Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 20 PA No. 2019-69 Corydon Gateway Commercial CenterCity of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 www.lake - elsinore.org °"` In - City Council Agenda Report File Number: TMP 20 -0003 Agenda Date: 1/12/2021 Version: 1 Status: Approval Final In Control: City Council / Successor Agency File Type: Council Public Hearing Agenda Number: 20) Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Corydon Gateway) for a New Commercial Center with Six (6) Buildings (38,395 sq. ft. Total) and 143 Parking Spaces 1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2020 -04) (SCH NO. 2020100576) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2019 -69 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020 -05 AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02); 2. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2019 -69 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020 -05 AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP); 3. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977 SUBDIVIDING 6.05 ACRES INTO SIX PARCELS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.63 ACRES TO 1.11 ACRES AND ONE DETENTION BASIN LOCATED AT APN 370 - 050 -026 AND A PORTION of 370 - 050 -030; 4. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020 -05 TO ESTABLISH THE CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT LOCATED AT APN 370 - 050 -026 AND A PORTION of 370 -050- 030; and 5. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02 PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGN AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT LOCATED AT APN 370 - 050 -026 AND A PORTION of 370 - 050 -030. City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Printed on 1/7/2021 CITY OF ^ LADE LS 1110 I�E L -M DREAM EXTREME, REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Grant Yates, City Manager Prepared by: Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner Date: January 12, 2021 Subject: Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Corydon Gateway) for a New Commercial Center with Six (6) Buildings (38,395 sq. ft. Total) and 143 Parking Spaces Applicant: Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC Recommendation 1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2020 -04) (SCH NO. 2020100576) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2019 -69 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020 -05 AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02); 2. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2019 -69 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020 -05 AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP); 3. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977 SUBDIVIDING 6.05 ACRES INTO SIX PARCELS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.63 ACRES TO 1.11 ACRES AND ONE DETENTION BASIN LOCATED AT APN 370 - 050 -026 AND A PORTION of 370 -050- 030; 4. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020 -05 TO ESTABLISH THE CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT LOCATED AT APN 370 - 050 -026 AND A PORTION of 370 - 050 -030; and 5. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02 PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGN AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT LOCATED AT APN 370 - 050 -026 AND A PORTION of 370 - 050 -030. Page 1 of 6 PA 2019 -69 (Corydon Gateway) 01/12/2021 Planninq Commission Action On December 15, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, accepted public oral and written testimony, provided recommendations, and by a unanimous (4- 0) vote recommended City Council approval. Project Location The Project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. The Project site encompasses Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030. Environmental Setting Table 1: Environmental Setting Project Description The Corydon Gateway Project consists of applications for a Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, a Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and a Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02 which collectively are being processed under Planning Application No. 2019 -69. Tentative Tract Map No. 37977 is proposing to subdivide the 6.05 -acre site into six (6) lots ranging in size from 0.63 acres to 1.10 acres and one (1) detention basin. Table 2 below provides lot summary information: EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING Project Site Vacant East Lake Specific Plan Action Sports, Tourism, Building Proposed Use Number Commercial and Recreation North Vacant East Lake Specific Plan Action Sports, Tourism, SF Commercial and Recreation South Light Industrial East Lake Specific Plan Action Sports, Tourism, Fast food restaurant with drive -thru 2 1 Commercial and Recreation East Commercial/Industrial City of Wildomar City of Wildomar West Motorsports East Lake Specific Plan Action Sports, Tourism, 2 0.86 5,200 Commercial and Recreation Table 1: Environmental Setting Project Description The Corydon Gateway Project consists of applications for a Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, a Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and a Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02 which collectively are being processed under Planning Application No. 2019 -69. Tentative Tract Map No. 37977 is proposing to subdivide the 6.05 -acre site into six (6) lots ranging in size from 0.63 acres to 1.10 acres and one (1) detention basin. Table 2 below provides lot summary information: N/A = not applicable; sf = square feet Table 2: Lot Summary Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05 and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02 are proposing to establish the Corydon Gateway Project as outlined below: Page 2 of 6 Approximate Approximate Parcel Phase parcel Size Building Proposed Use Number Number (acres) Size SF 1 1 0.63 2,300 Fast food restaurant with drive -thru 2 1 1.09 4,088 Convenience store with gas station 3 1 1.10 4,333 Tunnel car wash 4 2 0.86 5,200 Tire store 5 2 1.04 9,600 Flex -tech condos 6 2 1.10 12,480 Flex -tech condos Lot A 2 0.22 N/A Detention basin N/A = not applicable; sf = square feet Table 2: Lot Summary Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05 and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02 are proposing to establish the Corydon Gateway Project as outlined below: Page 2 of 6 PA 2019 -69 (Corydon Gateway) 01/12/2021 • Lot 1: will include a 2,300 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with a drive -thru. • Lot 2: will include a 4,088 sq. ft. 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy (with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year). • Lot 3: will include a 4,333 sq. ft. Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays. • Lot 4: will include a 5,200 -sf tire store. • Lots 5 and 6: will include 22,080 sq. ft. including 10 1,920 sq. ft. condominiums and one (1) 2,880 sq. ft. condominium. Each of the flex -tech condominiums would include 500 sq. ft. of office space. The remaining area would be used for storage or warehouse space. As the flex -tech condominiums would be leased, internal improvements may be conducted after initial project development to meet the layout requirements of prospective tenants. The 7- Eleven proposes to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The Superstar Car Wash proposes to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven days per week. The hours of operation of the remaining uses would be based on tenants that occupy the uses. Protect Phasing and Construction The project is proposed to be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would include all off -site improvements, utility infrastructure, convenience store and gas station, tunnel car wash, fast food restaurant, and the detention basin. Phase 2 would include the flex -tech condominiums and tire store. Earthwork for the site is anticipated to require 2,809 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 5,975 cy of fill for a net import of 3,166 cy. Architecture and Treatments Buildings would range in height from 26 feet (for the fast -food restaurant and tire shop) to 30 feet (for the flex -tech condominiums). Each building would incorporate varying fagades and architectural elements (such as parapets) of different heights that would provide for a varying roofline. The buildings would be constructed of earth tone (off- white, light brown, and gray) exterior cement plaster, brick veneer, and brown composite siding. The material type, as well as massing and height, would vary for the multiple fagades and architectural components proposed for each building. Portions of the building fronts would be anodized clear aluminum. The buildings would incorporate decorative architectural features including light fixtures, aluminum canopies, and aluminum cornices that would be either clear or anodized dark bronze, as well as galvanized sheet metal coping on the top of the exterior walls. Landscaping The proposed landscaping plan has been designed to complement the architectural style for the proposed buildings. The project site would include approximately 40,826 sq. ft. of landscaping, representing 15.5 percent of the site, which would include the installation of trees along the project boundaries. A continuous line of trees along the southwestern boundary of the project site would provide visual screening between the project site and the adjacent light industrial uses. Trees, as Page 3 of 6 PA 2019 -69 (Corydon Gateway) 01/12/2021 well as shrubs and 30 -inch tall screen hedges, would also be provided within the numerous parking lot islands throughout the site. A variety of shrubs is proposed to be utilized for landscape massing, accent plantings, groundcover, and screening. Vines or other landscape screening would be provided around all trash enclosures, and landscape screening would be provided for above - ground equipment. Signage The project's conceptual sign program presents a coordinated signage theme encompassing all phases of the project. The signs would reflect the architecture proposed for the project as related to style, materials, and colors. No individual signs are approved as part of this approval. A sign plan that incorporates City identification signs is required to be submitted to the City for review. Access, Circulation, and Parking Access to the site would be provided via an ingress /egress located just north of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street (central access) and an additional ingress /egress to be provided farther south along Corydon Street (southern access). The project would extend Lemon Street west from Mission Trail along the northern property boundary via a proposed reciprocal access easement, which would provide northern access to the project site. The existing traffic signal at the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street would be modified to accommodate the new roadway segment. Analysis The Project is located within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and has an Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation. This designation provides for a wide range of extreme action sports and accessory manufacturing, service, and retail uses. Per Section 2.5.1.a.5 and 6 of the ELSP Retail Sales and Restaurants and eating - places, including a drive - through service are permitted uses. Per Section 2.5.1.b.10 of the ELSP, the Community Development Director has deemed Car washes, Gasoline Service Stations, and Automotive Service Stations compatible with the intent of the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use category as requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The ELSP was subject to a consistency finding with the General Plan before adoption. Therefore, the Project is found to be consistent with the General Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposed Project with respect to the relevant development standards as identified in the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation of the ELSP and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) and has detailed the requirements and the proposed development standards as follows: Development Standard Required Proposed Front yard Setback 15 ft. 15 ft. - Rear yard setback interior lot lines No Minimum Side yard setback interior lot lines No Minimum - Parking Setback — Front Ave. 25 ft., no less 20 ft. Ave. 25 ft., no less 20 ft. Building Height 45 ft. 30 ft. Landscape improvements Adjacent to Street 15 ft. min./ Ave. 20 ft. 15 ft. min./ Ave. 20 ft. Buffer Landscaping 15% 15.4% Table 3: Development Standards Page 4 of 6 PA 2019 -69 (Corydon Gateway) 01/12/2021 The project complies with the onsite parking standards listed in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Chapter 17.148 (Parking Requirements). Section 17.148.030.A of the LEMC requires one (1) parking space for every 250 square feet of retail floor area. Section 17.148.030.E.13 of the LEMC requires one (1) parking space for every 45 square feet of customer area, plus one space for every 200 square feet of noncustomer area for food establishments. Section 17.148.030.E.15 of the LEMC requires three (3) parking spaces for each service bay, plus one space for every 250 square feet of office, sales, and storage areas. The project will provide 143 parking spaces, including seven (7) accessible spaces and 11 clean air vehicle parking spaces. The proposed parking would exceed the minimum 121 parking spaces required for the site per the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), as well as the current California Building Code and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirements for accessible and clean air vehicle parking, respectively. The Project also complies with the architectural guidelines and development standards outlined in Chapter 8 of the ELSP. The Project provides a variety of building design features and forms by employing treatments, such as articulated planes along the exterior walls, an attractive storefront window system, and a variety of rooflines, which will create depth and shadow. The proposed landscaping improvements will serve to enhance the building designs and soften portions of building elevations, provide shade, and break -up expanses of pavement. The Design Review Committee that includes staff from Planning, Building and Safety, Fire, and