDEIR Subsection 4.7. Accordingly, reclamation under the proposed Project and REDA would result in a reduction of flow rates and neither the Project nor the REDA would require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, beyond construction of the sedimentation basin in the Nichols South site and the proposed post - reclamation sedimentation basins. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and would be similar under the REDA and proposed Project. The areas proposed for mining at the Nichols Canyon Mine under both the proposed Project and REDA are not located within a 100 -year flood plain; thus, neither the Project nor the REDA would place housing or structures in a floodplain. Impacts would not occur and would be similar under the REDA and the proposed Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 66 ■n SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Project. According to Figure 10, Flood Hazards, of the Riverside County General Plan's Elsinore Area Plan, the Nichols Canyon Mine is not located within a dam hazard zone related to the Railroad Canyon Dam or any other dam hazard zone. As depicted on RDEIR Figure 3 -2, Vicinity Map, the Nichols Canyon Mine is located approximately 2.0 miles north of the levee that is present in association with Lake Elsinore. The Project and REDA would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Impacts would be less than significant and would be similar under both the Project and the REDA. Neither the Project nor the REDA would be subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No Impact would occur under either the REDA or proposed Project, and impacts would be similar. 8. Noise Under the REDA and consistent with the existing mining operation, areas subject to mining in the Nichols South site would occur as close as 472 feet from the nearest residential home and would expose nearby residences to noise levels exceeding the County's standard; nonetheless, because no new mining activities would be authorized within 794 feet of the nearest residential structure under the REDA, the Project's significant and unavoidable daytime noise impact would be avoided under the REDA. Nighttime operational noise impacts under the proposed Project and REDA would be reduced to less-than- significant levels, and impacts would be similar. Thus, both he proposed Project and REDA would result in an increase in 425 passenger car equivalents (PCEs). For the reasons discussed in EIR Subsection 4.8, Noise, transportation- related noise would be less than significant under the REDA and proposed Project, and impacts would be similar. Impacts due to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise would be reduced under the REDA, although impacts would be less than significant under both the proposed Project.and the REDA. Neither -the proposed Project nor the REDA would be impacted by noise related to airport or private airport operations. Impacts would not occur under the Project and REDA and would be similar. 9. Transportation and Circulation Under the REDA, daily operational characteristics would be identical to the proposed Project. Thus, both the REDA and the proposed Project would result in the generation of 425 new PCE trips from the site. Although the Project and REDA would generate trips at a level that would not normally require a traffic study based on Caltrans' criteria, cumulatively considerable and unavoidable impacts would nonetheless occur to the following facilities under the REDA: EAPC (2016) Conditions: o Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the intersection (LOS F AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the Ramps/Nichols Road intersection; and • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the Ramps/Nichols Road intersection. Horizon Year (2035) Conditions: I -15 Southbound Ramp/Nichols Road need to signalize the I -15 Northbound need to signalize the I -15 Southbound Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 67 NN SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT • Cumulatively considerable'o impact to the I -15 Northbound Ramp /Nichols Road intersection (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the 1 -15 Southbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Freeway Segments (LOS F during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound Freeway Segments (LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable freeway off -ramp queuing impact to the I -15 Northbound Off - Ramp at Nichols Road (2,838 ft. queue during the AM peak hour and 3,520 ft. queue during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the 1 -15 Southbound Off- Ramp/Nichols Road Freeway Ramp Junction Merge /Diverge (LOS F during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound On- Ramp/Nichols Road Freeway Ramp Junction Merge /Diverge (LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the I -15 Northbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection; and • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the I -15 Southbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection. 0. The above - listed impacts also affect I -15, a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) designated facility. Thus, impacts due to a conflict with a level of service standarc establi3heaby the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways would be similar under the proposed Project and the REDA, and impacts would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. Neither the proposed Project nor the REDA would result in impacts due to a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, and impacts would be similar under both the REDA and proposed Project. Neither the proposed Project nor the REDA would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Impacts under both the proposed Project and NPA would be similar, and would be less than significant. Neither the proposed Project nor the REDA would result in inadequate emergency access. No impacts would occur under the proposed Project or the REDA, and impacts would be similar. The proposed Project and the REDA would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities). Accordingly, impacts under both the NPA and proposed Project would be less than significant and would be similar. 10. Utilities and Service Systems Implementation of the proposed Project or REDA would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and would be identical under the REDA and proposed Project. Impacts due to the need for construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects would not occur under either the REDA or the proposed Project, and impacts would be similar. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 68 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ■D FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Total water usage on -site would decrease under the proposed Project as compared to baseline conditions, and because the EVMWD has sufficient supplies through 2035, including during dry and multiple -dry years, the REDA's impacts to water supplies would be less than significant and similar to the proposed Project. The proposed Project and REDA have no potential to result in the construction of new or expanded water treatment facilities, and no impact would occur. Neither the Project nor REDA utilize EVMWD's sewer system and there are no components of the Project or REDA that would cause or contribute to deficient wastewater treatment capacity; therefore, no impact would occur under either the proposed Project or REDA, and impacts would be similar. The Project and REDA both would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Mine's solid waste, and because the Project's and the REDA's incremental increase in solid waste generation would be negligible, impacts would be less than significant and would be similar. The Project and REDA would comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts would be less than significant and would be similar under both the Project and REDA. The proposed Project and REDA would involve the continuation and expansion of an existing mining operation, and would not result in a substantial increase in daily operational characteristics at the site. All utilities needed to serve the Nichols Canyon Mine are currently in place. Accordingly, no impact would occur under either the Project or the RDA, and impacts would be similar. C. Summa of Major Environmental Effects Implementation of the Reduced Expanded Disturbance Area would result in a reduction in areas subject to physical impacts by the Project from approximately 24 acres to 17 acres. All other characteristics of the REDA would be identical t�f the proposed Project. Impacts to the following issue areas would be red Lice"- the REDA in relation to the proposed Project: aesthetics; biological resources; cultural resources; and noise. However, the Project's significant and unavoidable biological resources impact due to a conflict with the MSHCP and Ordinance 1124 would still occur under the REDA, although the impact would be slightly reduced due to the reduction in areas subject to mining under the REDA. All other impacts would be the same under the REDA and the proposed Project. D. Feasibility Although this alternative would be less effective at meeting the Project's objectives, the REDA nonetheless would be a feasible alternative to the proposed Project. Adoption of the REDA would, however, reduce the long -term availability of aggregate resources within the region. E. Comparative ,Merits The REDA would meet all of the Project's objectives although it would meet two objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed Project. The REDA would increase the available high - quality aggregate reserves available within the local area, although by seven fewer acres than the proposed Project. Additionally, the REDA would be less effective at making the most usable space from the Mine's disturbance limits. The REDA would meet the Project's remaining objectives. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 69 ■ N SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■ ❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 4.5.5 REDUCED TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVE (RTA) A. Description The Reduced Traffic Alternative (RTA) considers implementation of the Project as proposed, but with a restriction on daily tonnage from the mine from 5,000 tpd under the proposed Project to 4,250 tpd, of which 1,490 tpd would be attributable to the RTA and 2,760 tpd attributable to existing baseline operations. Using the values presented in RDEIR Table 4.9 -11, 1,490 tpd would result in approximately 361 average daily trips (ADT), with 55 AM peak hour trips and 45 trips during the PM peak hour. Due to the restriction in tpd, it is expected that this alternative would take longer to achieve the final grades as specified by RP 2006 -01A2 due to the reduction in peak daily production limits. Under the RTA, the proposed increase in daily operations over baseline conditions would produce fewer than 25 peak hour trips at all study area intersections, and daily and peak hour traffic would be reduced by 15 %. All other components of the RTA would be identical to the proposed Project. This alternative was selected to reduce the Project's cumulatively considerable impacts to transportation and traffic, which also would reduce the Project's daily emissions of air quality pollutants and traffic - related noise. B. Environmental Analysis Aesthetics Impacts to scenic vistas and unique views would be similar to the Project's less- than - significant impact to scenic vistas. Impacts to resources visible from a designated scenic highway corridor would be similar to the Project's less- than - significant impacts. Areas planned for mining disturbance would be identical under the RTA and the proposed Project. Thus, impacts due to the degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surrounding areas would be identical under the RTA in comparison to the Project, and in both cases impacts would be less than significant. Neither the Project nor -he RTA proposes any new lighting elements on -site. Thus, impacts due to light and glare would identical under the RTA and the proposed Project, and such impacts would be less than significant. 2. Air Quality Reduction in the amount of traffic and daily operations at the site under the RTA would result in a reduction in air quality pollutants by roughly 15 %. Under the RTA, this would reduce maximum daily emissions of NOx to approximately 60.57 pounds per day after mitigation, which still would exceed the SCAQMD Regional Threshold of 55 pounds per day. Thus, and similar to the proposed Project, the RTA still would result in a significant unavoidable conflict with the SCAQMD 2012 AQMP, although the impact would be reduced due to the reduced amount of daily emissions under the RTA. Thus, the RTA would result in reduced impacts due to NOx emissions and violations of air quality standards as compared to the proposed Project, although both the proposed Project and the RTA would result in significant and unavoidable impacts because NOx emissions still would exceed the SCAQMD Regional Threshold even after the incorporation of mitigation measures. Due to the reduction in the average tons per day associated with the RTA, impacts associated with DPM emissions (and associated cancer and non - cancer risks) would be reduced under the RTA as compared to the proposed Project, although impacts would be less than significant under both scenarios. Impacts due to odors under both the RTA and the proposed Project would be similar and would be less than significant. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 70 ■ ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 on FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. Biological Resources CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Under the RTA, the Expanded Disturbance Area (EDA) would be identical to the Project. The RTA would have impacts that are identical to- the Project's direct and indirect impacts to sensitive animal species and sensitive habitats. With mitigation, impacts would be reduced to less- than - significant levels. Although there is no riparian habitat on -site, implementation of the proposed Project and RTA would result in direct impacts to 21.4 acres of brittlebush scrub and 2.1 acres of non - native grassland, which provide habitat for sensitive animal species (i.e., coastal California gnatcatcher and MBTA - protected birds and raptors). These impacts would be reduced to less- than - significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation, and following mitigation impacts would be identical under the proposed Project and the RTA. The proposed Project and the RTA would impact approximately 0.05 acre of Corps non - wetland WUS and 0.17 acre of CDFW streambed. Mitigation would be required under both the Project and the RTA to reduce these impacts to less - than - significant levels. The proposed Project and the RTA both have the potential to impact native, migratory, and nesting birds protected by the MBTA that may exist within the EDA. These potential impacts would be identical under the Project and the RTA. The Project is not subject to the requirements of the MSHCP, and would therefore not be subject to Ordinance 1124, which created a development mitigation fee in accordance with the MSHCP. The non - payment of fees pursuant to Ordinance 1124 under the Project and the RTA represent significant and unavoidable impacts, and such impacts would be similar under both the Project and the RTA. Both the RTA and the proposed Project would be required to contribute fees pursuant to Chapter 19.04 of the City's Municipal Code in order to ensure compliance with the SKR HCP. Thus, no impact due to a conflict with the SKR HCP would occur under the proposed Project or RTA. Both the Project and the RTA would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to non - compliance with the MSHCP's conservation objectives for the site. Impacts would be identical to the proposed Project because areas subject to mining activities would be identical under the Project and RTA. 4. Cultural Resources There would be no impacts to historical resources under the proposed Project or the RTA, and impacts would be similar. A less- than - significant impact to archaeological resources would occur under the RTA and the proposed Project, and impacts would be similar. According to GPU EIR Figure 3.2 -3, the Nichols Canyon Mine has a "low" and "undetermined" potential for paleontological resources to be uncovered (City of Lake Elsinore, 2011b, Figure 3.2 -3). Accordingly, impacts to paleontological resources would not occur under the proposed Project or RTA, and impacts would be similar. The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. Impacts to human remains would be less than significant under both the proposed Project and the RTA, and such impacts would be similar. 5. Geology and Soils There are no known active or potentially active faults on the Mine site. Risks associated with seismic hazards, earthquake faults, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic - related ground failure (including liquefaction) and landslides would be similar under both the proposed Project and the RTA and would be less than significant. Under both the Project and the RTA, impacts due to erosion would be similar and less than significant. Impacts due to on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be similar under the proposed Project and the RTA and would be less than significant. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 71 ■ ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Due to the nature of the proposed activity under both the proposed Project and RTA (i.e., surface mining), a less- than - significant impact associated with expansive soil would occur because soils would be removed during mining activities. Any future use of the Project site for other land uses would require environmental review and a separate analysis regarding potential impacts from expansive soils. Thus, the Project and RTA would have a less - than - significant impact in this regard, and impacts would be similar. The Project and RTA do not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. No impact associated with septic tanks or alternative waste water systems would occur under either the Project or the RTA, and impacts would be similar. 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the RTA the daily maximum tonnage, and thus, the daily GHG emissions would be reduced, it can reasonably be concluded that the annual tonnage under the RTA would be identical to the proposed Project. Thus, the RTA also would result in less- than - significant impacts due to GHG emissions, and impacts would be similar under the RTA and proposed Project on an annual basis. The RTA would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Accordingly, impacts due to a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases would be similar under both the proposed Project and the RTA, and impacts would be less than significant. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality The Project and RTA would comply with mandatory SWPPP requirements and all runoff from actively mined portions of the Mine would be retained on -site during ongoing mining activities and would not affect any downstream properties or facilities, impacts would be less than significant and would be similar. Due to the rocky -i.atutve of the-Mine, the potential for sedimentation is considered low, and the proposed sedimentation basins for both the RTA and the proposed Project have been designed in accordance with Santa Ana RWQCB requirements to ensure runoff from the Mine does not result in any new violations or water quality objectives, and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the RTA would result in similar impacts to groundwater levels as compared to the proposed Project, and in both cases impacts would be less than significant. There are no other conditions associated with the proposed Project or RTA that could result in the substantial degradation of water quality beyond what is discussed above and in Subsection 4.7. Implementation of the proposed Project and the RTA would result in mining within the 24 -acre EDA; however, such mining activities would not substantially change the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, because all runoff from the slopes within the EDA would ultimately be conveyed west towards Stove Pipe Creek. Accordingly, impacts due to changes to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area would be less than significant under both the proposed Project and RTA, and would be similar. The Project and RTA would result in less- than - significant impacts associated with an increase in the rate of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site. Thus, impacts would be less than significant under both the Project and RTA, and would be similar. With mandatory compliance with the existing or revised SWPPP, the proposed Project and RTA would not create or contribute substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Thus, impacts would be less than significant under both the Project and RTA, and impacts would be similar. No new storm drainage facilities would be required in support of existing mining activities under the RTA or proposed mining activities under the proposed Project, as the existing basins on -site are adequately sized to Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 72 ■E SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT detain all runoff from the mined areas (both with and without the Project). Under the proposed Project and RTA, a decrease in runoff flows is expected as a result of reclamation. The decrease in flow rate is a result of the longer path lengths which in turn reduce peak flow rates. Accordingly, reclamation under the proposed Project and RTA would result in a reduction of flow rates and neither the Project nor the RTA would require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and would be similar under the RTA and proposed Project. The areas proposed for mining at the Nichols Canyon Mine under both the proposed Project and RTA are not located within a 100 -year flood plain; thus, neither the Project nor the RTA would place housing or structures in a floodplain. Impacts would not occur and would be similar under the RTA and the proposed Project. According to Figure 10, Flood Hazards, of the Riverside County General Plan's Elsinore Area Plan, the Nichols Canyon Mine is not located within a dam hazard zone related to the Railroad Canyon Dam or any other dam hazard zone. Impacts would be less than significant and would be similar under both the Project and the RTA. Neither the Project nor the RTA would be subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No Impact would occur under either the RTA or proposed Project, and impacts would be similar. 8. Noise Daytime noise impacts under the RTA and the Project would be similar, and would be significant and unavoidable for homes within 794 feet of the EDA. Nighttime operational noise impacts under the proposed Project and the RTA would be reduced to less- than - significant levels, and impacts would be similar. The Project would result in a greater increase associated transportation- related noise as compared to the RTA due to the increase in 425 passenger care equivalents (PCEs) under the proposed Project as compared to the 361 PCE per day under the RTA; thus the Project would result in increased transportation- related noise impacts in comparison to the RTA. However, transport dion noise- fdrated impacts under both the Project and RTA would be less than significant. Blasting- related impacts would be similar under the RTA and the proposed Project, and would be less than significant. Neither the proposed Project nor the RTA would be impacted by noise related to airport or private airport operations. Impacts would not occur under the Project and RTA and would be similar. 9. Transportation and Circulation Under the RTA, the total daily tonnage at the Mine would be restricted to 4,250 tpd as compared to 5,000 tpd under the proposed Project. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) attributable to the RTA would be reduced from 1,752 ADT under the proposed Project to 1,490 ADT under the RTA. As a result, the RTA would result in approximately 55 AM PCE peak hour trips and 45 PM peak hour trips. Although the RTA would result in reduced traffic generated on a daily basis by approximately 15 %, in order to be consistent with the analysis in RDEIR Section 4.9 cumulatively - considerable impacts to the following facilities would occur under the RTA, although the impacts would be reduced in comparison to the Project: EAPC (2016) Conditions: • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F AM and PM peak hours); Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 73 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ■ ❑ _ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the I -15 Northbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection; and • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the I -15 Southbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection. Horizon Year (2035) Conditions: • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound Ramp/Nichols -Road intersection (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the 1 -15 Southbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Freeway Segments (LOS F during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the 1 -15 Northbound Freeway Segments (LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable freeway off -ramp queuing impact to the I -15 Northbound Off - Ramp at Nichols Road (2,838 ft. queue during the AM peak hour and 3,520 ft. queue during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the 1 -15 Southbound Off- Ramp/Nichols Road Freeway Ramp Junction Merge /Diverge (LOS F during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound On- Ramp/Nichols Road Freeway Ramp Junction Merge /Diverge (LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour); • C.;i "ulatively- 'considerable impact due to the need to signalize the 1 -15 N6,Ahbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection; and • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the I -15 Southbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection. The above - listed impacts also affect I -15, a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) designated facility. Thus, impacts due to a conflict with a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways would be increased under the Project as compared to the RTA. Neither the proposed Project nor the RTA would result in impacts due to a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, and impacts would be similar under both the RTA and proposed Project. Neither the proposed Project nor the RTA would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Impacts under both the proposed Project and RTA would be similar, and would be less than significant. Neither the proposed Project nor the RTA would result in inadequate emergency access. No impacts would occur under the proposed Project or the RTA, and impacts would be similar. There are no components associated with the RTA that would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities). Accordingly, impacts under both the RTA and proposed Project would be less than significant and would be similar. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 74 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 M❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 10. Utilities and Service Systems CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Implementation of the proposed Project or RTA would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and would be identical under the RTA and proposed Project. Impacts due to the need for construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects would not occur under either the RTA or the proposed Project, and impacts would be similar. Because total water usage on -site would decrease under the proposed Project and the RTA as compared to historical baseline conditions, and because the EVMWD has sufficient supplies through 2035, including during dry and multiple -dry years, the Project's impacts to water supplies would be less than significant and similar under the proposed Project and the RTA. The proposed Project and the RTA have no potential to result in the construction of new or expanded water treatment facilities, and no impact would occur. Impacts would be similar under the proposed Project and the RTA. Neither the Project nor RTA utilize EVMWD's sewer system and there are no components of the Project or RTA that would cause or contribute to deficient wastewater treatment capacity; therefore, no impact would occur under either the proposed Project or RTA, and impacts would be similar. The Project and RTA both would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Mine's solid waste. Because the incremental increase in solid waste generation under the proposed Project and RTA would be negligible, impacts would be less than significant and would be similar under both the proposed Project and RTA. The Project and RTA would comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts would be less than significant and would be similar under both the Project and RTA. The proposed Project and RTA would involve the continuation and expansion of an existing mining operation, and would not result in a substantial increase in daily operational characiteriolics at the site. All utilities needed to serve the Nichols Canyon Mine are currently in place. Accordingly, no impact would occur under either the Project or the RTA, and impacts would be similar. C. Summary of Major Environmental Effects Implementation of the Reduced Traffic Alternative and the proposed Project would result in identical areas of physical environmental impacts, although under the RTA the maximum amount of tonnage at the site would be restricted, from 5,000 tpd (total) under the proposed Project to 4,250 tpd under the RTA. Impacts to the following issue areas would be reduced under the RTA in relation to the proposed Project: air quality; noise (transportation- related only); and traffic and transportation. It should be noted that although impacts would be reduced, impacts due to air quality emissions, noise, and traffic still would be significant under the RTA even with the implementation of mitigation measures. Impacts to aesthetics; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; greenhouse gases; hydrology and water quality; operational (non- transportation) related noise; and utilities and service systems would be similar under the proposed Project and the RTA. There would be no environmental effects that would increase in relation to the Project under the RTA. D. Feasibility The RTA would be feasible, but would be less efficient and thus less economical than mining operations under the proposed Project due to the reduction by 15% in the amount of export material from the site on a daily basis. Furthermore, although the RTA would eliminate the Project's cumulatively considerable traffic and circulation impacts, the RTA would result in the generation of traffic over a longer duration as compared to Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 75 M■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ®LJ FINAL,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT the proposed Project. The RTA would be unable to reduce the Project's other significant and unavoidable impacts to below a level of significance. E. Comparative Merits The RTA would meet all of the Project's objectives, although to a slightly lesser extent due to the reduction in export materials by up to 15% and associated inefficiencies. The RTA would increase the available high - quality aggregate reserves available within the local area; expand the hours of operation at the mine; reduce the annual tonnage; revise the approved reclamation plan; minimize environmental impacts; and make the most usable space from the Mine's disturbance limits. However it should be noted that although the RTA would eliminate the Project's cumulatively considerable traffic and circulation impacts, the RTA would result in the generation of traffic over a longer duration as compared to the proposed Project. Thus, although daily traffic would improve under the RTA in relation to the proposed Project, the RTA would contribute traffic to the intersections of I- I 5/Northbound On- and Off -Ramps and the I -15 /Southbound On- and Off - Ramps, and would contribute traffic over a longer duration than the Project. The RTA would contribute traffic to the cumulatively - considerable I -15 Freeway segments, merge /diverge, and queuing deficiencies, which would be significant unavoidable impacts. Although the RTA would produce fewer than 25 PCE peak hour trips and would reduce daily air quality emissions, the RTA would contribute traffic to the deficient facilities for a longer duration as compared to the proposed Project and would generate air quality pollutants over a longer duration than the proposed Project; thus, the RTA would not avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality. Additionally, the RTA would fail to reduce or eliminate the Project's daytime operational noise impacts affecting nearby residences. The RTA also would not reduce or eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable conflict with the MSHCP and Ordinance 1124. 