Engineering has reviewed the proposed Project, and have conditioned the Project to mitigate any potential concerns. AB 52 Tribal Consultations On May 1, 2020, the City provided written notification of the Project in accordance with AB 52 to all of the Native American tribes that requested to receive such notification from the City. Staff received requests from Rincon, Pechanga, and Soboba Tribes within the 30 days, requesting to initiate a consultation. Consultation was concluded on June 17, 2020, with the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, on October 26, 2020, with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and on October 20, 2020, with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Mitigation measures have been added to address a concern over the potential for uncovering tribal cultural resources (TCRs) or other tribal - affiliated resources during the construction of the project. Environmental Determination Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2020- 04) was prepared for the Project to assess potential environmental impacts. The Initial Study revealed that the Project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH# 2020100576) was prepared and was made available for public review and comment for a 30 -day review period from November 2, 2020, to December 1, 2020. The MND determined that the proposed Project would have potentially significant environmental impacts upon Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. These impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance through compliance with the mitigation measures outlined in the MND. Notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the MND was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, and posted at the Office of the County Clerk of Riverside County and the State Clearinghouse on November 2, 2020, for a 30 -day public comment period. Page 5 of 6 PA 2019 -69 (Corydon Gateway) 01/12/2021 Three (3) comment letters regarding the MND were received during the 30 -day public comment period from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (dated November 20, 2020), the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (dated December 1, 2020), and the Inland Empire Biking Alliance (dated December 1, 2020). Responses to comments were prepared and are provided in the attached Final IS /MND. There were no public comments or changes to the text or analysis contained in the MND that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effects. Only clarifications were made to the MND in response to public comments. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the MND is not warranted. MSHCP Consistenc The Project has also been reviewed for consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). A portion of the project site (1.12 acres) is located within the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Criteria Cell # 5131. On September 24, 2020, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) completed the Joint Project Review (JPR# 20- 06- 09 -01) process and concluded that the Project is consistent with both the Criteria and other plan requirements of the MSHCP. Fiscal Impact The time and costs related to processing this extension of time request have been covered by application fees paid for by the applicant. No General Fund budgets have been allocated or used in the processing of this application. Exhibits A — CEQA Resolution Al - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program B — MSHCP Resolution C — TTM Resolution D — CUP Resolution E — CDR Resolution F — Conditions of Approval G — Final IS /MND H — Vicinity Map I —Aerial Map J — TTM 37977 K — Design Review Package L — Perspective Street Views Page 6 of 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2020 -04) (SCH NO. 2020100576) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2019 -69 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020 -05 AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02) Whereas, Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02) to subdivide a 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one (1) lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030); and, Whereas, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: "CEQA ") and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines ") because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code Section 21065); and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the Project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2020 -04), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project; and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, on November 2, 2020, the City duly issued a notice of intent to adopt the MND; and, Whereas, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the MND was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days beginning on November 2, 2020, and ending on December 1, 2020; and, Whereas, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) for adopting MNDs, and, CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 2 of 3 Whereas, the MND was sent to the Commission members on or about November 2, 2020 and considered by the Commission on December 15, 2020 at a duly noticed Public Hearing and, after consideration of evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties on the adequacy of the MND, the Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Council adopt the MND for the Project; and, Whereas, on January 12, 2021, 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 evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed the MND. The Council hereby finds and determines that all public comments have been addressed. Section 3: The Council hereby finds that the MND for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City's procedures for implementation of CEQA. The Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND and finds that the MND represents the independent judgment of the City. Section 4: The Council further finds and determines that none of the circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation of the MND are present and that it would be appropriate to adopt the MND as proposed. Section 5: The Council hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates the following findings regarding the lack of potential environmental impacts of the Project and the analysis and conclusions set forth in the MND: Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study was released for public review and mitigation measures set forth in the Initial Study would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the Project, there is substantial evidence suggesting that all potential impacts to the environment resulting from the Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. All appropriate and feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the Project design. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan contains an implementation program for each mitigation measure. After implementation of the mitigation contained in the MMRP, potential environmental impacts are effectively reduced to less than significant levels. 2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency including the initial study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have significant effect on the environment. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 3 of 3 Pursuant to the evidence received, including comment letters, and in the light of the whole record presented, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 7: Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Council hereby adopts MND (ER 2020 -04) and the MMRP, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A1 ", for Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02). Section 8: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 9: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 12th day of January, 2021. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 12, 2021, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist has been prepared for the Corydon Gateway project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: (1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented, (2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure, and (3) retention of records in the Corydon Gateway project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the Program, but also allows the City of Lake Elsinore (City) flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented and generally involves the following steps: • The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate persons for verification of compliance. • Departments /agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. • The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits /approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, program redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Date Process Timing Responsibility Completed Biological Resources MM BI0-1, Burrowing Owl Surveys. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre- Pre - construction Prior to Qualified Date: construction focused species surveys in accordance with the California Survey issuance of a Biologist, Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW's) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl grading permit Project Applicant/ Mitigation (CDFW 2012) within 30 days prior to commencement of construction Developer, activities. If burrowing owls are determined to occupy the site during pre- Planning and construction surveys and impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, the City Engineering Depts. shall consult with the CDFW and prepare and implement a project - specific Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the CDFW and implemented prior to activities that could affect burrowing owl within the project site. To avoid take, impacted individuals shall be relocated outside of the impact area by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities using passive or active methodologies approved by CDFW. The relocation shall occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl. Existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated. MM BI0-2, Nesting Bird Pre - construction Surveys. In order to avoid violation Pre - construction Prior to Qualified Date: of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Survey issuance of a Biologist, Code, construction activities shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible during grading permit Project Applicant the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31). /Developer, If construction activities are to occur during the nesting season, a pre - construction Planning and Engineering nesting survey shall be conducted within three days prior to the commencement of Depts. construction (if between February 1 and August 31). A qualified biologist shall perform the nesting survey that will consist of a single visit to ascertain whether there are active raptor nests within 500 feet of the project footprint or other protected bird nests within 300 feet of the project footprint. Nests will be searched for in the trees and shrubs. This survey shall identify the species of nesting bird and to the degree feasible, nesting stage (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging). Nests shall be mapped (not by using GPS because close encroachment may cause nest abandonment). The follow -up nesting survey shall be conducted for five (5) consecutive days and no more than three (3) days prior to construction. If an active nest is observed, the nest location shall be fenced off surrounding an adequate radius buffer zone as determined by the biological monitor, to be at least 350 feet. The buffer zone shall not be disturbed until the nest is inactive. Biological monitoring shall occur during vegetation removal activities. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed MM BI0-3, MSHCP Guideline Implementation. Prior to the issuance of a Site Inspection Prior to Project Date: grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include a note on the plans issuance of a Applicant/ that outlines the following requirements from Section 6.1.4 of the Western grading permit, Developer, Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ( MHHCP): during and after Construction 1. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the construction Contractor, Planning, site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall Building and be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from Engineering developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas. Best Depts. Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm downstream biological resources or ecosystems. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project will incorporate a detention basin, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices to filter runoff from the project site. 2. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. 3. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area and the avoided area on site to protect species from direct night lighting. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project will direct night lighting away from the MSHCP Conservation Area and incorporate light shielding in the project designs to avoid excess ambient light from entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. 4. Proposed noise - generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area, including designated avoidance areas, shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. 5. Avoid use of invasive, non - native plant species listed in Table 6 -2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, including avoidance areas. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas and designated avoidance areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project landscape plans will avoid utilizing any species listed in Table 6 -2 in the landscaping plans. 6. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into existing and future MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocksiboulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. 7. Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. 