4.5.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The Environmentally Superior Alternative would be the No Project Alternative because no new physical environmental impacts would occur on -site. The Project site would remain a mining operation within the areas of the Project site already approved for mining, and significant noise and transportation and circulation that would occur by implementation of the proposed Project would not occur. However, State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2) states: The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, because the No Project Alternative has been identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative under CEQA, the Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives would be the Reduced Expanded Disturbance Alternative which would reduce the size of the proposed expanded disturbance area to approximately 17 acres. As previously analyzed, activity related to the REDA Alternative would be less, and consequently, that overall impacts from implementation of this Alternative would be less than those of the proposed Project. The REDA would not eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, biological resources, and Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 76 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 .❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT transportation and circulation, nor reduce these impacts to a less - than - significant level. Therefore, the REDA would result in the same type of significant and unavoidable impacts that would result from the proposed Project. However, the REDA would avoid and eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable impact to noise. CEQA does not require the Lead Agency (City) to approve the environmentally superior alternative. Conversely, CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a)) and then the Lead Agency may elect to approve the project or any of the analyzed alternatives; in addition, the Lead Agency may also elect not to approve the project or any of its alternatives. This alternatives analysis has been prepared for the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives and also determine whether the benefits of the project or its alternatives outweigh the potential environmental impacts. Table 4 -1, Alternatives to the Proposed Project — Comparison of Environmental Impacts, below provides a summary comparison of the Alternatives to the proposed Project and the proposed Alternatives ability to meet the Project objectives. The City hereby incorporates Table 6 -1 from the RDEIR. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 77 U Q LL- 0 N O Z 0 Z a U W 'i O d N wuj a U O Q �O O _ O � N Q W O 0 L > O Z N W � Q Z ■f] so u v fl. E v C C 0 W C H v CL E O U u .0 CL h 0 Q. 0 S. CL 0 0 A.I-. W v AC W Q N v U N A O a 0 c at ob C� bU O 0. O d N N ro wy G o U .. U ro ro �„ o ` a N J M C O CIO ,Y O y c IO •o cC U � W nw v O O O O CN O Z U V7 O C U W J O U U C Q C) a� J c0 N rn CL � b o „z z .E .E ti p z Ev E E E E E > > > Y > ° b G c o in CD cw W d � �� ro�'�� ro aW E E.•E•E•E E,E� 0 �j FL cn cn C/) V) Ln cn b U V) Li 0 y� R' ai ai RJ .Q A ,L X b k4 4 a -0 o o o o o o 0 o 0 o d o E E o I'Zzzzzzz E Uo d z° ro Q * G Qm u bL u-0 0 y (d V U U 2 U U O N V u Z U 5) O E .0 U U N'. U OJ U q C? 00.0000[' U `a z� 'E-: 'E-: LE •a �w'a C7 VJ L ro � �� 'L7 O bCp O b b0A O � .D 0 r^ �L [-� ce V) Oj id c>d cn V] cn V] c>d p v) LUsi cd C O E O .�- G ro C cd C ro G ro ) � ro C O d ro Y Y b a a N °U N N N N o N e a a a 01. w ° a. u, �7, o U = O Nd c7 7 O v —° N E: N v N E & L N C p •O CNd C u .� •W U CC > ° o ° N _ •� L b1 C O N y d d 6auuu L. z LLLL U N A O a 0 c at ob C� bU O 0. O d N N ro wy G o U .. U ro ro �„ o ` a N J M C O CIO ,Y O y c IO •o cC U � W nw v O O O O CN O Z U V7 O C U W J O U U C Q C) a� J c0 N rn CL ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 5.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 Nichols Canyon Mine Project has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the proposed Project. With implementation of the proposed Project including the Project mitigation measures identified for each significant impact, most of the potentially significant-impacts can be reduced to a level considered less than significant, except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed below and in Section 4.4 of the Findings. The City has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the proposed Project. Impacts, in these and all other cases, have been mitigated to the extent considered feasible. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in this section. A. Air Qug ity Air Quality Threshold a: Significant Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively- Considerable Impact. As shown in RDEIR Table 4.2 -18, Summary of Peak Operational Emission (With Mitigation), with implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's emissions of NOx would exceed the SCAQMD Regional Threshold of Significance for this pollutant. NOx is a pre- cursor to ozone, for which the region is considered non - attainment under both State and Federal standards. Although the Project would not exceed the regional growth forecasts because the Project would only result in the addition of two new employees on -site, the Project's level of NOx emissions represents a conflict with the SCAQMD 2012 AQMP; this is evaluated as a significant direct and cumulatively - considerable impact of the proposed Project for which no additional, feasible mitigation is available. Air uality Threshold b and c: Significant Unavoidable Direct and Cllmulativel - Considerable Impact. As shown in RDEIR Table 4.2 -18, Summary of Peak Operational Emission (With Mitigation), the Project's emissions of NOx still would exceed the SCAQMD's Regional Thresholds even with the incorporation of mitigation. NOx emissions would contribute to the region's non - attainment status for ozone. Accordingly, the Project's impact due to a violation of air quality standards for an ozone precursor (NOx), a contribution to air quality violations for ozone, and a cumulatively considerable net increase of ozone precursors represent significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project on both a direct and cumulatively- considerable basis for which additional feasible mitigation is not available. B. Biological Resources Biological Resources Thresholds a and f: Direct Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The Project would result in direct impacts due to non - compliance with City Ordinance 1124 and the MSHCP. Although the Project would mitigate its impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance, the Project's non - compliance with Ordinance 1124 and the MSHCP nonetheless represents significant and unavoidable direct impacts of the proposed Project that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. However, because the vast majority of properties within the MSHCP area and that are subject to Ordinance 1124 (or other the Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 79 ■® SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 -I FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT implementing ordinance of other local jurisdictions) would be required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP and all MSHCP- related requirements, the Project's non - compliance with Ordinance 1124 and the MSHCP would be less- than - cumulatively considerable. C. Noise Noise Thresholds a c and d: Direct and Cumulatively Considerable Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.8 -1 through MM 4.8 -3 would reduce the Project's operational - related noise impacts during the extended nocturnal hours; however, during daytime operations nearby residential structures located within 794 feet of mining activities within the EDA would be exposed periodically to noise levels exceeding the Riverside County daytime noise standard of 50 dBA L50. Thus, a significant impact would occur during the phases of mining within the southeastern portions of the proposed Expanded Disturbance Area (EDA) that are located within 794 feet of the residential structures and when a minimum headwall of 15 feet in height cannot be maintained between mining areas and nearby residential structures. During this phase of mining operations, the nearby residences located within approximately 794 feet of mining activities would be exposed to noise levels exceeding 55 dBA L50, which represents a significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed Project on both a direct and cumulatively - considerable basis. D. Transportation and Circulation Transportation and Circulation Threshold a: Cumuladvely Significant and Unavoidable Impact. As detailed in RDEIR Table 4.9 -30, Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2016) Conditions with Improvements, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TR -1 and MM TR -2 and installation of traffic signals, the -LOS for the intersection of the 1 -15 Northbound ramps at Nichols Road would improve from LOS F to LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2016 conditions. Additionally, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TR -1 and MM TR -2, the LOS for the intersection of the 1 -15 Southbound Ramps at Nichols Road would improve from LOS F to LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2016 conditions. Similarly, and as shown in RDEIR Table 4.9 -31, Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) Conditions With Improvements, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TR -1 and MM TR -2 and installation of traffic signals, the LOS for the intersection of I -15 Northbound ramps at Nichols Road would operate at an acceptable LOS D with implementation of the Project under long -term (Year 2035 conditions). With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TR -1 and MM TR -2, the LOS for the intersection of the 1 -15 Southbound Ramps at Nichols Road would operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour under long -term (Year 2035) conditions. Thus, with improvements, the Project's cumulatively - considerable impacts to the intersections of the I -15 Northbound On- and Off -Ramps at Nichols Road and 1 -15 Southbound On- and Off -Ramps at Nichols Road under Year 2016 and Year 2035 conditions would be reduced to less - than - significant levels. However, no schedule is prescribed by the TUMF or TIF program for these improvements, and it is not practical to assume that the improvements would be installed by 2016 (when operations pursuant to SMP 2015 -01 and RP2006 -01 A2 are expected to commence). Improvement schedules for these improvements are partially dependent on the pace of new development and associated pace of fee collection that occurs under the TUMF and the TIF. Under CEQA, a fair -share monetary contribution to a mitigation fund is adequate mitigation if the funds are part of a reasonable plan that the relevant agency (in this case WRCOG and the City of Lake Elsinore) is committed to implementing. As Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 80 ■ o SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 01-1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT such, while the proposed Project can mitigate its cumulatively considerable contribution to these impacts through the payment of fees, the improvements would likely not be in place at their time of need (before the deficiency occurs). As such, this EIR recognizes a short-term and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impact at these locations, which would occur until the TUMF and TIF improvements are in place. The proposed Project would contribute to, but would not cause, impacts to the I -15 Northbound freeway segments (LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour) and the I- 15 Southbound freeway segments (LOS F in the PM peak hour) under Horizon Year (2035) conditions. Although the Project's level of traffic affecting these facilities would be below the threshold at which Caltrans normally would require a traffic study, the Project's contribution to these deficiencies are nonetheless considered cumulatively considerable. Long -range plans by Caltrans for the I -15 Freeway include the construction of two tolled Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to Central Avenue (SR -74), which are improvements that are subject to available funding. Planned improvements to the I -15 Northbound and Southbound mainlines would improve LOS along these freeway segments. With improvements, the I -15 Southbound freeway segments would improve to LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour. Additionally, the northbound freeway segments would improve to LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Thus, while planned Caltrans improvements to these freeway segments would improve the LOS, both the Northbound and Southbound freeway segments would continue to operate at a deficient LOS during at least one peak hour. There is no additional feasible mitigation to reduce these cumulatively - considerable impacts to below a level of significance. Moreover, the timing of Caltrans' improvements is not currently known. Therefore, the EIR recognizes the Project's cumulatively- considerable impacts to the I -15 Northbound and Southbound freeway segments as cumulatively- considerable and i.inavoidable impacts of the proposed Project. Project - related traffic would contribute to, but would not directly cause, the deficient LOS at the merge /diverge ramp junctions of I -15 Northbound Off -Ramp at Nichols Road (LOS E in the AM peak hour) and the I -15 Southbound On- and Off -Ramps at Nichols Road (LOS E in the PM peak hour) under Horizon Year (2035). Although the Project's level of traffic affecting these facilities would be below the threshold at which Caltrans normally would require a traffic study, the Project's contribution of traffic to these merge /diverge ramp junction under Horizon Year (2035) conditions nonetheless would be cumulatively considerable. Long -range plans by Caltrans for the I -15 Freeway include the construction of two tolled Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to Central Avenue (SR -74), which are improvements that are subject to available funding. As