8. Weed abatement and fuel modification activities are not permitted in the Conservation Area, including designated avoidance areas. MM BI0-4, MSHCP Construction Best Management Practices Site Inspection Prior to Project Applicant Date: Implementation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property issuance of a /Developer, Owner /Developer shall include a note on the plans that outlines the following grading permit Construction Construction BMPs from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP shown in italics, and ongoing Contractor, and specific requirements in plain text: during Planning, Construction Best Management Practices: construction Building, and - Engineering 1. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist Depts. to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare and implement a Worker Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) to train all project personnel prior to grading. The details of the training should be consistent with MSHCP Appendix C Standard BMP No. 1, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act, include a detailed discussion of how to identify the potential special- status plant and animal species that may be encountered during ground disturbance and construction activities, and necessary actions to take if the species are observed on site. 2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City a project - specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) prior to initial ground disturbance. The project - specific SWPPP shall describe BMPs that will be implemented in pre -, during -, and post - construction phases. Examples of BMPs may include dust suppression BMPs, Low Impact Developments (LIDS) such as vegetated swales, and a spill response protocol. The SWPPP is a dynamic document that shall be amended when site conditions warrant changes to protect natural resources and prevent discharge of non - stormwater to neighboring parcels. The Qualified Stormwater Developer (QSD) shall develop and implement the SWPPP with site - specific BMPs to prevent/reduce the potential for erosion, sedimentation, and offsite discharge of non - stormwater in accordance with the Construction General Permit (CGP), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit, and a 401 Water Quality Certification Permit (if applicable). The QSD shall provide training to the contractor for performing regular site inspections, and for pre -, during -, and post -storm events to ensure that BMPs are functioning as intended. 3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre- existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall submit to the City a construction management plan that demonstrates that the construction footprint will remain within the limits of the current property boundary, site ingress/ egress will be limited to the least impactful location on the Project Site. Trackout (riprap, rumble strips) shall be installed to prevent tracking of sediment to public roadways. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed 4. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall submit to the City a construction management plan that the construction footprint will remain within the limits of the current property boundary, project site boundaries shall be clearly delineated with visible means (i.e. stakes, rope, flagging, snow fence, etc.). The contractor shall adhere to the measures and conditions in all environmental permits to protect Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. 5. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. The Habitat Assessment found that no habitat for target species was observed within the project boundaries. The project site does not contain stream channels, gravel bars, or streambanks. The coarse- grained soil onsite has insufficient clay /fines and does not allow standing water to persist in durations sufficient to support many of the target species. All project - related construction activities would occur within the property boundaries and no equipment or personnel would work outside the clearly identified project boundaries. 6. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to monitor ground disturbance activities that would occur during the nesting season. The Habitat Assessment found that no sensitive habitats were observed within the project boundaries, including riparian habitat. The Construction Contractor shall take are to ensure that construction activities do not negatively impact potentially sensitive habitats or species surrounding the project site. Construction equipment and personnel shall be made aware of MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7 as part of the WEAP training and would always remain within project site boundaries. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed 7. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end ofconstruction activity to minimize the transport ofsediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. No water diversion activities are proposed during project activities. The Property Owner/Developer shall implement erosion and sediment control BMPs as identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) throughout the project site to reduce/ prevent sediment impacts in pre -, during- and post - construction phases. Personnel would be educated during WEAP training as to the importance of preventing impacts to the Temescal Wash from construction activities. 8. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities, including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, USFWS, CDFW, and SARWQCB, and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to an approved disposal areas. Ongoing during construction and operation, all project activities shall occur within the property boundary. Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas shall be located outside any sensitive habitats and in areas with no risk of direct drainage into riparian areas and other sensitive habitats. All fuel storage tanks shall have secondary containment to retain fuel spills. The project site - specific SWPPP shall have BMPs designed to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters or bare soil, as required by the RWQCB. All potentially hazardous materials shall be stored appropriately on site away from sensitive habitats or Waters of the United States. Concrete washouts and active /inactive materials stockpiles shall have secondary containment BMPs to prevent the accidental release of hazardous substances to bare soil. The SWPPP is required to have a Spill Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) to describe necessary actions that should occur in the event of a spill or release of potentially hazardous substances. Spills or releases of toxic substances greater than five gallons shall be reported to the RWQCB, DTSC, Local Municipalities, and/or federal agencies, as appropriate. 9. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. Materials stockpiles shall be located away from sensitive areas. Inactive materials stockpiles shall be covered and bermed to prevent windborne dust or accidental release. The SWPPP shall describe BMPs to prevent fugitive dust from migrating to neighboring parcels or the Temescal Wash. 10. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to monitor ground disturbance activities to ensure that all measures to protect species on and off site are being implemented during construction activities, including burrowing owl surveys (MM BI0-1), and nesting bird surveys (MM BI0-2). Additional protective measures recommended by the qualified wildlife biologist shall be implemented as necessary by the Property Owner/Developer to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. 11. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre- existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. No clearing and grubbing of native vegetation would be anticipated during the project activities as the project site is almost entirely devoid of vegetation. 12. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. No exotic species were encountered during the project Habitat Assessment and none would be utilized in any revegetation efforts. The final landscaping design may incorporate native plant species; however, regular Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed landscape maintenance shall prevent exotic, or noxious plant species from taking root on the Project Site. 13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). The SWPPP shall contain BMPs for trash storage and removal, including containment of sanitation facilities (e.g., portable toilets), and covering waste disposal containers at the end of every business day and before rain events. Trash cans shall have a fastenable lid to prevent animals from accessing or spreading trash onsite. The Project QSD should consult the MSHCP Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices, RWQCB recommendations, and any applicable environmental permit measures and conditions when developing the project SWPPP. 14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. In accordance with the WEAP, all project activities would occur within the clearly delineated property boundaries. Construction activities shall be confined to the project footprint, and approved routes of travel shall be established, including ingress /egress points. Exclusion fencing shall be utilized throughout the project duration. 15. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration /enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including these BMPs. The Contractor shall allow the Permittee access to the construction site. All visitors shall check in with the Project Engineer (or Site Supervisor) prior to accessing the construction site and will be escorted within project boundaries during normal business hours when construction activities are occurring. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Date Process Timing Responsibility Completed Cultural Resources MM CUL -1, Unanticipated Resources. The developer /permit holder or any Assessment of During Project Applicant Date: successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If Resources construction /Developer, during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are Construction discovered, the following procedures shall be followed: Contractor, 1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural Project Archaeologist, resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, Tribal Monitor, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from Planning and consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic /cultural group representative), Engineering and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the Dept. significance of the find. 2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting. 3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. 4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures. MM CUL -2, Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. Prior to Monitoring Prior to Project Applicant Date: issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Program issuance of a /Developer, Community Development Department that a Secretary of Interior Standards grading permit Project qualified and certified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) has been and during Archaeologist, contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) that construction Tribal Monitor, addresses the details of all activities that must be completed and procedures that Planning Dept. must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this project. The CRMP document shall be created in coordination with the consulting tribe(s), and provided to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP provides direction as to how the project mitigation measures will be implemented. The CRMP requires that impacts on cultural resources will not occur without Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed procedures in place, which would reduce any impacts to less than significant. These measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Archaeological Monitor: An adequate number of qualified monitors shall be present to ensure that all earth - moving activities are observed and shall be on -site during all grading activities for areas to be monitored including off -site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor. Cultural Sensitivity Training: The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre - grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all Construction Personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the project site. A sign -in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report. Unanticipated Resources: In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. Phase IV Report: A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 11 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe. MM CUL -3, Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American Disposition of During Project Applicant Date: cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent Resources Construction /Developer, discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of Construction the discoveries: Contractor, One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed Project Archaeologist, with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Tribal Monitor, Development Department: Planning and 1. Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in Engineering place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they Depts. were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. 2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity. Relocation shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains, as they are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. 3. If relocation is not agreed upon by the Consulting Tribes then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources, ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by a ment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Date Process Timing Responsibility Completed Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. MM CUL -4, Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Monitoring Prior to Project Applicant Date: applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have Program issuance of a /Developer, requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the Assembly Bill grading permit Tribal Monitor, (AB) 52 and/or the Senate Bill (SB) 18 process ( "Monitoring Tribes "). The and during Planning and applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal construction Engineering Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to Depts. the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project's approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City's mitigation measures /conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. MM CUL -5, Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Project Records After Project Applicant Date: Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies construction /Developer, with the Riverside County Planning Department's requirements for such reports Project for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report Archaeologist, shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources Tribal Monitor (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of any feature relocation or residue analysis required as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre -grade meeting. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 13 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed MM CUL -6, Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or Assessment, During Project Applicant Date: remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or Treatment, and construction /Developer, earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist and/or designated Disposition of Construction Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of Human Remains Contractor, the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and Project the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and Archaeologist, the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Tribal Monitor, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that Riverside County excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no Coroner, further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the Planning Dept. necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commissions (NAHC; Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the most likely descendent (MLD) are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). MM CUL -7, Non- Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties Non - Disclosure During and Project Applicant Date: that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American of Resource after /Developer, human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be Reburials construction Riverside County governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. Coroner The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Date Process Timing Responsibility Completed Greenhouse Gas Emissions MM GHG -1, Pedestrian Infrastructure. The applicant shall incorporate into the Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: project site plan and design documentation sidewalks or pedestrian paths along all Review issuance of a /Developer, new streets as well as internal sidewalks that link all internal uses. Prior to final Building Permit Planning and site plan approval, the City shall verify that pedestrian improvements meeting the Engineering requirements of Climate Action Plan (CAP) Measure T -1.2 are incorporated into Depts. the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -2, Bike Lanes. The applicant shall incorporate into the project site Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: plan and design documentation a bike lane along the project site boundary with Review issuance of a /Developer, Corydon Street and Mission Trail to connect to the Class II bikeways currently Building Permit Engineering located on Corydon Street and Mission Trail. Prior to final site plan approval, the Dept. City shall verify that bike lane improvements meeting the requirements of CAP Measure T -1.4 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -3, Indoor Water Conservation. The project applicant shall Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: demonstrate, in the project building plans or other design documentation, faucets, Review issuance of a /Developer, toilets, and showers installed within the proposed uses that utilize low -flow Building Permit Building Dept. fixtures that would reduce indoor water demand by 30 percent per California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Standards. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that low -flow fixtures meeting the requirements of CAP Measure E -4 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -4, Landscaping. The applicant shall incorporate into the project Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: landscape plan one 15- gallon non - deciduous umbrella form tree per 30 linear feet Review issuance of a /Developer, of boundary length. The landscape plan shall be designed to be consistent with the Building Permit Planning Dept. requirements of AB 1881. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that the landscaping meeting the requirements of CAP Measures E -1.1 and E -4.1 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -5, Construction Waste Management Plan. The applicant shall Construction Prior to Project Applicant Date: provide a Construction Waste Management Plan which demonstrates how the Waste issuance of a /Developer, project would recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of Management Building Permit Construction nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Prior to issuing a demolition, Plan Contractor, grading, building, or other construction permit, the City shall verify that a Building Dept. Construction Waste Management Plan is in place meeting the requirements of CAP Measure S -1.4. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 15 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Date Process Timing Responsibility Completed MM GHG -6, Bicycle Parking. The project applicant shall incorporate into the Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: project site plan and design documentation, a permanently anchored bicycle racks Review issuance of a /Developer, within 200 feet of the visitor entrance and readily visible to passers -by for at least Building Permit Building and five percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity. Prior to final site plan Planning Depts. approval, the City shall verify that bicycle parking improvements meeting the requirements of CAP measure T -1.5 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -7, Parking for Fuel - Efficient Vehicles. The applicant shall designate, Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: through signage and/or pavement marking, at a minimum, 10 percent of the total Review Issuance of /Developer, project employee and visitor parking spaces for Clean Air Vehicles. Parking Occupancy Building Dept. spaces for Clean Air Vehicles may be any combination of low- emitting, fuel- Permit efficient, and carpool /vanpool vehicles. Prior to issuing an occupancy permit, the City shall verify that a minimum of 10 percent of parking spaces are designated for Clean Air Vehicles (e.g., through signage and/or pavement marking), meeting the requirements of CAP Measure T -2.1. MM GHG -8, Cool Roof Requirements. The applicant shall specify in the Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: building plans or design documentation, roofing materials that have a thermal Review issuance of a /Developer, emittance or Solar Reflectance Index 3 per CALGreen Tier 1 values. Prior to final Building Permit Building Dept. building plan approval, the City shall verify that cool roof improvements meeting the requirements of CAP Measure E -1.2 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -9, Solid Waste Reduction. The applicant shall require recycling Site Inspection During Project Applicant Date: programs that reduce the project's operational waste to landfill be a minimum of operations /Developer, City 75 percent, per AB 341. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 16 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2019- 69 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020- 05 AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02) to subdivide a 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one (1) lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030); and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the Joint Project Review (JPR) to analyze the scope of the proposed development and establish a building envelope that is consistent with the MSHCP criteria; and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP further requires that the City adopt consistency findings demonstrating that the proposed discretionary entitlement complies with the MSHCP Criteria Cell, and the MSHCP goals and objectives; and, Whereas, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.070 (Conditional Use Permits), Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review), and Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to tentative maps, conditional use permits, and design review applications; and, Whereas, on December 15, 2020, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and, Whereas, on January 12, 2021 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 Council has considered the Project and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to adopting Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 2 of 7 Section 2: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Council makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: 1. The Project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. Approximately 1. 12 acres of the project site is located in the northeastern corner of Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The area that will be developed by the Proposed Project is approximately 0.89 acres of that area. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with "Other Plan Requirements. " These include the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, § 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, § 6.3. 1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, § 4). 2. The Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Joint Project Review processes. Approximately 1. 12 acres of the project site is located in the northeastern corner of Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The area that will be developed by the Proposed Project is approximately 0.89 acres of that area. Therefore, a formal and complete LEAP application, LEAP 2020 -01 was submitted to the City on April 3, 2020. The JPR application, JPR 20- 06 -09 -01 was submitted to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The RCA completed the review on September 24, 2020 and found the Project consistent with both the Criteria and Other Plan Requirements. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Woody water - dependent vegetation or drainages are not present on the project. Approximately 2.4 inches of rain fell on December 23 through 26, 2019. Nine days later, at the time of the survey on January 4, 2020, areas of the site had damp soils but no evidence of ponding. The only water observed occurred in a single soil test pit which contained potable water added by the soils technician. The soil pit was later backfilled. No cracked soils, evidence of vegetation changes or other evidence of long -term inundation is present. Botanical species present on the site did not include facultative, obligate, or vernal pool species. No fairy shrimp or potential fairy shrimp habitat was observed during this study. Vernal pools are not present on the parcel. Habitat subject to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP is not present on the project site. Eighty (80) feet to the west of the site, a double row of planted oaks, mulefat, and willow is present in a fenced area at the end of a constructed concrete trapezoidal channel about 190 feet long and 30 feet wide (Figure 3). L &L observed this habitat from accessible public vantage points and using aerial and street view images on Google Earth. Based on the height of the fence, the trees appear to be recently planted and range in height between 6 and 8 feet. Birds maybe present on occasion and is the basis for a recommendation to construct the project outside of the nesting season. If construction cannot avoid the nesting season a preconstruction nesting season clearance survey should be conducted within three (3) days CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 3 of 7 prior to the start of vegetation or ground disturbance. If nesting birds are found to be present an avoidance buffer of at least 350 feet as determined by the biologist should be avoided until the biologist has determined that the birds have fledged from the nest or the nest is otherwise inactive. The habitat in this channel is located in a motorcycle recreation area (Lake Elsinore Motorsport Park) and surrounded by large areas of highly disturbed and developed land subject to ongoing and high levels of noise and disturbance. The habitat is not suitable for special status riparian birds. Another concrete lined trapezoidal channel is located between the property and the adjacent industrial complex on the south. This channel is unvegetated with limited ruderal vegetation adjacent to the channel; there is no riparian habitat present. Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is state and federally listed as endangered. It is a covered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved, but surveys are required in suitable habitat as described in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. This species is migratory and breeds in California, arriving in March and departing by September or October. Males establish and defend territories in riparian woodlands and riparian scrub. Dense shrub cover is required for nesting. CNDDB documented occurrences of least Bell's vireo territories in the project vicinity include three records in the Lake Elsinore Back Basin (Element Occurrence [EO] #404 through 406) and one record along the San Jacinto River (EO #407). EO #404 is from 2006 and located about 1.5 miles west - northwest of the site (two territorial males in willow /mulefat scrub), EO #405 is from 2009 and located about 2.3 miles west of the site (two territories), EO #406 is from 2009 and 2010 and located about 1.0 miles east - southeast of the site (one territory in 2009 and one territory in 2010). There are no CNDDB documented occurrences of southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trail/ii extimus) or the western yellow - billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) within 10 miles of the site. There is no riparian habitat on the site. The few willows present in the motorcycle park channel are small, scattered, and isolated and do not provide the dense riparian habitat required by least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow - billed cuckoo. The lack of any immediately adjacent habitat and the ongoing high levels of noise and disturbance in and adjacent to the motorcycle park also create unsuitable conditions for these species. Therefore, there is no suitable habitat for these species on or adjacent to the site and these species are considered absent. The Project is therefore consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The property is not in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for any narrow endemic species, and no NEPSSA surveys are required. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in certain locations. Pursuant to MSHCP Figure 6 -2 (Criteria Area Species Survey Area), Figure 6 -3 CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 4 of 7 (Amphibian Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6 -4 (Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6 -5 (Mammal Species Survey Areas With Criteria Area), burrowing owl surveys are required for the subject property prior to approval of a development proposal. The property is not located within survey areas for criteria area species (MSHCP Figure 6 -2), amphibian species (MSHCP Figure 6 -3), or mammal species (MSHCP Figure 6 -5) and surveys for those species are not required. The Project site is located within the MSHCP Survey Area for the burrowing owl. L &L Environmental, Inc. visited the project area on October 10, 2019 to describe vegetation and habitat and evaluate probabilities that special status animals and plants might occur within the project site. The weather was 67° to 78° F and conditions were clear and hazy, with winds varying between 1 -3 mph. About 2.25 person -hours were spent onsite. All habitat types on the site were visited on foot. The site was surveyed by conducting a series of transects across the subject property, stopping periodically for observations and notations. The entire project area was visually assessed and a buffer area of 500 feet from the project boundary was surveyed around the site for potential suitable habitat for burrowing owl.. A burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat assessment was performed by L &L biologist Guy Bruyea during the nesting season to conduct focused breeding season burrowing owl surveys. The focused Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys were conducted by in accordance with the survey requirements established for the MSHCP (MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions, 2006). A total of ±5.75 person -hours were spent onsite during burrowing owl surveys. The site was examined for suitable burrow sites and for signs of occupation by burrowing owl, including pellets, feathers, whitewash, prey remains, and eggshell fragments, as well as individual owls. A search for potentially suitable burrows within dirt, wood, and rock debris piles, artificially created berms, and other locations was conducted during the surveys. The surveys included the entire project site and an additional 150 -meter (500 -foot) buffer area surrounding the site. (Figure 4) These areas were visually inspected, where possible, in areas identified as potential burrowing owl habitat. Any developed areas in the buffer were visually surveyed with binoculars due to trespassing concerns on private property. Transects were walked throughout the property. Coupled with binocular surveys of any restricted areas, this allowed for complete visual coverage of the survey area. Distance between transects was approximately 15 to 20 meters. California ground squirrels or burrows were not observed on the site or adjacent to the property within the buffer area. Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) mounds were identified onsite, but no other conspicuous small mammal burrows were observed during this study. No burrowing owl (BUOW), sign of BUOW (pellets, scat, feathers, tracks, etc.), or suitable BUOW burrows are present on onsite or within the buffer area. As a mitigation measure for the proposed Project, the City of Lake Elsinore will require a pre - construction presence /absence survey for burrowing owl to be conducted within 30 days of the commencement of project- related grading or other land disturbance activities to ensure that the species has not moved onto the site since completion of the surveys. The pre- CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 5 of 7 construction survey should occur within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity. Owls located as a result of survey efforts will be relocated. If burrowing owl have colonized the project site or the offsite improvements area prior to the initiation of construction, the project proponent should immediately inform the City, RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, and coordinate on the potential need for preparation, review and approval of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to any ground disturbance. Therefore, the subject project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP. 6. The Project is consistent with the UrbaniWildlands Interface Guidelines. Section 6.1.4 addresses potential indirect impacts to the MSHCP Conservation Area via the Urban Wildland Interface Guidelines. As the Project is urban in nature and is located near the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) conserved lands, the Project must comply with all MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (UWIG) as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The entire Project site consists of Non - native Grassland. Grasses observed and identified onsite include Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus) and foxtail chess (Bromus diandrus). Additional non - native grass species are likely present but not identified due to season. The most conspicuous weedy annuals observed onsite include (but may not be limited to) Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), short -pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), red - stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis). Native annuals that are tolerant of disturbed or waste places observed include fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia), cudweed aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia), annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), doveweed (Croton setiger), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and annual bur -weed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa). Other plants less commonly observed include tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), vinegar weed (Trichostemma lanceolatum), nightshade (Solanum species), and western jimsonweed (Datura wrightii). This mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP and is consistent with the MSHCP vegetation mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. Section 6.4 of the MSHCP requires that new developments adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area (in this case the proposed 770 -acre Plan preservation areas) or other undeveloped lands incorporate any fuel /brush management zones and Best Management Practices. The Project Site is not located in or adjacent to the proposed 770 -acre Plan preservation areas, is proposed as a non - combustible commercial development, and undeveloped areas adjacent to the Project Site are anticipated to be developed and is therefore not expected to be subject to fuel modification requirements. The Project will incorporate the BMPs outlined in Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP as part of the development pursuant to regulatory and /or County requirements. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 6 of 7 9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. As a condition of approval, the Project will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits. 10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Approximately 1. 12 acres of the project site is located in the northeastern corner of Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The area that will be developed by the Proposed Project is approximately 0.89 acres of that area. Conservation within this Cell will range from 65% -75% of the Cell focusing in the southern portion of the Cell. The conservation requirements set forth for this Criteria Cell has been replaced with the preservation of habitat in the Back Basin of Lake Elsinore through the 770 -acre Agreement. The Project Site is not located within 3,200 feet of proposed preservation land in the 770 -acre Plan. Even without consideration of the 770 -acre Plan, the Project site falls outside of that portion of Criteria Cell 5131 identified for conservation and the project site does not meet the conservation requirements set forth for Subunit 3 of the Elsinore Area Plan . Therefore, conservation of the project site, or any portion thereof, is not required. The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 3: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, the Council hereby finds that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 4: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 12th day of January, 2021. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 12, 2021, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 7 of 7 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977 SUBDIVIDING 6.05 ACRES INTO SIX PARCELS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.63 ACRES TO 1.11 ACRES AND ONE DETENTION BASIN LOCATED AT APN 370 - 050 -026 AND A PORTION OF 370 - 050 -030 Whereas, Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02) to subdivide a 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one (1) lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP), at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030); and, Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to tentative maps; and, Whereas, on December 15, 2020, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 16.24.120 of the LEMC, the Council has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove recommendations of the Commission for tentative maps; and, Whereas, on January 12, 2021, 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 Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed Project pursuant to the appropriate Planning and Zoning Laws, the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP), the LEMC, and the ELSP, and Chapter 16 (Subdivisions) of the LEMC. Section 2: On January 12, 2021, after consideration and evaluation of all written reports and comments and oral testimony presented by the Community Development Department and other City departments, property owners, residents and other interested parties and such other matters as are reflected in the record of the noticed Public Hearing on the Project, the Council adopted a resolution finding and determining that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 2020 -04) (SCH No. 2020100576) is adequate and is prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 2 of 3 Section 3: That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the LEMC, the Council makes the following findings for approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 37977: The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan (Government Code Section 66473.5). a. The Project located within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and has an Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation. This designation provides for a wide range of extreme action sports and accessory manufacturing, service and retail uses. The proposed project is proposing develop a commercial center with service station with a convenience store, fast food restaurant with a drive - through, carwash, tire store, and flex -tech condominiums. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions of the ELSP. The ELSP was subject to a consistency finding with the General Plan prior to adoption. Therefore, the Project is found to be consistent with the General Plan. b. All offsite mitigation measures have been identified in a manner consistent with the General Plan. 2. The site of the proposed subdivision of land is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in accordance with the General Plan. a. The overall density and design is consistent and compatible with the adjacent communities. 3. The effects that this project are likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources have been considered and balanced. a. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The Project is located within the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation of the ELSP and will not have a direct impact on housing needs. During the approval of the General Plan, housing needs, public services and fiscal resources were scrutinized to achieve a balance within the City. 4. The proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to result in any significant environmental impacts. a. The Project has been adequately conditioned by all applicable departments and agencies and will not therefore result in any significant environmental impacts. The Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. a. TTM 37977 has been designed in a manner consistent with the General Plan and does not divide previously established communities. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 3 of 3 6. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed division of land. a. All known easements or request for access have been incorporated into the design of TTM 37977. b. The map has been circulated to City departments and outside agencies, and appropriate Conditions of Approval have been applied to the Project. Section 4: Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 37977. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 12th day of January, 2021. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 12, 2021, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020 -05 TO ESTABLISH THE CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT LOCATED AT APN 370 -050- 026 AND A PORTION of 370 - 050 -030 Whereas, Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02) to subdivide a 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one (1) lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030); and, Whereas, Section 17.415.070 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) provides that certain uses are desirable but may have operational characteristics that disproportionately impact adjoining properties, businesses, or residents. Accordingly, such uses require a more comprehensive review and approval procedure, including the ability to condition the project in order to mitigate significant impact; and, Whereas, pursuant Section 17.410.070 (Approving Authority) and Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications) of the LEMC, the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to conditional use permits; and, Whereas, on December 15, 2020 at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.410.070 of the LEMC, the Council has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove recommendations of the Commission for conditional use permits; and, Whereas, on January 12, 2021, 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, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Council has considered the Project has found it acceptable. Section 2: On January 12, 2021, after consideration and evaluation of all written reports and comments and oral testimony presented by the Community Development Department and other City departments, property owners, residents and other interested parties and such other matters CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 2 of 4 as are reflected in the record of the noticed Public Hearing on the Project, the Council adopted a resolution finding and determining that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 2020 -04) (SCH No. 2020100576) is adequate and is prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Section 3. That in accordance with LEMC Section 17.415.070.C. Findings, the Council makes the following findings regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05: That the proposed use, on its own merits and within the context of its setting, is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purpose of the planning district in which the site is located. The Project located within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and has an Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation. This designation provides for a wide range of extreme action sports and accessory manufacturing, service and retail uses. Per Section 2.5.1.a.5 and 6 of the ELSP Retail Sales and Restaurants and eating - places, including a drive - through service are permitted uses. Per Section 2.5.1.b.10 of the ELSP, the Community Development Director has deemed Car washes, Gasoline Service Stations, and Automotive Service Stations compatible with the intent of the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use category as requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The ELSP was subject to a consistency finding with the General Plan prior to adoption. Therefore, the Project is found to be consistent with the General Plan. Further, the proposed Project will assist in achieving the development of a well - balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land uses. 2. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed use or the City, or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the City. The proposed use does not propose either directly or indirectly any detrimental effects to the existing surrounding community. The Project has been conditioned as such to avoid any possible negative impacts associated with the proposed use. 3. The Site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and for all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, buffers and other features required by this title. The proposed use has been analyzed and staff has determined that the proposed use meets all applicable sections of the LEMC and will complement the existing uses, based on the submitted plans and the conditions of approval imposed on the Project. 4. The Site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways with proper design both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. The project would extend Lemon Street west from Mission Trail along the northern property boundary via a proposed reciprocal access easement, which would provide northern access to the project site. The exiting traffic signal at the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street would be modified to accommodate the new roadway segment. These improvements will be sufficient for the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 3 of 4 5. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted and normal use thereof. The Conditional Use Permit has been thoroughly reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City departments thereby eliminating the potential for any adverse effects. 6. Adequate conditions and safeguards pursuant to LEMC 17.415.070.8, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of this chapter and the planning district in which the site is located. Pursuant to Section 17.415.070.8 of the LEMC, the Project was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed Public Hearing on December 15, 2020, and subsequently by the City Council at a noticed Public Hearing on January 12, 2021, appropriate and applicable conditions of approval have been included to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 4: Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the Conditions of Approval imposed upon the Project, the Council approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 12th day of January, 2021. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 12, 2021, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 4 of 4 Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02 PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGN AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT LOCATED AT APN 370 - 050 -026 AND A PORTION OF 370 - 050 -030 Whereas, Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02) to subdivide a 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one (1) lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030); and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review), Section 17.410.070 (Approving Authority), and Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications) of the LEMC, the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to design review applications; and, Whereas, on December 15, 2020 at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.410.070 of the LEMC, the Council has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove recommendations of the Commission for design review applications; and, Whereas, on January 12, 2021, 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 Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed Project pursuant to the California Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 59000 et seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP), the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP), and the LEMC and finds and determines that the proposed Project is consistent with the requirements of California Planning and Zoning Law and with the goals and policies of the GP, ELSP, and the LEMC. Section 2: On January 12, 2021, after consideration and evaluation of all written reports and comments and oral testimony presented by the Community Development Department and other City departments, property owners, residents and other interested parties and such other matters as are reflected in the record of the noticed Public Hearing on the Project, the Council adopted a CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 2 of 3 resolution finding and determining that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 2020 -04) (SCH No. 2020100576) is adequate and is prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Section 3: That in accordance with Section 17.415.050.E of the LEMC, the Council makes the following findings regarding Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02: 1. The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, Specific Plan and the Zoning District in which the Project is located. The Project located within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and has an Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation. This designation provides for a wide range of extreme action sports and accessory manufacturing, service and retail uses. Per Section 2.5.1.a.5 and 6 of the ELSP Retail Sales and Restaurants and eating - places, including a drive - through service are permitted uses. Per Section 2.5.1.b.10 of the ELSP, the Community Development Director has deemed Car washes, Gasoline Service Stations, and Automotive Service Stations compatible with the intent of the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use category as requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The ELSP was subject to a consistency finding with the General Plan prior to adoption. Therefore, the Project is found to be consistent with the General Plan. The Project complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan because it will assist in achieving the development of a well - balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational, and institutional land uses. The Project will serve to diversify and expand Lake Elsinore's economic base. 2. The Project complies with the design directives contained in the General Plan and all other applicable provisions of the LEMC. The Project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments and blends in with the surrounding industrial development. Sufficient setbacks and enhanced onsite landscaping have been provided thereby creating interest and varying vistas as a person moves along abutting streets and within the park. The Project will create a visually pleasing, non - detractive relationship between the proposed development and existing projects through the use of a `Contemporary' architectural design that is similar to existing developments in the vicinity. In addition, safe and efficient circulation has been achieved onsite. 3. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Section 17.415.050.6.3 of the LEMC, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the Project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Section 17.415.050. Pursuant to Section 17.415.050.E of the LEMC, the Project was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on December 15, 2020 and subsequently by the City Council at a noticed Public Hearing on January 12, 2021. The Project, as reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City divisions, departments and agencies, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4: Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Council hereby approves Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 3 of 3 Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 12' day of January, 2021. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 12, 2021, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PROJECT: PA 2019 -69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 PROJECT NAME: Corydon Gateway PROJECT LOCATION: APN: 370 - 050 -026 and portion of 370 - 050 -030 APPROVAL DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: GENERAL Tentative Tract Map No. 37977 is a subdivision of 6.05 acres to six (6) lots ranging in size from 0.63 acres to 1.10 acres and one (1) 0.22 -acre detention basin. Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05 include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project would also involve off -site roadway improvements, including extending Lemon Street west along the northern boundary of the project site and widening and improving the portions of Mission Trail and Corydon Street adjacent to the project site to include project access driveways, sidewalks, and bike lanes. The proposed uses would be developed over two phases. Development of the convenience store and gas station, tunnel car wash, fast food restaurant, and detention basin, as well as off -site improvements and utility infrastructure, would occur during Phase 1. Development of the flex -tech condos and tire store would occur during Phase 2. The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030). 2. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, Agents, and its Consultants (Indemnitees) from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning approval, implementation and construction of TTM 37977, CUP 2020 -05, and CDR 2020 -02, which action is bought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Sections 65009 and /or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code Section 21167, including the approval, extension or modification of TTM 37977, CUP 2020- 05, and CDR 2020 -02 or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant's indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and /or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys' fees, penalties and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City. If the project is challenged in court, the City and the applicant shall enter into formal defense and indemnity agreement, consistent with this condition. 3. Within 30 days of project approval, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Applicant's Initials: Page 1 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 4. The applicant shall submit a check for $2,530.25 made payable to the County of Riverside for the filing of a Notice of Determination. The check shall be submitted to the Planning Division for processing within 48 hours of the project's approval. PLANNING DIVISION 5. Tentative Tract Map No. 37977 will expire two years from the date of approval unless within that period of time a Final Map has been filed with the County Recorder, or an extension of time is granted by the City Council in accordance with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 37977 shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP), and applicable requirements contained in the LEMC, unless modified by these Conditions of Approval. 7. Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05 shall lapse and become void two years following the date on which the conditional use permit became effective, unless one of the following: (1) prior to the expiration of two years, a building permit related to the conditional use permit is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion; or (2) prior to the expiration of two years, the applicant has applied for and has been granted an extension of the conditional use permit approval pursuant to subsections (a), (b), and (c) of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.070.D.2. Subject to the provisions of LEMC Section 17.415.070.1, a conditional use permit granted pursuant to the provisions of this section shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site or structure, which was the subject of the Conditional Use Permit application. 8. Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02 shall lapse and become void two years following the date on which the design review became effective, unless one of the following: (1) prior to the expiration of two years, a building permit related to the design review is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion; or (2) prior to the expiration of two years, the applicant has applied for and has been granted an extension of the design review approval pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.050.1.1. Notwithstanding conditions to the contrary, a design review granted pursuant to LEMC Section 17.415.050.1.2 shall run with the land for this two - year period, subject to any approved extensions, and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site, which was the subject of the design review application. 9. An application for modification, expansion or other change in a Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed according to the provisions of the Section 17.415.070 of the LEMC, in a similar manner as a new application. 10. If operation of this use triggers concerns related to parking, noise, traffic, or other impacts, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, this Conditional Use Permit may be referred back to the Planning Commission for subsequent review at a Public Hearing. If necessary, the Commission may modify or add conditions of approval to mitigate such impacts, or may revoke said Conditional Use Permit. 11. The applicant shall provide all project - related on -site and off -site improvements as required by these Conditions of Approval. Applicant's Initials: Page 2 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 12. All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans prior to their acceptance by the Building and Safety Division, Community Development Department. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. All future development proposals shall be reviewed by the City on a project -by- project basis. If determined necessary by the Community Development Director or designee, additional environmental analysis will be required. 14. Any proposed minor revisions to approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. Any proposed substantial revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed according to the provisions of the Municipal Code in a similar manner as a new application. 15. Provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance (LEMC Chapter 17.176) shall be satisfied during all site preparation and construction activity. Site preparation activity and construction shall not commence before 7:00 AM and shall cease no later than 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Only finish work and similar interior construction may be conducted on Saturdays and may commence no earlier than 8:00 am and shall cease no later than 4:00 p.m. Construction activity shall not take place on Sunday, or any Legal Holidays. 16. No individual signs are approved as part of this approval. The applicant or designee shall submit an application for a sign permit, pay appropriate fees and receive approval from the Community Development Department for any sign(s) installed at the project site. OR The applicant shall submit a sign program for review and approval of the Planning Commission prior to installation. Sign plans submitted to the City for review shall incorporate City identification signs. 17. In accordance with Section 17.112.090.0. of the LEMC, establishments engaged in the concurrent sale of motor vehicle fuel with alcoholic beverages shall abide by the following requirements: a. No beer or wine shall be displayed within five feet of the cash register or the front door. b. No advertisement of alcoholic beverages shall be displayed at motor fuel islands. c. No sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made from a drive -in window. d. No display or sale of beer or wine shall be made from an ice tub. e. No beer or wine advertising shall be located on motor fuel islands and no self - illuminated advertising for beer or wine shall be located on buildings or windows. f. Employees on duty between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. shall be at least 21 years of age to sell beer and wine. 18. Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours. 19. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 20. No outside overnight storage of inoperable vehicles shall occur at the site. 21. Since the project is proposed to be completed in two (2) phases, unimproved portions of the property should be maintained and kept in good repair as noted on the phasing plan exhibit. Applicant's Initials: Page 3 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 22. All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened, and the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permit shall approve screening plan. 23. The property address (in numerals at least six inches high) shall be displayed near the entrance and be easily visible from the front of the subject property and public right -of -way. 24. The applicant shall construct trash enclosure(s) with a decorative roof to match the colors, materials and design of the project architecture. 25. If any of the conditions of approval set forth herein fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. Prior to Recordation of Final Map(s) 26. All lots shall comply with minimum standards set forth in the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation of the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP). 27. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided per the LEMC. 28. All of the project improvements shall be designed by the applicant's Civil Engineer to the specifications of the City of Lake Elsinore. 29. Prior to recordation of a Final Map, the applicant shall initiate and complete the formation of a Property Owner's Association (POA) which shall be approved by the City. All Association documents that address including, but not limited to, reciprocal easements, shall be submitted for review and approval by City Planning, Engineering and the City Attorney and upon City approval shall be recorded. Such documents shall include the Articles of Incorporation for the Association and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs). a. All slopes, landscaping within public right -of -way, all drainage basins, and common areas including but not limited to parking areas and drive aisles, shall be maintained by the (POA). b. Provisions to restrict parking upon other than approved and developed parking spaces shall be written into the CC &Rs for the project. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits /Building Permits 30. The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including but not limited to Development Impact Fees (DIF) and MSHCP Fees per LEMC Section 16.85, at the rate in effect at the time of payment. 31. All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment Applicant's Initials: Page 4 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened, and the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permit shall approve screening plan. 32. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free - standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 33. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit a photometric study to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The plan shall ensure that all exterior on -site lighting are shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring properties and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. 34. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, all exterior wall mounted and freestanding light fixtures shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development, or their designee. Light fixtures shall compliment the architectural style of the buildings onsite. 35. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the color, finish and pattern of all decorative paving onsite shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development, or their designee. 36. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Final Landscaping / Irrigation Detail Plans (one full size set along with a PDF copy) shall be submitted along with appropriate fees for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee. a. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with 50% plant coverage using a drip irrigation method. b. Mature specimen trees shall be planted on locations visible from public views. c. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch (6 ") high and six inch (6 ") wide concrete curb. Runoff shall be allowed from paved areas into landscape areas. d. Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress /egress points shall be no higher than twenty - four inches (24 "). e. Landscape planters shall be planted with an appropriate parking lot shade tree pursuant to the LEMC and Landscape Design Guidelines. f. No required tree planting bed shall be less than 5 feet wide. g. Root barriers shall be installed for all trees planted within 10 feet of hardscape areas to include sidewalks. h. Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. i. The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines. j. All landscape improvements shall be bonded 100% for material and labor for two years from installation sign -off by the City. Release of the landscaping bond shall be requested by the applicant at the end of the required two years with approval /acceptance reviewed by the Landscape Consultant and approved by the Community Development Director or Designee. Applicant's Initials: Page 5 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 k. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. I. Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. m. Final landscape plans to include planting and irrigation details. n. Final landscape plans shall include drought tolerant planting consistent with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District standards subject to plan check and approval by the City's landscape plan check consultant. o. No turf shall be permitted. 37. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 38. The proposed location of on -site construction trailers shall be approved by the Community Development Director or designee. A cash bond of $1,000 shall be required for any construction trailers placed on the site and used during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers and restoration of the site to an acceptable state, subject to approval of the Community Development Director or designee. Such trailer(s) shall be fully on private property and outside the public right of way. BUILDING DIVISION General Conditions 39. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety Conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 40. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2019 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes: 2019 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2019 California Energy Codes, 2019 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 41. Green Measures. The application shall provide 10% voluntary green measures on the project, as stipulated by the 2019 California Green Building Standards. 42. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. All ground floor units to be adaptable. b. Disabled access from the public way to the entrance of the building. c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Path of travel from public right -of -way to all public areas on site, such as clubhouse, trach enclosure tot lots and picnic areas. Applicant's Initials: Page 6 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 43. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi - family residential projects or a recorded final map for single- family residential projects. It takes 10 days to issue address and notify other agencies. Please contact Sonia Salazar at ssalazar @lake - elsinore.org or 951 - 674 -3124 X 286. 44. Clearance from LEUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Lake Elsinore School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department evidencing the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 45. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 46. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. 47. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On -site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. Septic systems will need to be approved from Riverside County Environmental Health Department before permit issuance. 48. House Electrical Meter. Applicant shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. At Plan Review Submittal 49. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2019 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for the persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 50. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 51. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 52. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp Applicant's Initials: Page 7 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Provide C.D. of approved plans to the Building Division. Prior to Beginning of Construction 53. Pre - Construction Meeting. A pre- construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT General 54. All required soils, geotechnical, hydrology and hydraulic and seismic reports shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or other qualified state license holder. 55. Seismic Study for Glen Ivy Fault required. 56. All new submittals for plan check or permit shall be made using the City's online Client Self - Service Portal (CSSP). 57. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the developer shall be required to contract with CR &R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 58. For commercial, industrial, office or multi - family projects, all refuse enclosures are required to provide adequate space for recycling bins... Check with CR & R Environmental Services to determine the adequate size of enclosure based on the number and size of containers to be stored in the enclosure. 