shown in RDEIR Table 4.9 -31, with construction of the planned improvements, the queuing issues at the I -15 Northbound Off -Ramp at Nichols Road and I -15 Southbound On- and Off - Ramps at Nichols Road would be reduced to acceptable levels. However, it is possible that queuing deficiencies may still be experienced in the interim period prior to the completion of the improvements to I -15. As such, the Project's impacts to the I -15 Freeway Northbound Off - Ramp and the I -15 Freeway Southbound On- and Off -Ramps under Horizon Year (2035) represent a near -term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed Project for which no feasible mitigation is available. Under Horizon Year (2035) conditions, the Project would contribute to, but would not directly cause queuing issues during the weekday peak 95th percentile traffic flows at the I -15 Freeway Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 81 O ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Northbound and Southbound Freeway Off - Ramps. Although the Project's level of traffic affecting these facilities would be below the threshold at which Caltrans normally would require a traffic study, the Project's contribution to this projected deficiency is evaluated as a cumulatively considerable impact. As noted above, long -range plans by Caltrans for the I -15 Freeway include the construction of two tolled Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to Central Avenue (SR -74), which are improvements that are subject to available funding. As shown in RDEIR Table 4.9 -32, Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) Conditions with Improvements, even with the planned Express Lanes, the I -15 Northbound and Southbound Off -Ramps at Nichols Road would continue to operate at a deficient LOS during at least one peak hour. As such, the Project's contribution to the I -15 Northbound and Southbound Off -Ramps queuing deficiencies under Horizon Year (2035) conditions represent cumulatively - considerable impacts of the proposed Project for which no feasible mitigation is available. • Transportation and Circulation Threshold b: QU1n 11at1Vel ' Significant and Unavoidable lm ]act. As discussed above under the discussion of Transportation and Circulation Threshold a., the Project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts for which feasible mitigation is not available at the following facilities: o EAPC (2016) Conditions: • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the 1 -15 Northbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection; and • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the I -15 Southbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection. o Horizon Year (2035) Conditions: • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound Ramp/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection (LOS F for both AM and PM peak hours); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Southbound Freeway Segments (LOS F during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound Freeway Segments (LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable freeway off -ramp queuing impact to the I -15 Northbound Off -Ramp at Nichols Road (2,838 ft. queue during the AM peak hour and 3,520 ft. queue during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact to the 1 -15 Southbound Off- Ramp/Nichols Road Freeway Ramp Junction Merge /Diverge (LOS F during the PM peak hour); Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 82 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ML] FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT • Cumulatively considerable impact to the I -15 Northbound On- Ramp/Nichols Road Freeway Ramp Junction Merge /Diverge (LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour); • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the I -15 Northbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection; and • Cumulatively considerable impact due to the need to signalize the I -15 Southbound Ramps/Nichols Road intersection. 5.2 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a), the City Planning Commission must balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits" of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks" in determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the proposed Project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures; having considered the entire administrative record on the Project; the City Planning Commission has weighed the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation in regards to air quality, biological resources, noise, and transportation /circulation. While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impacts regarding air quality, biological resources, noise, and transportation /circulation are significant under CEQA thresholds, the City Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable adverse impacts 'that will result from adoption and implementation of the proposed Project are acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic, and other benefits of the Project. The City Planning Commission further finds that except for the proposed Project, all other alternatives set forth in the RDEIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives and /or of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this City Planning Commission finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives. In making this determination, the factors and public benefits specified below were considered. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the proposed Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Planning Commission would be able to stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Records of Proceedings for the proposed Project. The City Planning Commission finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under CEQA § 21081(a)(3), that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Provided below are the benefits of implementing the proposed Project that justify approval of the proposed Project despite the Project's significant and unavoidable environmental effects. • Increase in Availability of Aggregate 1ieseryes. The Temescal Valley is identified by the State as an important source region for aggregate for much of the eastern part of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, the Inland Empire Metropolitan Area, and the northern part of the San Diego Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 83 No SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 soFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Metropolitan Area. Mines in the Temescal Valley Production Area provide aggregate for parts of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties, as well as western Riverside County. Sand, gravel, and crushed rock are "construction materials." These materials, collectively referred to as aggregate, provide bulk and strength to portland cement concrete (PCC), asphaltic concrete (AC), Class II Base, and other aggregate commodities. Some of these other commodities are subbase, drain rock, and fill. Aggregate normally provides 80% to 100% of the volume in these uses. PCC -grade aggregate resources typically are also used to supply all other grades of aggregate. The material specifications for PCC -grade aggregate are more restrictive than the specifications for the other grades of aggregate. This restrictiveness makes deposits for use as PCC aggregate the scarcest and most valuable of aggregate resources. (CGS, 2014, p. 6) Department of Finance estimates show the population for the five- county area containing Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego counties is expected to increase by about 6.5 million people between 2010 and 2060. Of that 6.5 million, Riverside County population is expected to grow by 2 million and San Bernardino by about 1.4 million. Much of the future growth in these two counties will likely occur in the Inland Empire region served by the Temescal Valley Production Area. Growth in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties is likely to increase demand for aggregate in those areas, creating additional demand for increased exports of aggregate from the Production Area. (CGS, 2014, p. 24) In addition to regional population growth, other factors may influence future demand for aggregate from the Production Area. If existing aggregate reserves in neighboring. regions are depleted and new reserves are not permitted in those regions, then exports from the Temescal Valley Production Area may increase to help fill that demn nd. Other factors that could increase aggregate demand and accelerate depletion of reserves in the region include large scale construction projects or catastrophic events requiring rebuilding occurring in or near the Production Area. Finally, fluctuations in the economy may either slow or speed up depletion of reserves in the region. (CGS, 2014, p. 24) As discussed in detail in RDEIR Subsection 2.5, the total PCC -grade aggregate reserves (i.e. permitted resources) of 917 million tons in the Temescal Valley Production Area are projected to last 44 years (into the year 2057). However, because the area supplies aggregate to most of the neighboring regions (about 50% of production in 2012), this projected depletion date could be optimistic. If any of the neighboring regions deplete their reserves in less than 50 years, then the exports to that region from the Temescal Valley Production Area may increase. Projected population growth in the Temescal Valley area and the surrounding regions in the next 50 years is also likely to increase the future demand for aggregate from the Production Area. Also, if a large scale construction project or catastrophic event requiring rebuilding occurs in or near the Production Area, existing reserves may be depleted sooner than projected. (CGS, 2014, p. 24) An important consideration is that not all aggregate reserves may be minable under the present permits because of operating restrictions or because of expiration dates that may not allow reserves to be completely mined. The CGS found that comparing regional needs to available reserves and resources demonstrates the aggregate resource issues confronting the Temescal Valley Production Area. These include the need to plan carefully for the use of lands containing these resources and the need to consider the permitting of additional aggregate resources in the Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 84 No SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ■C CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Production Area before currently permitted deposits are depleted. The CGS indicates that such planning efforts should take into consideration not only the demands of western Riverside County, but also the demands of neighboring regions outside of the County that are currently served by the Production Area. In summary, and based on available historic production data and the production projection, the Temescal Valley Production Area will need to produce approximately 1,057 million tons of aggregate during the next 50 years (CGS, 2014, pp. 22 -24). With approval of the proposed Project, the total aggregate reserves that would be available at the Nichols Canyon Mine would increase from approximately 6,078,121 tons within the mining areas that are currently entitled as part Reclamation Plan No. 2006 -01 A 1, to approximately 15,033,034 tons (representing an increase of 8,954,913 tons). Thus, with approval of the proposed Project, the availability of PCC -grade aggregate reserves available within the Temescal Valley Production Area would be increased by nearly nine million tons, representing an increase of PCC -grade aggregate resources by approximately 9.8% within the Temescal Valley Production Area. Such an increase would extend the period of time in which aggregate resources within the Temescal Valley Production Area would meet future development needs; would provide for lower cost aggregate materials to support future development in the region; and would meet a portion of the projected demand for increased PCC -grade aggregate materials within the Temescal Valley Production Area. Reduced Vehicle Miles Travelled. The Nichols Canyon Mine (Mine) is located immediately adjacent to Interstate 15 (I -15), a regional transportation facility that provides north -west access throughout the Temescal Valley Production Area (see RDEIR Subsection 2.5). Additionally, the Mine is located within the central portions of the Temescal Valley Production Area. As such, and in comparison to other mining sites that are located further from regional transportation facilities, the additional reserves made available by the Project would serve to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMTs) as compared to existing conditions over the long run. This reduction in VMTs would serve to reduce regional emissions of air quality pollutants, including greenhouse gases, as well as reducing traffic congestion. Economic Development Benefits. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in the amount of aggregate materials that could be produced by the Mine, which would generate more revenue for the City's General Fund while also reducing the cost of aggregate resources within the local area. Reduced cost of aggregate would result in reduced costs of construction, thereby allowing for more affordable housing and development within the local area. Additionally, mining of the site and reclamation in accordance with RP 2006 -01A2 would increase by approximately 10 -20 acres the portions of the site that would have level terrain. Thus, approval of the proposed Project would allow for additional future development opportunities with commercial and /or residential uses which represent a substantial benefit to the residents of Lake Elsinore and surrounding areas. Traffic Benefits. Under the existing entitlements for the Mine, export of aggregate materials from the site is restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. With approval of the Project, export of aggregate materials would be allowed to occur 24 hours per day (Monday through Saturdays, excluding Federal Holidays). Due to the cost of fuel and increased delay associated with traffic during peak hours, haul truck operators are inherently incentivized to avoid peak hours. With the increase in the number of hours aggregate materials can be exported Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 85 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 OF] FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT from the site, it is therefore likely that the Project would result in reduced haul truck trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours as compared to existing conditions. 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR The City has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the proposed Project. The City Planning Commission finds that the RDEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines; that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City; and that no new significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been identified by the City after circulation of the RDEIR which would require recirculation. The City Planning Commission certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: 6.1 FINDINGS The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and, although all applicable and feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project, the impacts cannot be mitigated to less- than - significant levels: A. Air Quality The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to conflicting with, or obstructing, implementation of, the SCAQMD 2012 AQMP, which is the applicable AQMP for the.Project area:& The proposed Project also would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to exceeding a regional air quality standard and contributing to an existing air quality violation (ozone) due to the Project's projected levels of NOx emissions. The proposed Project also would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to a cumulatively- considerable increase of NOx emissions (a precursor to ozone) because the SCAB is considered non - attainment for ozone. B. Biological Resources Although the Project would comply with the Chapter 19.04 of the City's Municipal Code with respect to the Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to non - compliance with City Ordinance 1124 and the MSHCP. Thus, the Project would conflict with a local policy (MSHCP) and ordinance (Ordinance 1124), respectively, that were adopted by the City for the purpose of protecting biological resources. Although the Project would comply with the Chapter 19.04 of the City's Municipal Code with respect to the SKR HCP, the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to non - compliance with the MSHCP. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 86 ■ E SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 MFI FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT C. Noise The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to the exposure of persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans and municipal codes. Implementation of the proposed Project also would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels affecting nearby sensitive receptors, representing a significant and unavoidable impact. Additionally, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels affecting nearby sensitive receptors, which represents a significant and unavoidable impact. D. Transl2ortation and Circulation The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to several intersections and roadways because it would conflict with applicable level of service standards under existing plus ambient plus project plus cumulative (2016) conditions as well as horizon year (2035) conditions. The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) freeway facilities because it would conflict with applicable level of service standards under existing plus ambient plus project plus cumulative (2016) conditions as well as horizon year (2035) conditions. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed Project have been identified in the EIR and will be mitigated to less- than-significant levels with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, except for the impacts listed above and described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly achieve most of the basic objectives of the project have been considered. Some of the alternatives were feasible but did not meet the Project objectives; others met the Project objectives but were found not to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant. Since the alternatives considered either did not serve to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts, or because the alternatives offer no feasible means of avoiding the significant effects identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the alternatives are rejected in favor of the proposed Project. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project. 7.0 ADOPTION OF MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City as the Lead Agency hereby adopts the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program attached to these Findings. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program shall control. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 87 No SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 EEI FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 8.0 APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT Based on the entire record before the City, including the above Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all written and oral evidence presented to the City, the City as the Lead Agency hereby approves the Project with all the Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as set forth in these findings. 9.0 LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of, among other documents, the following documents: • The June 25, 2015 Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed Project. • All comments and correspondence submitted by public agencies and members of the public during the NOP public review period. (June 25, 2015 to July 27, 2015) • The January 8, 2016 DEIR, including appendices and technical studies included or referenced in the January 8, 2016 DEIR. • All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45 -day public comment period on the DEIR which began on January 8, 2016. • The August 23, 2016 Recirculated Draft EIR, including revised appendices and technical studies included or referenced in the August 23, 2016 RDEIR. • All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45 -day public commei,7-period on the RDEIR which began on August 23, 2016. • The Final EIR • All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the proposed Project and EIR during public hearings held before the Planning Commission and the City Planning Commission. • The mitigation monitoring program (MMP) for the proposed Project. • All findings and resolutions adopted by the City decision makers in connection with the proposed Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein. • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents related to the proposed Project. • All documents and information submitted to the City by responsible, trustee, or other public agencies, or by individuals or organizations, in connection with the proposed Project, the January 8, 2016 DEIR, and /or the August 23, 2016 RDEIR through the date the City Planning Commission approved the proposed Project. • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations. • Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above. • Any other materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, Subdivision (e). The custodian of the record of proceedings is the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division, whose office is located at 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 88 �■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT The City has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the proposed Project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Planning Commission decision - makers as part of the City's files generated in connection with the proposed Project. 10.0 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The following reports, studies, and supporting documentation were used in the preparation of this EIR and are incorporated by reference within this EIR. A copy of the following reports, studies, and supporting documentation is a matter of public record and is generally available to the public at the location listed. Cited As Reference Alden, 2016 Alden Environmental, 2016. Biological Technical Report for the Nichols Mine Project. June 08, 2016. (EIR Technical Appendix D). AE, 2015 Associates Environmental, 2015. Industrial Activities Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. April 08, 2015. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530) Bonadiman, 2016 Joseph E. Bonadiman & Associates, Inc., 2016. Hydrology Study & Drainage Analysis. May 2016. (EIR Technical Appendix H). BFSA, 2015a Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2015. Paleontological Resource and Monitoring Assessment, Nichols Road Quarry Expansion Project Area, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, -CA. May 5, 2015. (EIR Technical Appendix EI ). BFSA, 2015b Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2015. Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Nichols Road Quarry Expansion Project. July 9, 2015. (EIR Technical Appendix E2). CHJ, 2015 CHJ Consultants, 2015.. Report of Slope Stability Investigation Proposed Nichols Mine Expansion Lake Elsinore, California. April 15, 2015. (EIR Technical Appendix F). EVMWD, 2011 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, 2011. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Urban Water Management Plan. July 2011. Web. Available: http: / /www. water. ca. gov /urbanwatermanagement /201 0uwmr)s /Elsinore 1/o2 OValley% 20Municipal %20Wate:r %20District /EVMW D} %.2Oi 1WMP %2020 10_Finai.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2015. Giroux, 2016a Giroux and Associates, 2016. Noise Impact Analysis Amendment No. 2 to RP2006 -01 City of Lake Elsinore, California.June 10, 2016. (EIR Technical Appendix 1). Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 89 ■o SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ■ ❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Cited As Reference Lake Elsinore, 1997 City of Lake Elsinore, 1997. Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 3. June 10, 1997. Online. Available: httl2://www.lake- cisiiiore.or&/iiidex.asI)x?pap-e--982. Accessed August 29, 2015. Lake Elsinore, 1999 City of Lake Elsinore, 1999. Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.04). 1999. Web. Available: htt : / /www.code ublishin . com/ CA/ LakeElsiilore / #! /LakeElsiiloiv14 /Lake Elsinore 1404.html #14.04. Accessed November 4, 2015. Lake Elsinore, 2011a City of Lake Elsinore, 2011. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. December 13, 2011. Web. Available: littn://www.lake- elsinore.org/.index.aspx?page=909. Accessed November 12, 2015. Lake Elsinore, 2011b City of Lake Elsinore, 2011. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report. December 13, 2011. Web. Available: http://www.lake- elsiiiore.org /index.aspx ?page -913. Accessed July 28, 2015. Lake Elsinore, 2011 c City of Lake Elsinore, 2011. City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan. December 13, 2011. Web. Available: littp://www.lake-elsinore.orWeity- lial I/cit -de arciiieiiWcomniunit - develo meat/ laniiin /lake- elsinore- cl imate- action -fin. Accessed: July 29, 2016. Lake Elsinore, 2015 City of Lake Elsinore, 2015. Municipal Code. Web. Available: litti): / /www.codepuublishinp-.corgi, /CA /lakeelsinore /. Accessed August 11, - 2015. Riverside County, Riverside County, 2004. Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of 2004 Understanding. February 22, 2004. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530) Urban Crossroads, Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2016. Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2016a 2006 -01 Air Quality Impact Analysis. July 14, 2016. (EIR Technical Appendix B). Urban Crossroads, Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2016. Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2016b 2006 -01 Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment. Julyl4, 2016. (EIR Technical Appendix C). Urban Crossroads. Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2016. Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2016c 2006 -001 Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Lake Elsinore. July 14, 2016. (EIR Technical Appendix G). Urban Crossroads, Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2016. Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2016d 2006 -01 Traffic Impact Analysis April 25, 2016. (EIR Technical Appendix J)• Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 90 ■■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 NOFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 11.0 DOCUMENTS AND WEBSITES CONSULTED The following reports, studies, and supporting documentation were used in preparation of the Project's EIR. Cited As Reference AB 52, 2014 Assembly Bill 52, 2014. AB 52 Legislative Information Website. September 24, 2014. Web. Available: http : / /Iejzinfo.legisiature.ca.jzov/ faces /biliNavClient.xiitml ?bill id- 20132.01 40AB52. Accessed July 27, 2015. AE, 2016 Associates Envrionmental, 2016. Conparison of Uncontrolled and Controlled Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Emissions. June 23, 2016. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530) AEP, 2016a Association of Environmental Professionals, 2016. Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets in California. April 3, 2016. Web. Available: https://www.califaep.org/images/climate- chanp-e/AE-P White Paper Field Guide QHQ Thresholds CAP _Targets. pdf Accessed June 20, 2016. AEP, 2016b Association of Environmental Professionals, 2016. About AEP. 2016. Web. Available: https: /Iwww.califaep.or about -aep. Accessed: July 29, 2016. Berck, P., 2005 Peter Berk, 2005. A Note on the Environmental Costs of Aggregates. Web. Available: http: / /www.sandag.org /ti Toads/ 12uhticationid /pub]icationid�l55$_12638.t} df. Accessed November 11, 2015. Ca1CIMA, 2016 California Construction and Industrial Materials Association, 2016. Aggregate Production Reports 2007 -2014. 2016. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530) Caltrans, 2002 California Department of Transportation, 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. December 2002. Web. Available: http : / /www,dot,ca. og v/h /c tpt p /offices /ocp /igr cega files /tisguide.,pdf. Accessed August 3, 2015. Caltrans, 2011 California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic highway Mapping System. Web. Available: http : /Iwww. dot. ca .gov /hq /LandArch /16_livabili /scenic ^highways /index.h tm. Accessed August 24, 2015. Caltrans, 2013 California Department of Transportation, 2013. Transportation and Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 91 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 OF] FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Cited As Reference Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. July 2011. Web. Available: litt) : / /www.dot.ca.gov /11 /env /noise /pub /TCVGM Sep13, F1NAL.pdf, Accessed November 10, 2015. CalTech, n.d. California Institute of Technology, n.d. Light Pollution. Web. Available: http Ilwww.astrQ,paltech.edu/ ) alomar /cchinmuni�ll�htpollution.html Accessed August 25, 2015. CAPCOA, 2008 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2008. CEQA & Climate Change. January 2008. Web. Available: http_ll coa,or wp- content/ur)l ❑ads /2012 /03 /CAPCOA- White- PaWr pdf. Accessed October 22, 2015. CARB, 2005 California Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Web. Available: littr)://www.arb.ca.&ov/ch/liandbook.pdf Accessed: July 29, 2016. CARB, 2014 California Air Resources Board, 2014. Area Designation Maps /State and National. Web. August 22, 2014. Available: http:// www .arb.ca.gov /desigLadiii /adm.htm Accessed September 16, 2015. CASQA, 2014 California Stormwater Quality Association, 2014. California Stormwater BMP Handbook Industrial and Commercial. September 2014. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530) CCCC, 2006 California Climate Change Center, 2006. Scenarios of Climarte Change in Cal ybrnia: An Overview.. February, 2006. Web. Available: htt : / /www.ener .ca, ov /2005 ublications /CEC-500 - 2005 - 186 /CEC -500- 2005- 186- SF.PDF. Accessed November 12, 2015. CDC, 1991 California Department of Conservation, 1991. Mineral Land Classification Map of the Southern Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California. 1991. Web. Available: ftl2 : / /ftn consry ca.gov/pub/dmg,/pubs/sr/SR 165 /Plate %o203B.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2015. CDC, 2012a California Department of Conservation, 2012. Riverside County Important Farmland 2010, Sheet 1 of 3. January 2012. Web. Available: Etta:// titp .consrv.ca.gov /pub/dlr p1FMMP /;pdf /2010 /riv 10 west.pdf Accessed: October 4, 2015. CDC, 2012b California Department of Conservation, 2012. Riverside County Williamson Act FY 200812009, Sheet I of 3. 2012. Web. Available: I1r):INtp.consrv.cia.gov /pub /dip /wa /riverside w 0809 WAxdf. Accessed: October 4, 2015. CDFW, 2012 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7, 2012. Web. Available: Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 92 ■ E SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 01-1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Cited As Reference bttps // nrm. dfg. ca. gov/ FileHandler .ashx ?DocumentID�83843. Accessed.• July 7, 2016. CDFW, 2016 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016. Conservation and Mitigation Banks in California Approved by CDFW. 2016. Web. Available: https: / /www,wildl ife.ca.gov /Conservation/Plan n i ng/Bank inglApproved- Banks. Accessed: July 8, 2016. CEC, 2012 California Energy Commission, 2012. 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. May 2012. Web. Available: bttp // www ene -,-gy -, a.gov 42012publicati_ons /CEC. - 400020.12- 004 /CEC. - 400- 2012- 004- CM1i- REV2.nd_f Accessed October 29, 2015. CGS, 2014 California Geologic Survey, 2014. Aggregate in the Temescal Valley. 2014. Web. Available: ftp: / /fp.consrv.ca.gov,/pub /dmg /p bsfil srfsr 2311Temescal. V lle R a20 l±inal_11- 04- 14 -a.pdf Accessed October 28, 2015. CNRA, 2009 California Natural Resource Agencies, 2009. 2009 California Climate Adpatation Strategy. 2009. Web. Available: http: / /resources.ca.gov /does /climate /Statewide Adaptation_Strategy.pol Accessed November 3, 2015. DOC, 2013 California Department of Conservation, 2013. SMARA Statutes and Associated Regulations. Web. Available: http: // www. consry .ca.gov /omrllawsandregulations /Pages /SMAR A.asDx. Accessed: August 11, 2015. EPA, 2001 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Stakeholders Opinions Report. April 2001. Web. Available: his; / /www3.epa.gov /ttnchie 1 /ap42fci311 /related /stkhld- optj.pol Accessed: July 28, 2016. EVMWD, 2005 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, 2005. Elsinore Basin Groundwater Management Plan. March 2005. Web. Available: fiV:1/ www. evmwd., com /civicaxll ilebatik /blobdload,aspx`lBlobIDD2096. Accessed November 12, 2015. EVMWD, 2015 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, 2015. Nichols Canyon Mine Water Bills. 2015. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530) EVMWD, 2016 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, 2016. Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2006 -01AI and Surface Mining Permit No. 2015 -01 (Nichols Canyon Mine) Draft Environmental Impact Report - District Comments. February 19, 2016. (Available for review at the City of Lake Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 93 M■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 OF] FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Cited As Reference Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530). Girard & McHugh, Jami M. Girard & Ed McHugh, 2000. Detecting Problems With Mine 2000 Slope Stability. 2000. Web. Available: littps• / /www edc gov /niosh /miniiig/Userriles /works /pdfs /dpwms.pdf. Accessed: July 13, 2016. Giroux, 2014 Hans Giroux and Associates, 2014. Odor Impact Analysis, Nichols Road Mine CUP. July 31, 2014. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530.) Giroux, 2016b Giroux and Associates, 2016. Biological /Ornithological Noise Impacts. July 1, 2016. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530) Google Earth, 2015 Google Earth Pro, 2015. Web. Available on -line at: llttp: / /www. lot.)gie.com/earth/downlc)ad U /a ree.html. Accessed September through November 2015. NBER, 2016 National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016. US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions. 2016. Web. Available: hhttp : / /admin.nber.org /cycles /. Accessed: April 20, 2016 - NCES, 2016 National Center for Education Statistics, 2016. A,erage length of school year and average length of school day, by selected characteristics: United States, 2001 -02. 2016. Web. Available: littp://iices,vd.gov/surveys/pss/tables/table 1.5.asp. Accessed: July 28, 2016. OPR, 2009a Office of Planning and Research, 2009. CEQA. Guidelines Appendix G. Web. Available: littp://opr.ca. ov /does /Inital_Study_ Checklist Form.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2015. OPR, 2009b Office of Planning and Research, 2009. Final Statement of Reasons For Regulatory Action - Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97. Web. Available: llttp• // resources. ca.gov /cega/does /Final Statement of Reasons.pdf. Accessed: July 21, 2016. OPR, 2016 Office of Planning and Research, 2016. Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. January 20, 2016. Web. Available: https://www.opr.ca.gov/does/Revised VMT CEQA Guidelines Proposal Janua 20 2016. df. Accessed: July 20, 2016. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 94 ■ ® SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 OR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Cited As Reference CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Palomar Skies, 2016 Palomar Skies, 2016. Why Astronomers Love Low - Pressure Sodium Lights. RCALUC, 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 2004. Riverside County Airports - Skylark Airport. December 29, 2004. Web. Available: from Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 95 Web. Available: http : / /palomarskies.blogspot.com /2009 /05 /why- astronomers -love- low - rressure.htrnl. Accessed June 21, 2016 Project Applicant, Project Applicant, 2016. Wildlife Viewing Frequency from Nichols Road. 2016a April 21, 2016. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530). Project Applicant, Project Applicant, 2016. Memorandum: Estimated Dates of Completion of 2016b Mining Activities at the Nichols Canyon Mine. Received: May 3, 2016. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530). Project Applicant, Project Applicant, 2016. Nichols EIR Recirc- Blasting. April 20, 2016. 2016c (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530). Project Applicant, Project Applicant, 2016. Nichols Road EIR Response to 2011 Pacific Clay 2016d Water Issues. June 22, 2016. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530). Project Applicant, Project Applicant, 2016. Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH 2016e 2006051034 SCAQMD Information Request. February 22, 2016. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main SL eet, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530). Project Applicant, Project Applicant, 2016. Dust Control Acreage Exhibit. June 23, 2016. 2016f (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530). Project Applicant, Project Applicant, 2016. Nichols Road EIR Daily Tonnage Amounts As 2016g Reported to The Office of Mine Reclamation. July 7, 2016. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530). Project Applicant, Project Applicant, 2016. Reclamation Plan 2006 -01A2 Exhibit A, Exhibit B, 2016h Exhibit C. June 2016. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530). RCA, 2003 Riverside Conservation Authority, 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). June 17, 2003. Web. Available: littp://wrc-rca.org/Permit-Docs/mshpp-vol Hun-11. Accessed October 21, 2015.' RCALUC, 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 2004. Riverside County Airports - Skylark Airport. December 29, 2004. Web. Available: from Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 95 ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Cited As Reference htt : / /www.l•calue.or /filemana er/ lanlold / /Sk larks /I2OAii- ort. df. Accessed October 13, 2015. RCALUC, 2014 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 2014. March Air Reserve Base /Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November 13, 2014. Web. Available: http://www.realuc.orp,/filet-nanaizer/plan/march ARB//17 %20- %20Vo1 %> 201 % 2OMa: rch% o2OAir% 2OReserve %2OBase°r'o2OFinal.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2015. RCIT, 2015 Riverside County Information Technology, 2015. Riverside County GIS. Web. Available: http : / /www.riversidecountyit.or9 /. Accessed September through November 2015. RCTC, 2011 Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2011. 2011 Riverside County Ciongestion Management Plan. December 14, 2011. Web. Available: llttp• / /www rctc orp-/mploads /media item s /congestionmanagementpra rg am. origginal.pol: Accessed November 12, 2015. RCTD, 2008 Riverside County Transportation Department, 2008. Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide. April 2008. Web. Available: http://www.cityotbei-net.org/Docui-nentCenter /Hoi-ne/View/784. Retrieved October 28, 2015. Riverside County, Riverside County, 2003. Riverside County General t'ldn. October 2003. 2003a Web. Available: littp :Hplanning.rctlma.org/Zonin Information/Genera[Plan.aspx Accessed September 21, 2015. Riverside County, Riverside County, 2003. Riverside County General Plan Final Program 2003b Environmental Impact Report Volume L 2003. Web. Available: htt :/1 lannin .rctima.or Portals /0/ en Ian /content/eir /volume_I- html #1.3. Accessed: August 1, 2016. Riverside County, Riverside County, 2007. Ordinance No. 847. July 19, 2007. Web. 2007 Available: I-ltLp://www.rivcocob.org/ords/800/947.pd Accessed October 15, 2015. , Riverside County, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Conservation Report 2015 Generator. Web. Available: http•// onlines+ ervices.rctlma.org /content/rcip report ge��. Accessed September 16, 2015. Riverside County, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Conservation 2016 Report Generator. Web. Available: littp: / /www5.rctlma.orglegi- bin /TED060209rciprepp,oNEW.pt. Accessed June 16, 2016. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 96 SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Cited As Reference SANDAG, 2011 San Diego Association of Governments, 2011. Aggregate Supply Study. January 2011. Web. Available: littp / /www sand,t }.off rg/ uploads /`publicationid /publicationid 1558,126.38.1 df. Accessed November 12, 2015. SARWQCB, 2011 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8). June 2011. Web. Available: littp:// www. walerboards .ca.gov /rwgcb8 /watet'_ issues /programs /basin Planl index.shtml. Accessed November 12, 2015. SAWPA, 2014 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. One Water One Watershed 2.0 Plan. February 4, 2014. Web. Available: littp : / /www,sawpa.or /g owow -2-0- platy -2/. Accessed November 12, 2015. SLAG, 2012a Southern California Association of Governments, 2012. 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy. April 2012. Web. Available :lltip : / /I-tpses.seag.ca.g.ov /Pages /2012- 2035 -RTP- SCS.aspx. SCAG, 2012b Southern California Association of Governments, 2012. 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities StratgY "Goods Movement Appendix" Web. Available: hitp:l /rtpscs.seag.ca. gov /I)oct:tmcnt:s /201? /Final /SR/2012fl0'P GoodsMove ment.pdf, Accessed September 16, 2015. SCAG, 2012c Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2012c. GIS & Data Services. Web. Available: htt :// istiata.sca ..cg ca. Liov/ l., ists /Socio %20Economic %o20Librar /Attachnien ts/ 43/ 2012Ad. optedGrowthForecast .xls._Accessed March 20, 2015. SCAQMD, n.d. South Coast Air Quality Management District, n.d. SCAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO), Permit No. G32437 AIN 562763. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530.) SCAQMD, 1976 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1976. Rule 402, Nuisance. May 7, 1976. Web. Available: http:l /www.agmd.gov /does /default- source /rule - book/rule -iv /rule -402. cif ?sfvrstt =4. Accessed November 11, 2015. SCAQMD, 2003a South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530.) SCAQMD, 2003b South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts From Air Pollution. Web. Available: littp: / /www.agmd.gov /does /default- sourcclAgendas /Environmental -.l ustice /cumulative- imRacts- working- Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 97 N ■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■❑ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Cited As Reference group/ cumulative -imi )acts- wlii�paper.pdf'?sfvrsn =2. Accessed October 20, 2015. SCAQMD, 2008a South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significane Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. December 05, 2008 Web. Available: littp://www.aqmd.pov/dQcs/de'l"aL]lt- source/ceqa/hand book/greenho use s-�Yo28glig% 9-cega-significznce- thresholds /d,_ b� oardsynopsis.pdt'?sfvrsn=2. Accessed: June 20, 2016. SCAQMD, 2008b South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. Attachment E -Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October, 2008. Web. Available: hgp• / /www aqmd gov/ docs / default - source /cega/handbook/greenhouse- gases- %❑28ghg °r`o29 -cega -sin (icance- thresholds/ h attaclu,nente. (ll' ?sfvrsn =2. Accessed: June 21, 2016. SCAQMD, 2008c South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. BestAvailable Control Technology Guidelines Part D: BACT Guidelines for Non -Major Polluting Facilities. October 3, 2008. Web. Available: htt): / /www.a md. ov/ docs /default- source /bact /bast Llidelines /part -d - -- bact- uidelincs -for- non- ma`or- ollutiti 7- facilities, df ?sfvrsn =4. Accessed: July 19, 2016. SCAQMD, 2013a South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2013. Air Quality Management Plan. February 2013. Web. Available: htt .: / /www.a md. ov /docs/default- source /clean -ai►-- lads /air - ualit .- mans ge nient- p I ans/2012-a ir-q uaIit y -mana ge ment- p I a n/ri n a t-2 0 12 -aq m p - (february- 2013)/main - document - final- 2012.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2015. SCAQMD, 2013b South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2013. Fiscal Year 2012 -2013 Budget & Work Program. Web. Available: htt : / /www.a md, ov /docs /default - source /finance -bud ets/ - 2012 -13 /f - 2012 -13 -draft -bud et. df?sfvrsn =2. Accessed October 21, 2015. SCAQMD, 2015a South Coast Air Quality Managemnet District, 2015. MATES -IV Final Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin. May 2015. Web. Available: htt : / /www.a md. ov /docs /default- source /air- ualit lair- toxic- studies /mates -iv /mates -iv- final- draft -re ort -4 -1- 15.pdf?sfyrsn=7. Accessed: July 18, 2016. SCAQMD, 2015b South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2015. MATES IV Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk Map. Web. Available: li tp• / /www3 agmd p- ov /wcbgppi /Ol .Web /Ol.aspx ?iurisdictionlD =A NM.g ov& shareID= 73f55d6b- 82cc- 4c41- b779- 4c48c9a8b15b. Accessed: June 21, 2016. SCEC, 1999 Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 98 ON SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 NDFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Cited As Reference CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. March 1999. ht!V:Hscecinfo. use .edu /resources /cats log,/Ligtiefactionprocedures .itin99.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2015. SESPE, 2009 SESPE Consulting, Inc. Air Permit Application. December 1, 2009. (Available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530.) TRAC, 2003 Washington State Transportation Research Center, 2003. Appendix A -A Brief Discussion of Nexus and Proportionality as It Relates to Concurrency. October, 2003. Web. Available: litip. / /depts.washington. edu /trac /concurrency/pdf7ARdxx a.pdf. Accessed: June 23, 2016. USCB, 2015 United States Census Bureau (USCB), 2015. State and County Quick Facts: Riverside County, California. 2015. Web. Available: http : / /quickfacts.census.gov /qfd /states /06 /06065.litml. Accessed November 12, 2015. USFWS, 1997 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence /Absence Survey Protocol. 1997. Web. Available: https: / /www.fws.gov /pacific /ecosery ices/ endangered /recovei -v /documents/ CCalGnatcatcher .1997.protocol.pdf Accessed: July 26, 2016. USFWS, 2016 United States Fish and Wid?sfe Servic, (USFWS), 2016. Endangered Species- Section 7 Consultation- A Brief Explanation. 2016. Web. Available: littps: // www. fws.aov /Midwest /endangered /sec L ion? /sect ion7. htm i . Accessed: July 14, 2016. Westlaw, 2015 WestlawNext, 2015. Westlaw California Code of Regulations. Web. Available: https: //g ovt.westlaw.c_om /calregs /i ndex7 1rTS= 201511122123 52765 &tran sitionT e= Default& co ntextData= ° /o28sc.Default °/a29. Accessed August 11, 2015. WRCOG, 2009 Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2009. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study, 2009 Update. October 5, 2009. Web. Available: http: / /www.wrcog.cog.ca.us /uploads /media items /tumfnexusstudy- 100210.original.ladf. Accessed October 28, 2015. WRCOG, 2015 Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2015. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 2015 Annual Report. 2015. Web. Available: http: / /www.wrcog.cog.ca.us /uploads /media items /2015- tumf -ar -for- web.ori ig nal.pdf. Accessed August 01, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 99 ®■ SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 mf-� FINAL - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA.FINDINGS of FACT Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore Page 100 SCH No. 2006051034 "EXHIBIT B" Mitigation Monitoring Program Surface Mining Permit No. 2015 -01 and Amendment No. Z to Reclamation Plan 2006 -01 State Clearinghouse No. 2006051034 City of Lake Elsinore, California Surface Mining Permit No. 2015- 01(SMP 2015 -01) Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2006 -01 Al (RP 2006 -01 A2) SCH #2006051034 Lead Agency City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 CEQA Consultant T &B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Project Applicant Nichols Road Partners, LLC 25555 Mditri Road Corona, CA 92883 October 28, 2016 SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01A2 ®� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CEQA Requirements The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document that includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the changes to the project that it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. The appropriate reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code § 21081.6). The City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division, would coordinate the monitoring of the mitigation measures with each applicable City department or division, while various City departments /divisions would be responsible for monitoring and verifying compliance of specific mitigation measures (see the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Summary Table beginning on page 6). The City's Public Works Department would coordinate monitoring of the implementation of all mitigation measures for the project. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure; and 3) retention of records in the project file. Program Objectives The objectives of the MMP for the proposed Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan 2006 -OIAI /Surface Mining Permit No. 2015 -01 Project (the "Project ") include the following: • To provide assurance and documentation that mitigation measures are implemented as planned; • To collect analytical data to assist City administration in its determination of the effectiveness of the adopted mitigation measures; • To report periodically regarding project compliance with mitigation measures, performance standards and /or other conditions; and • To make available to the public, upon request, the City record of compliance with project mitigation measures. Overview of the Proiect The existing Nichols Canyon Mine comprises approximately 199 acres (APN Nos. 389 - 200 -015, -023, and - 024) that are subject to RP 2006 -0IAI, including lands located both north and south of Nichols Road, in the northeastern portion of the City of Lake Elsinore. The property is divided into two segments by Nichols Road. "Nichols North" refers to the approximately 156 acres of the Nichols Canyon Mine located north of Nichols Road and "Nichols South" refers to the approximately 43 acres of the Nichols Canyon Mine located south of Nichols Road. The proposed Project consists of approval of Surface Mining Permit (SMP) No. 2015 -01 and Amendment No. 2 to Reclamation Plan No. RP 2006 -01 (RP 2006- O1A2), to allow for mining activities in the EDA; an alteration of the Mine's hours of operation; and a reduction in the Mine's annual tonnage limits. Specifically, Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 1 SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ®, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY under the proposed Project, the total area subject to mining activities on the approximately 199 -acre Nichols Canyon Mine would increase from approximately 116 acres to approximately 140 acres, representing an increase of approximately 24 acres. The proposed mining expansion areas occur north of Nichols Road and to the north and east of the existing approved mining limits. With approval of the proposed Project, the total amount of aggregate reserves that would be available at the Nichols Canyon Mine, inclusive of existing permitted aggregate reserves, would total approximately 15,033,304 tons. Additionally, the Project proposes to expand the mine's hours of operation from between 7:00 am and 12:00 am (Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Holidays) and between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm (Saturdays only) to between 4:00 am and 12:00 am (Monday through Saturday, excluding. Federal Holidays) for mining equipment and asphalt batch plant operation and 24 hours per day (Monday through Saturdays, excluding Federal Holidays) for aggregate and asphalt batch plant export activities. The proposed change to the Mine's operating hours also would apply to the asphalt batch plant, which was previously approved by the City as part of Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 -07 (CUP 2014 -07). Thus, the batch plant has already been approved by the City along with an environmental clearance that was not challenged by a third party. Under the existing CUP 2014 -07, operation of the asphalt batch plant may occur between the hours of 7:00am to 12:00am Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 7:00am through 7:00pm on Saturday, with no operation of the asphalt batch plant allowed on Sundays or legal holidays. Under the proposed Project, asphalt batch plant operations would be allowed to occur during the same hours as for mining activities (i.e., between 4:00 am and 12:00 am [Monday through Saturday, excluding Federal Holidays]). No change to the asphalt batch plant's existing permitted throughput is being proposed or made as part of the Project, although impacts due to asphalt batch plant operation were evaluated in the Project's EIR. Approval of the Project also would reduce the Mine's maximum annual production limit from 4,000,000 tpy to 856,560 tpy, inclusive of both aggregate and asphalt materials in terms of exported materials from the site. Other discretionary and administrative actions that would or could be necessary to implement the Project are listed in the table on the following page. Organization of the Mitigation Monitoring Program The following describes the sections of this MMP: • Introduction - Provides an overview of CEQA's monitoring and reporting requirements, program objectives, the project for which the program has been prepared, and the manner in which this MMP is organized. • MMP - Describes the City entities responsible for implementation of the mitigation monitoring plan, the plan scope, procedures for monitoring and reporting, public availability of documents, the process for making changes to the program, types of mitigation measures, and the manner in which monitoring will be coordinated to ensure implementation of mitigation measures. • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Summary - Outlines the Project's environmental effects and mitigation measures, responsible entities, and the timing for monitoring and reporting for each mitigation measure included in this MMP. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 2 ® SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 ■� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Matrix of Project Approvals /Permits Public Agency Approvals and Decisions CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE City of Lake Elsinore Discretionary Approvals Approve, conditionally approve, or deny City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission the proposed Surface Mining Permit No. 2015 -01 and amendment to Reclamation Plan 2006-01A] (RP 2006 -01 A2) and associated revised Financial Assurances. • Reject or certify this EIR along with appropriate CEQA Findings. • Consider compliance with the City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan. City of Lake Elsinore Subsequent Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals City of Lake Elsinore Community Development • Issuance of Blasting Permit Department OTHER AGENCIES- SUBSEQUENT APPROVALS AND PERMITS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Issuance of a Section 404 Permit • Section 7 Consultation (for coastal California natcatcher) California Department of Conservation (CDC) • Review of Reclamation Plan 2006 -01A2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Section 7 Consultation /Issuance of Biological Opinion (for coastal California natcatcher) California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Issuance of a Section 1602 Streambed (CDFW) Alteration Agreement (SAA) Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board • Compliance with National Pollutant (RWQCB) Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permit. • Filing of an Amended Notice of Intent (NOI) for the existing NPDES Permit • Issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Riverside County Flood Control & Water • Approvals for construction of stormwater Conservation District (RCFCWCD) sedimentation basins. DESCRIPTION OF PLAN Mitigation Monitoring Plan This MMP delegates responsibilities for monitoring the project, and allows responsible City entities flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures wil I vary according to the type of mitigation measure. The timing for monitoring and reporting is described in the monitoring and reporting summary table, below. Adequate monitoring requires demonstration of monitoring procedures and implementation of mitigation measures. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 3 ■ ® SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 OF I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to enhance the effectiveness of the monitoring program, the City will utilize existing systems where appropriate. For instance, with any mining project, the City is responsible for conducting annual inspections top verify compliance with conditions of approval, approved permits, etc. These inspectors are familiar with a broad range of regulatory issues and will provide first line oversight for much of the monitoring program. Responsibilities of the City include identification of typical mitigation measure - related issues such as noisy equipment, dust, safety problems, etc. Any problems are generally corrected through directions to the contractors or through other appropriate, established mechanisms. Internal reporting procedures are already in place to document any problems and to address broader implementation issues. ing`Procedures The City will be responsible for monitoring and implementing the mitigation measures included in this monitoring plan. Reporting establishes a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented and generally involves the following steps: The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate City Departments (as indicated on the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting forms) or employs the office's existing reporting process for verification of compliance. Responsible entities verify compliance by signing the monitoring and reporting form and /or documenting compliance using their own internal procedures when monitoring is triggered. • Responsible entities provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. The reporting forms prepared by the City will document the implementation status of mitigation measures of the Project. Progress reports describe the monitoring status of all mitigation measures. The City will keep records of Project reporting forms and periodic status reports. Public Availability All monitoring reporting forms, summaries, data sheets, and correction instructions related to this MMP for the Project will be available for public review upon request at the Community & Economic Development Department of the City of Lake Elsinore Department of Community Development (130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530) during normal business hours. Program Changes If minor changes are required to this MMP, they will be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities and /or minor modifications to mitigation measures that achieve the same or better end results. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081.6. Types of Mitigation Measures Being Monitored The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project is a "project specific" and "cumulative" evaluation as defined in the CEQA Guidelines. e Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 4 EN SMP 2015 -01 / RP 2006 -01 A2 M [_ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Final Environmental Impact Report recommends 20 Project - specific and cumulative mitigation measures to reduce impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology /soils, hydrology /water quality, noise, and transportation /circulation. Compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through administrative controls over project planning and implementation. Monitoring would be accomplished as described previously under "Reporting Procedures" through verification and certification by personnel. In general, implementation of the MMP will require the following actions: • Appropriate mitigation measures would be included in construction documents. • Departments with reporting responsibilities would review the Final Environmental Impact Report, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems with or exceptions to compliance would be addressed by the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance with mitigation measures. Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore SCH No. 2006051034 Page 5 it O O 2 a c� Z O w in z a O Z w O E O Z O a F OC O CL N W Q � 0 Q C J CL w . o z CN W IL a Z N LL. E ME N Q r O �O O O N CL r O r O N CL a E H C 'C CL C a c �L O .o C C O v 0 c� z O o � F z o w A xW 14 F � d a w � F COO F A a rr O C7 OD d •-. C.' d • O c� w .b O F O � O d b Eby 0.. u CZ o — a) o 3 a��i �r cd ��•/7� U . i 01 a� 3 O id vi Fr. ,O •N `� Z � aj vi Q v, N � O •, o � O ° U c �w 0- go � EQ '� w o o to O "o W F" ❑ o o O Y cz � a� �. N O � � w: c� O sp• � i� �I C O N Y a O '� ^' ' N N N N U o G�. U , = = b i. M W a U-0 0 0— u 0 m00.a .� �42U rn cd y v O Cis co idU 6 00 Cd 3 3 >, . O o 'O ^ � U.. C� 1O. O N ¢ n. 0, a o En 3 o N CIS Q A •�W�U (n C's 3 o .o m r G a 0, • Gm N M U a+ .N. d N O 0 LO 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) O O C W J O U C N Q O J %0 Gl a1 CL 0 C z o C; o W ' n o W o U 0� w o a bi) op a on p. V� O U O U v Q u" A I.. Ep P.0 0..W a�a a oUC4 :g ' v LL 0, f b M f-1. O cC C. cC . a rr O C7 OD d •-. C.' d • O c� w .b O F O � O d b Eby 0.. u CZ o — a) o 3 a��i �r cd ��•/7� U . i 01 a� 3 O id vi Fr. ,O •N `� Z � aj vi Q v, N � O •, o � O ° U c �w 0- go � EQ '� w o o to O "o W F" ❑ o o O Y cz � a� �. N O � � w: c� O sp• � i� �I C O N Y a O '� ^' ' N N N N U o G�. U , = = b i. M W a U-0 0 0— u 0 m00.a .� �42U rn cd y v O Cis co idU 6 00 Cd 3 3 >, . O o 'O ^ � U.. C� 1O. O N ¢ n. 0, a o En 3 o N CIS Q A •�W�U (n C's 3 o .o m r G a 0, • Gm N M U a+ .N. d N O 0 LO 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) O O C W J O U C N Q O J %0 Gl a1 CL 0 C z o o W ' n o W o U 0� w o a bi) op a on p. V� O U O U v Q u" A I.. Ep P.0 aOw a�a a oUC4 a rr O C7 OD d •-. C.' d • O c� w .b O F O � O d b Eby 0.. u CZ o — a) o 3 a��i �r cd ��•/7� U . i 01 a� 3 O id vi Fr. ,O •N `� Z � aj vi Q v, N � O •, o � O ° U c �w 0- go � EQ '� w o o to O "o W F" ❑ o o O Y cz � a� �. N O � � w: c� O sp• � i� �I C O N Y a O '� ^' ' N N N N U o G�. U , = = b i. M W a U-0 0 0— u 0 m00.a .� �42U rn cd y v O Cis co idU 6 00 Cd 3 3 >, . O o 'O ^ � U.. C� 1O. O N ¢ n. 0, a o En 3 o N CIS Q A •�W�U (n C's 3 o .o m r G a 0, • Gm N M U a+ .N. d N O 0 LO 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) O O C W J O U C N Q O J %0 Gl a1 CL a 0� dWQQQ p. V� O U O U v Q u" A I.. Ep P.0 aOw a�a a oUC4 a rr O C7 OD d •-. C.' d • O c� w .b O F O � O d b Eby 0.. u CZ o — a) o 3 a��i �r cd ��•/7� U . i 01 a� 3 O id vi Fr. ,O •N `� Z � aj vi Q v, N � O •, o � O ° U c �w 0- go � EQ '� w o o to O "o W F" ❑ o o O Y cz � a� �. N O � � w: c� O sp• � i� �I C O N Y a O '� ^' ' N N N N U o G�. U , = = b i. M W a U-0 0 0— u 0 m00.a .� �42U rn cd y v O Cis co idU 6 00 Cd 3 3 >, . O o 'O ^ � U.. C� 1O. O N ¢ n. 0, a o En 3 o N CIS Q A •�W�U (n C's 3 o .o m r G a 0, • Gm N M U a+ .N. d N O 0 LO 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) O O C W J O U C N Q O J %0 Gl a1 CL O O w CL 0 Z F 0 LLI a 0 z a LD K im 0 z O z O a 0 0 N aI Q U o a 0 N a CL z W 1� Z _/ Co z N W �Q Z N LL. ■ li ■■ _O LO O 10 O O N O z 2 U V) N 0 c w a� J O U U C a O N J 4) D1 CL a 0 F u z z O CC �" O ?z ;o w A `n F a a w a � F A on Q °'Y 3Q Y ' O 03 v W .Y =1. •...i Y z o 0 U a C Q U c?. � o � a 0 cd o w •o � .� O bn 'O O �' v• O Cd O YO O ' C C• y C U vi rl Cc3 d " % Lv I ° Cd U U+' ¢ v d o v �U Yi..n p o CA = w U O � • ¢ W x G ' 0 ° O o � o d cC 0 ' ' p c� ° v v to 54 in. N cd . . �. O d O Y .�' •� •� Y > v 0 t0 . , w o � 0 U o a ° o b z °' v a Q a Q �-. W 3 v %-� o H °' ° �• .; v Y N O •G O P1 N U v O U O 'A v co v ii p O >l cd 'O 'Y . ,� cd cd Y V) Y cd Q Y on on Y O p o 3 0 • �' > y� Lry ate-• v '-'' G cd F3 O cd Y O bj) O F; U cd cd .° ^n ,Y o �o ow o o �-- �U❑ �a � o 'A �y ' Q c d d au. (D/ O � ,�=. N cd p O 0 Y •�; C's 3 � 3a;'. o. o �� .HS a, 3 ° o o CIS _O LO O 10 O O N O z 2 U V) N 0 c w a� J O U U C a O N J 4) D1 CL i O O w CL O Z O W 0 z a O z O z O z O Q t9 O LU N Q � 0 Q 0 J f CL W 0 0 LO o z CV u1 CL Q Z H LL. or- - I ME v 0 LO 0 .p 0 0 N O Z U V) O O w W O J �F O U c (D Q C) J co N O CL x 0 N � z o o � O F d A x w H ,7a d a w Q d �A C7 H O w o Q d a U a O �U w F a w a 0 a ct U 4. o > ❑ U r � Y � � 43 c� a� on cd cn 'Y � � O O .� T cd bU cd cd p Cl. C .� YO OU 'U •E W O �+ '� '� cd Q% U +o+ O Y. /r. b '� v p t� i Q W cd r-, t], 1., 1 2. 0 5 bA , ,b O > cd U U bD 14 cd bo Q bA ° • by t. O U ' N C cd � p > U ° O 0 � (`J Y p cd (, cd O cd U Y cn U v� . ° .O o .b O • � � U >, U cd � O �y p•' -0 0 N ,crn b)) .bb +°U O >, `� 'C v 7 > � n � U U , on o •U : In •( •a Y •° Cd >` U O � cd ' � d > U .� O 4O . cd O > r v 0 LO 0 .p 0 0 N O Z U V) O O w W O J �F O U c (D Q C) J co N O CL i a c� O w CL c� Z O LU 0 z a C7 z O E O z O R K O N w Q � O U a 0 N F CL W O O u> o z N W CL Q K H LA- ELI so 0 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) N O C w N J O U U C N d O N J a CL a 0 � o o � z o w a A x W H � F d � Y P. cd �+ W � O U a C Q O W � w U o ' �Cd U n. o w � a U (n On U 0 cd O O cd .Y a i O C's 'd O i., .Y O C • N p 4. m an d ca N row bp M N 0 O i o' vi o Cl >, 3° W a N v O, 4- Cd ° U a O bA cd N cd E d cd cd cd N •� ° j cd Lj � ° N N v o N vai o cd cd b p p bA > A v b cd �_ (15 —; Ctj api bb z �d a��ao��° �'�`��dY A ^'°3 ro O O -d O N ,-� O U 44� +�-+ H N N =• c, O j rp+ o O.w c'j tw ° go t Ul Cl � bno o � � � ° b ow � °> a� as C,3 u Q (1) r- O p ~ > a) 0.0 '� 71 > ,> U :� ,� .��-•� o cd •O �.. N '� AU C '3.. .�'� 'b z � '4 3 r/) -0 cn a"i p a w 0 H G� O ro o o 0 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) N O C w N J O U U C N d O N J a CL a O O w CL c� Z O LU z a O z O z O Z O a (9 f.. O C.4 LAJ Q � o Q �o g 0 N F CL W � g z 00 _/ O Z N W d Q Z V1 LL. v 0 LO 0 `o 0 0 N O Z U V) N O c U W Y J O U U C Q O N J O r a� rn CL a 0 F' z o a � F 7 O W Q A xw � F d Gz, A a w d Q A tj Q Q z W `" 0 o a� o > C F o 0 o°'n w o c � 0 z o W •� d W O U a a� a � � d a � o w U U Q 0 0 L1. 0 W }' d 2 fl �� °�' 4. avi o; o H� �3 o >,� �5� � °� � Oboe, .. k, C,3 U CO ° C rn , o o C13 u a F� o 'o ° > o C's cd F�o Cd o Ca E � A cz z O a� � o ro Q o ' E ~ C,3 `O c t o • ccd v, p .- a� '� W r O aa••i . Y .b c 3 F. "CIS cC •`� V cd = � d c. , - O O ' �" N c d � �., p Cn `�d '� ] C3 . a`�i '�p � 00 s d N y . p o p � O O . 0 •o N Q cd C U "cd b 0bO +� C P. 0 bOA � A > O ,o O In rA > O p U N O cd bU n o P. V) o ° t? v 0 LO 0 `o 0 0 N O Z U V) N O c U W Y J O U U C Q O N J O r a� rn CL a c� O m CL O Z t= O LU w 0 z a O z O H O z O a O F= r O IL LU N O Q O N CL oe W I m o z N 'L CL a z N LL. M II Em v� 0 LO 0 `o 0 0 N O Z U V) 1` O In w W O J O U U C Q C3 Q) J rn v a 0 F �z 0 a � 0 F� O W Q A F $ Q a w a d � A � ooq o•� . ono g F" .o a�i p •� W � o ,> w 0 0. U c Q w U F o x et a� o � a � � � oa "U rp z ¢ L:' a ° w •o � •� a,0w s p 73 N +' 2 Pi p n� > tQ A p r- c� U O m 'n ^ O O N U y _ b cC W �" U m bq N cC co ~ C }' bA O > �p a>i n > . • NC + 4" .s"• ' O`d � �? 'O VJ N Oi L. � a� � ¢ O p�1 cC . � � � bA � oA > oo > co • C� U U a� �. -2 D � �+ v� U ,� cC on r m O C a� °�' o o °' a�Ui i -- o aoi o ° p � b � � on � d :.� � � � � n o a � 0 � � � � a� OD rl 0 o � '� ° '� " c ' a N o b o .r �... 1,:., v' U �' " cd cdzV, '�- p O o'om��,�3 n ...o > a�ioYoona°iY on ~ i b o aoi ` o o 3 0 o b° U a on > Vi +� rJ � Q oo bA M oA co b '� v� a� y ; .E ^ 01-0 > U o a� .� • 'ti c bA ❑ � y ' ".— am > o Q" c� p ° " -d -O G 0 &0 b 0 N °U U °U cd voi U cd tU, O vNi v� 0 LO 0 `o 0 0 N O Z U V) 1` O In w W O J O U U C Q C3 Q) J rn v a c� O w C. t� Z O w 0 z c� z O r Z O z O Q f- E-! m O N w Q o a O � c°r F C. C= w O 0 o z N W CL a z N U- ■❑ ■■ v 0 it) 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) N O C w N J O U U C N Q N J N_ N O1 v. a O z o a � z o W d A x W � F d aW d d F A i N al - N Q a) O U U O bOA > a 0 j �.E= +c' b o y a ° 0 3 0 d U n u ri cz zu� p z o ° d U1:6, ,> Q w C A w °n w U > x a U bA O v �, V] C1. U 0L..� Q W W Q G p U U p N rA (1) u cd • � N . ��.' ria o aOw -c; _ Id cd 3 3 o � cn b i aLp •V > • ° o cod 3 y p Y p a� 4 . 6 YbA �4ai ,C� 4. ° . cd m � v —0 O n 2)" 0 � y . cd O v cd 3 b �. a a o a. on a � O W cd a) O �, U Y •� ¢ Q O O Y a) O U % CD '� N p W cd 'O O 4, O �, O 4. � 0 ,� cqj a) 4. ,� O O O 0 O .Y. .Y O N Y p 'p W .fl O > Y U c,U+ O Y O c7 a' c Y a� on °n c F" °' . Y a� .c on rd 'n O O bA U •a.. Q ❑ O sOy cd Y O ^, cd ° cl-" UoA a) cd Vi W O Y �, Y O .� 'Y cd �' cd bA ... ,� bA • � y ab' _ �p a' G. Y a' o> ° �_ y o y o Q c > abi U •N O. M O° •� 3 >> 3 ❑ro U W U �+ b '' •cd b ro O bA •� O cd .p G ro a� •m a) a) a� O +•• Q .5 •� E Q+'rn p 6"'O 3 w a.. cd •� a) cCd N 3 O cd Q U. o rd O F"+ � .� o° U ° rd a d a� ° a v 0 it) 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) N O C w N J O U U C N Q N J N_ N O1 v. O O w CL 0 Z O ad in z •4 C7 z ad O E O z O I-- c9 f- O N W Q U o Q o ? N r CL W O LO o z N W CL Q Z_ tn U. x 0 F z o a � 0 7 O w d A x w z a Gi. A a w a d F A a F F� �w ZQ a a U 0. 0." O xU w F a a a w z 0 f3. rA w a a O w O d c7 L � T > c ° O > b s oA abi Q CIS a) a) 4 V) � � > bA ° o V) a) -C; r- 3 su o o o � d y a 4 ) aJ o� 4U. cri o Cd a) ° .� o M Y o o °'' o E 3 Q Or) ¢ b a) O O o G C5 bb OO bbD a) o a) O O W 'En � Q W � o' �CIJ Go. U ° o 0 Q W W U U Xi a) a) (d as o V b U n w ° � bA � N 3 bA O Q ID. cr a aA U b � 3 w �bn' C a) Q id C Y .b .fl •.� bA � rn O p bA O o (1) bA s. d >, v o a) Y � Q o o �d O ai O U bA O cd a) U �«'. Ow a) r bA �� o '� o E u- U° o n v 0 LO 0 10 0 0 N O Z 2 U V) N O c .N w O Y J O U i+ U ^C W Q O N J M_ N rn 0 CL r 0 IL N LLI Q O Q •o � O � J CL W Z 00 _N > O Z CN W CL Q Z N LL. OF] No x 0 F � o o � F z o � � a A xW F �a a wA a w a d F A a a W O d E Y U � N O O O O -0 ctj b U 0 Cn ¢, fr" Y p Y V1 i'•' cd ob o O w O 3 � C bOA CUn ,b 00 bA Q C m bA C� bA O 0 � a) W O bdo — O o C C,y � -0 .Y ,s.' cOd bb b[ cn bb �c's'� 3' N C❑pd sp = v N bA O v cd - a) .O cd E bA 4.°. N O" bA U. a) � O CE a� a) O Yr 'b 'i. 'Y co .Y~. 3. > Y VI L G U y 00 c�; ctj O cd .r bA YO N .-. w o ' s U N +••' a) ,ty' U Y rYi1 cd eF bA :j o b i O '° O c U W IA ) cd r," cA rfd n d _ U C U O❑ N a) aY-• p .O N U C's o4° Q > U bA O p 73 1-4 > Cd O cj� UO � � • � � � � 00 � o ' �, }' 213 d cd O N .0 p O f� Q. Q rA V) Cd o W '�•cnri ��bU o� M¢ W C`1 N i>,U O O N cad 03 cd U L. 7 O a R 7 7 U W 00 a O U bA .b bA .. cd Y Q V1 O O r 'Y N G co 'a w v 0 0 0 0 N O z U V) N 0 c W N U J 0 U U U) Q Q N J W a O a� r. p 3 C7 0 O Co o.?w.> aa" v, ow Qb ro u C� o cd CC cUC w W is a� o w � aOw aOd� a ❑ k. G w U o U w U a U w a a W O d E Y U � N O O O O -0 ctj b U 0 Cn ¢, fr" Y p Y V1 i'•' cd ob o O w O 3 � C bOA CUn ,b 00 bA Q C m bA C� bA O 0 � a) W O bdo — O o C C,y � -0 .Y ,s.' cOd bb b[ cn bb �c's'� 3' N C❑pd sp = v N bA O v cd - a) .O cd E bA 4.°. N O" bA U. a) � O CE a� a) O Yr 'b 'i. 'Y co .Y~. 3. > Y VI L G U y 00 c�; ctj O cd .r bA YO N .-. w o ' s U N +••' a) ,ty' U Y rYi1 cd eF bA :j o b i O '° O c U W IA ) cd r," cA rfd n d _ U C U O❑ N a) aY-• p .O N U C's o4° Q > U bA O p 73 1-4 > Cd O cj� UO � � • � � � � 00 � o ' �, }' 213 d cd O N .0 p O f� Q. Q rA V) Cd o W '�•cnri ��bU o� M¢ W C`1 N i>,U O O N cad 03 cd U L. 7 O a R 7 7 U W 00 a O U bA .b bA .. cd Y Q V1 O O r 'Y N G co 'a w v 0 0 0 0 N O z U V) N 0 c W N U J 0 U U U) Q Q N J W a aU aa" v, aU o •� u C� o CC cUC w W a0w aOw aOd� a a W O d E Y U � N O O O O -0 ctj b U 0 Cn ¢, fr" Y p Y V1 i'•' cd ob o O w O 3 � C bOA CUn ,b 00 bA Q C m bA C� bA O 0 � a) W O bdo — O o C C,y � -0 .Y ,s.' cOd bb b[ cn bb �c's'� 3' N C❑pd sp = v N bA O v cd - a) .O cd E bA 4.°. N O" bA U. a) � O CE a� a) O Yr 'b 'i. 'Y co .Y~. 3. > Y VI L G U y 00 c�; ctj O cd .r bA YO N .-. w o ' s U N +••' a) ,ty' U Y rYi1 cd eF bA :j o b i O '° O c U W IA ) cd r," cA rfd n d _ U C U O❑ N a) aY-• p .O N U C's o4° Q > U bA O p 73 1-4 > Cd O cj� UO � � • � � � � 00 � o ' �, }' 213 d cd O N .0 p O f� Q. Q rA V) Cd o W '�•cnri ��bU o� M¢ W C`1 N i>,U O O N cad 03 cd U L. 7 O a R 7 7 U W 00 a O U bA .b bA .. cd Y Q V1 O O r 'Y N G co 'a w v 0 0 0 0 N O z U V) N 0 c W N U J 0 U U U) Q Q N J W a 0 w CL c� Z O IL W 0 z a c� z O E O z O a t9 R I-- CK O d N W Q o a •o IL 0 N F CL W Z 00 Lo O z N W d Q z V) 1L MFI ■■ a 0 F � o o � O F d A d f=, A a w d d b C7 ° > H y 0 O Cd 14 0 w o Q U a a O wU a a as 0 a a o o w 3 ° o a� O> 4. w cad O ro -d cUC G. cd V rn ^� U U R c� V, y O vi U CJ UO N Q O N N •d ¢ S N (n ca N L) 4. N cd ,� U cd N ti N � i". p � ,, , 0 }' ❑ 4, 'b by U C�C U CIS C, N N CA f — ° •�, vi Ri G V '+-' '" Gn d O N ra d �� + = �b+ A C 0 U U a > U bb O ai A O C's U C m "°b .. N " ? O � 0 n i o > ' O q •� vi ° w Q Q o ow. �n H Q 'c U ¢ cs 0 LO 0 10 0 0 N O Z U V) O 0 c W J O U T U C V/ N J v v) v CL � a o U' F L o O o � z O w E" � a o A z a z ,x O A z O F w z d d O a � A c� c7 F w O w O Q � U 0. ^' O aV w F FL a 0 a w a 0 N °J Q � CD a O CL � W z O 0 r z 0 N w .r N U U N co o U ai v� o Z a°J .0 a C5 Cl) co U a cd 4. cd G ate+ 1�7, O U U V) U U .•. �". N 'O vNi O cd 'b 0 0 V N N N ,.O bl O U O> O N 0 cn �O N a1 0 d (Y) 0 LO 0 10 0 0 — N O z U 4 Y .v O C' N .� U �- bA 0 cd .� vi •� Q a„ b o w o N > 3 °UJ Q o Cd o d o 0 0 v, cd O U U •V W b °� O N N �a d O> y d O •O b Q Cd O N N Y cd > ° a ¢ (° .- 4) .- rl "o 0 r. U -22 :d 400.1 F+ cd O N 4. 0. G ..V. -I i+ C-I ai a aoi U 0 0 0 �° 3 a°� ' ao �_ 0 y a� a� d cuqs 3 uw co E d C N Q Q $2. O d cd Z cd m m i�r O �O N a1 0 d c� O w CL O Z O LU 0 z a O z O E O z O a O R O LU N Q O Q •o � O ? C4 CL Ix W O 0 o z N W C a Z N 1L ■❑ on v co o_ 0 0 0 N 0 z U V) N O c w N �R V J O U U C Q N J r N a a a 0 F c� z z o a � 0 z o � w d A xW F Q fi. A a w Q Q. z �•� �,w a b cC N 0 C Ls z u o z �? '> wQ U A. ao U W W Q pti � w o � �U 0 5 °a 0 6b t)D a a a� o o° •Y _ -- t, U cC N. N W N y0 a U .� ° U N N 76- LP4 r. CJ cd cd o a) cd O 0� V) Q �' U o v bA a�i b O t7 ° .� Q% .. °� 'C a z o •E C H ,�, 0 �3'❑� °°ms's.' - ." Fi >�o °U E O bA O O O In cd o c� a 3 0 c/) ¢ W m ° a x fi E F� C C •� ° +� O 0 on O C .� Cd O •d C, a d b P4 O . � � ?N ' o A v 00 1O " ' O ctd � . N. y _ d U O > x �� rn � X O U �" O U �o V" + Z.cnN. v co o_ 0 0 0 N 0 z U V) N O c w N �R V J O U U C Q N J r N a a � a o O Ix z CL o O o Z F z o w W Q � A 0 z a z F 0 zA r L�. Z O � E•� w Z d d O Q � A c� c� E� 0 w O Q Q a U WO U F a d a a z 0 a w 0 Q � o a o ? a O J Ln W 00 O r Z <ON W N U M I.J ■E d �bA �� N �~O bA O 4~��`~E�m 3-moo 0 30�cd co o a O a� ct >� b d NN c� 'O 'C •b 4"i a-+ ro y y N cd N V) �_, > g- bn V � In. bA 1 'o .. s C's >, *r. 1. 10 E a. o o ° ab a 3 w = r� 0 .r v (Y) 0 LO 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) N O c w W J O t U U C O Q O N J co G! a1 a CL c� O 9w CL 0 Z O LU 0 z a c� z O Z O z O Q 0 C w V Q U o a C Q c N r CL CwC Z o O0 LO > o z CLLJ C- a Z N 1i. co 0 LO 0 10 (D 0 N O Z U V) N O w N J O U a U c Q J 0% r- N v CL x 0 �z 0 F_ _ ..................... 7 O w' d A x w F zAd w a w d d F A U c� W Q U 0. � r. w U o c >' U W x Q � � fsr � o U �n a o � w a o aow cd ° G �. O cd a C O° ° o rz cC G o OU O o r° a� �- b c° ° a, o .y o °� ' �n a °o � o . a� 3 0 0 aj aj ~ w �; o ° a) Cti Ty � fy N y , � bA O N C�• ° 'd ° N Q) • O � on-. PQ.- � ° ° � o•� a �; o y tw o� 3 ° d o b p 0 W �� y � c� n O �' a> >, Q vi ob ^��b� �oo��a �� acl��5 ;° pon i o U ° a o 3. x ° d 3 �' k° a� o aii a Y c° c� w ., U U b o U U a° >. w d b 3 ea o a� a; �; Y o aoi b b o °cd aA � ° , o . 9b . 3 (L) ai � N ° ° ° a a o 4 c > '� ° � 0 a' °' O 0 as O • a, o O w N c�C � O N `n O U'o O p 3 a. O p o � a�� U U a � b G • • ►fir M �1 U EA vl ct:r 'b y.� n /� iU-i W -12 U 9 tC co 0 LO 0 10 (D 0 N O Z U V) N O w N J O U a U c Q J 0% r- N v CL O O w CL 0 z f- o! 0 LLI 0 z Q c� z O H O z O a O LU N Q o a o ? N F W o 0 o z N W a. Q z h v- rL v 0 LO 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) N O c U-1 N J O U U c O Q O O J 0 N N vi v CL a 0 H � o a � 0 F z o W Q A xW � H zAf=, a W Q Q 00 0 00 0 bA O bA 'Y bA O_ bA i— iC~r -, F C } y uw co � ° O oz A cd U a U a Q �U �U Ln z 0+ cYd O rA �'" aOw aOw N N bA bq ^ rn v) b C _ R 3 a�i O >, Y .? y b y bA O y 3 d 'm a�i 3 0. a a bb C❑ bA v Q cC �A cd G . o = a� d a ' G cj 0' •� a o 0. a� 4 o a� > N a cd N -b p — ��' •k N °. p z '�' vi 0 cUC cd 'n U Y a' 0 0 °�' .a -d O 3 Q co (1) f�.'�. 1-, N N" L1+ OA N (C O p p N +"O-+ fn �. 'O 4-i .> vi L. cd O .b N U cd O bA a-. . U��. bA R. O ' � 'O E O O. •� V -o 'O � ^ v� 4 co cad � '0 0 N N cj 6 N O N �O " .cd o ;-4 � b o Z O b m E - ¢. A 'o 0 o cd - m 3 o v G 4. i� o c Z °° � •s � a� 'C 'C a� m .- N o � c� .� 3 � � Z v 0 LO 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) N O c U-1 N J O U U c O Q O O J 0 N N vi v CL O O w CL O Z r O LU 0 z a c� z O z O z O a C7 ►l O a N ILXU Q o a o ? N CL W O 0 LO 5; o z C*4 W C- a Z h LL. ■ U M ■ 0 L(-) 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) N 0 c w Y J 0 U U Q N J N N v1 v CL a 0 F � z o � z o � w Q A xw F A f� a w F ¢ F A a� C7 4. o o > ° o o F cn O '> o°N Cd Y 0, F-o•� �•� c 3 roc4 ov�i 0 0 c o z cn � O .�.� Iz Uci. Ua o o p U C p 0 a� U4C� W •O � .� rOr •O N .a �" aOw aOw Q> °o' a�i o Y aoi bA > n ❑ O o ,, o (D '2 z� o d o° O b on a� Y° > y o E a cn wa' o o 3 a�i w° , 1- E E o. c 3 0j) •O p Y 5 O�Q ,0 a) ^�'r O O O O ++ O N N U O aFi ° � In Uw aYi.O2 N U Ei G b L1 a� `d — 3 0 bA d o cl O U G 00 0 a`�i cad) —Cd Abp C� /'.' w M d y ' y • • Oj O t1r U 17 d. cn) r b cc .O U +� YO •Y �, � N cd • N Y a) y rn G cC a) .O cad -d W a) 3 00 t, O cam, S[1 >, 44 0 G7. Qn W O O �. F N Z ¢ H aa) 0 L(-) 0 10 0 0 N O z U V) N 0 c w Y J 0 U U Q N J N N v1 v CL 0 O CL c� z O a 0 z a c� z O E O z O R O m O IL LU N Q o a o ? n a d � w W o 0 N i O z N IJJ IL a z N L+- NO No U O O C V) a� O J O U c O 0) Q O N J N N d c1 a a- a 0 N o � o z o � W a A xW `n F d �p 00 C7 o N b ° 0 O > N O Zh1 �O cad '10 o o O �N C,3ZN F CG b U 9 Q ao /R 3 ova �r�ao L4 0 L G wz No 0Q U o ' �CIS U w c x e � a Q, c«. o W `m aU O ¢ � � I:w o p" a�i sue. aOw o Y � O Q 2 � ••� w o d Cis a� U Z Cl. 5� f�/7] 4 cd CO 0 V � . V. ° o =? � 4" y > b N 3 N " A .� (� d U O + N ¢��D•o W o `d o (D �w3 ,6 =80 �.o ev cn N co w FNz U " CA 0 60 G. U O O C V) a� O J O U c O 0) Q O N J N N d c1 a a-