59. Sight distance into and out of this project location shall comply with City of Lake Elsinore or CALTRANS Standards. 60. All open space, landscaping, and slopes except for public parks and schools and flood control district facilities, outside the public right -of -way shall be owned and maintained by property owner or property owner's association. Documentation of maintenance responsibility (ex. CR &Rs) shall be recorded prior to occupancy. 61. A preconstruction meeting with the City Engineering Inspector (Engineering Department) is required prior to commencement of ANY grading activity. 62. Phasing plan, if any, shall be approved by the City Engineer at prior to tentative map approval. Phases and /or Planning Areas are subject to additional review and conditions of approval. 63. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) and Lake Elsinore Public Works Standard Plans. 64. All on -site and off -site public improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. Applicant's Initials: Page 8 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 65. All plans (Street, Storm Drain, Improvement, Grading) shall prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer using the City's standard title block, Design Manual guidance, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, California Building Code, Riverside County Flood Control Standards for drainage, and City Standards unless otherwise noted or approved by City staff. 66. All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer 67. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, it shall be the sole responsibility of the owner /applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and /or permissions necessary to perform the grading herein proposed. 68. The developer shall coordinate all grading and improvements with adjacent property owners to the satisfaction of the City. Any grading or drainage onto adjacent properties shall require written approval of those property owners affected, with said approval provided to the City Engineer prior to grading permit. 69. Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs should drain to a landscaped area. 70. No grading shall be performed without first having obtained a permit from the City Engineer. A grading permit does not include the construction of retaining walls or other structures for which a building permit is required. 71. A Soil /Geotechnical Report is required for any land disturbance 72. Minimum good housekeeping and erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as identified by the City shall be implemented by all projects. 73. AutoCAD: To facilitate the transfer to ARC GIS, the following guidelines are provided: 1. The applicant shall submit a digital AutoCAD file (.DWG format) of all Storm Drain system sheets including all features and attributes. 2. The DWG file shall be properly projected, preferably in NAD 1983 State Plane, California Zone 406. 3. All of the parts and elements of the designed system shall be represented discretely. 4. If possible, include in the attribute table basic data for each feature, such as diameter and length, as applicable, and for pipes also include material (PVC, RCP, etc.) and slope. FEES 74. The developer shall pay all Engineering Department assessed Development Impact Fees (DIF), Plan Check and Permit fees and In Lieu /Fair Share fees (LEMC 16.34). Project applicable DIF are assessed at the prevalent rate at time of payment in full and include: • Stephens Kangaroo Habitat Fee (K -Rat). Due at grading permit. o $500 per gross acre. • Traffic Infrastructure Fee (TIF) primary use. Due at building permit: • Multi- Family - $959.00 per dwelling unit • Commercial - $3.84 per square foot of buildings. Applicant's Initials: Page 9 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 • The project maybe eligible for TIF credit and reimbursement of capacity enhancing road improvements (excludes sidewalk, landscape, streetlights) constructed on Mission Trail and Corydon Road. • Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) primary use. Due at occupancy: • Industrial - $ 1.81 per square foot of buildings • Retail - $ 7.50 per square foot of buildings • Service- $4.75 per square foot of buildings • Class A & B Office - $ 2.38 per square foot • The proposed Flex -Tech Condos are exempt from TUMF as currently designed at less than 3,000 sf each. • The project may be eligible for TUMF credit and reimbursement of road improvements constructed on Corydon Road. • Master Plan of Drainage Fee: Sedco District, $3,600.00 per gross acre (based on fee area). Due prior to approval of Tract Map. 75. The developer shall pay fee in -lieu of construction of future City road cross - section median improvements on Corydon Rd. and Mission Trail. The fee shall be equal to current cost estimate for improvements (including contingency) plus an additional 15% of the total construction cost estimate to cover design and administrative costs. FLOOD PLAIN 76. Project lies within the Floodplain Management area as defined at LEMC 15.68. Meet all requirements of LEMC 15.68 regarding floodplain management Finish floor elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of three (3) feet above the base flood elevation as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. 77. No improvement shall be made upon all lands below the 1265 ft. elevation level in the FEMA mapped Lake Elsinore flood plain southeasterly of the Lake levee (aka back basin) and no artificial change in the topography in the surface of said lands shall be made (except terracing and soil conservation measures) without first complying with all applicable local, State and Federal laws, rules and regulations and USACE Permit No. 88- 00215- 00 -RRS (Lake Elsinore Management Project) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. LEMC 15.68.052 78. Projects proposed in the back basin (elevation below 1260 ft.) that the developer deems non - jurisdictional shall receive a non - jurisdictional confirmation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any commencement of work. 79. Developer shall provide FEMA elevation certificates for all buildings (includes trailers and storage facilities) prior to final approvals. If a LOMR -F has been processed and approved by FEMA, certification may be in the form of a letter signed and sealed by a licensed civil engineer. 80. Approval of a letter of map revision (LOMR) or letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR -F) must be received from FEMA prior to building permit issuance. Applicant's Initials: Page 10 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT / POLLUTION PREVENTION Design 81. The project is responsible for complying with the Santa Ana Region NPDES Permits as warranted based on the nature of development and /or activity. These Permits include: a. General Permit — Construction b. Deminimus Discharges c. MS4 82. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (preliminary and final) shall be prepared using the Santa Ana Region 8 approved template and guidance and submitted for review and approval to the City. The Preliminary WQMP shall be approved prior to Planning Commission hearing; the Final WQMP shall be approved by the City prior to rough or precise grading plan approval and issuance of ANY permit for construction. 83. The Final WQMP shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary WQMP approved prior to entitlement. 84. The Final WQMP shall document the following: a. Detailed site and project description. b. Potential stormwater pollutants. c. Post - development drainage characteristics. d. Low Impact Development (LID) BMP selection and analysis. e. Structural and Non - Structural source control BMPs. f. Treatment Control BMPs g. Site design and drainage plan (BMP Exhibit). h. Documentation of how vector issues are addressed in the BMP design, operation and maintenance. i. GIS Decimal Minute Longitude and Latitude coordinates for all LID and Treatment Control BMP locations. j. HCOC — demonstrate that discharge flow rates, velocities, duration and volume for the post construction condition from a 2 -year 24 -hour rainfall event will not cause adverse impacts on downstream erosion and receiving waters, or measures are implemented to mitigate significant adverse impacts downstream public facilities and water bodies. Evaluation documentation shall include pre -and post - development hydrograph volumes, time of concentration and peak discharge velocities, construction of sediment budgets, and a sediment transport analysis. (Note the facilities may need to be larger due to flood mitigation for the 10 -yr 6- and 24 -hour rain events). k. The Operation and Maintenance (O &M) Plan and Agreement and /or CC &R's shall (1) describe the long -term operation and maintenance requirements for BMPs identified in the BMP Exhibit; (2) identify the entity that will be responsible for long -term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; (3) describe the mechanism for funding the long -term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; and (4) provide for annual certification of water quality facilities by a registered civil engineer. The City format shall be used. For facilities in the right of way to be maintained by the City, the project shall annex into a CFD for funding. I. The grading and /or improvement plan shall include a table listing each stormwater facility, and the plan sheet where it appears. 85. The 2010 SAR MS4 Permit requires implementation of LID Principles and LID Site Design, Applicant's Initials: Page 11 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 where feasible, to treat the pollutants of concern identified for the project, in the following manner (from highest to lowest priority): (Section XII.E.2, XII.E3, and XII.E.7). a. Evaluate site for highest and best use applicability (Exemption for projects that discharge to the Lake.) b. Preventative measures (these are mostly non - structural measures, e.g., minimizing impervious areas, conserving natural areas, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, etc.) c. The Project shall in the order presented, infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire and /or bio -treat the Design Capture Volume (DCV). d. The Project shall consider a properly engineered and maintained bio- treatment system only if infiltration, harvesting and use and evapotranspiration cannot be feasibly implemented at the project site. e. Any portion of the DCV that is not infiltrated, harvested and used, evapotranspired, and /or bio- treated shall be treated and discharged in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section XII.G. 86. Parking lot landscaping areas shall be designed to provide for treatment, retention or infiltration of runoff. 87. Project onsite hardscape areas shall be designed and constructed to provide for drainage into adjacent landscape. 88. Project trash enclosure shall be covered, bermed, designed to divert drainage from adjoining paved areas and regularly maintained. 89. If CEQA identifies resources requiring Clean Water Act Section 401 Permitting, the developer shall obtain certification through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and provide a copy to the Engineering Division. 90. All storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked "Only Rain in the Storm Drain" using the City authorized marker. 91. The project shall use either volume -based and /or flow -based criteria for sizing BMPs in accordance with NPDES Permit Provision XII.D.4. 92. The project shall implement State Water Quality Control Board approved full capture trash devices. This shall include installation of connector pipe screens on all onsite catch basins and all offsite catch basins to which the project discharges. Construction 93. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) (as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit) and compliance with the Green Building Code for sediment and erosion control are required for this project. 94. Prior to grading or building permit for construction or demolition and /or weed abatement activity projects subject to coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit shall demonstrate that compliance with the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at Applicant's Initials: Page 12 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 the project site, updated, and be available for review upon request. 95. Approval of the project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post construction shall be received prior to issuance of a grading permit. LAND DIVISION - DEDICATION 96. The developer shall submit for plan check review and approval a final Tract Map. 97. The developer shall submit for plan check review and approval a lot line adjustment; the lot line adjustment shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 98. Final Tract Map - Prior to City Council approval of the final Tract Map the developer shall, in accordance with Government Code, have constructed all improvements or have improvement plans submitted and approved, agreements executed and securities posted. 99. If applicable, the Final Tract Map shall include the phasing boundaries consistent with the parcels of the Tentative Tract. The phasing boundaries or parcels shall be processed as separate tract maps. 100. Legal agreements and financial commitments (LLMD, CFD, etc.) for operation and maintenance be recorded prior to or concurrent with recordation of a final tract or parcel map or Certificate of Occupancy if a map is not required. 101. Final Tract Map - Right of way and easement dedications to the City as required in these COA's shall be made on the Final Tract Map. a. Dedicate in fee title right of way along Mission Trail adjacent to the project to effect of half width of 60 feet. b. Dedicate in fee title right of way along Corydon Road adjacent to the project to effect of half width of 50 feet. c. Dedicate public access easement to provide access to all parcels from either Corydon Road and /or Mission Trail. 102. All required public right -of -way dedications and easements shall be prepared by the developer or his agent and shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permit. 103. Monumentation shall be in accordance with LEMC 16.32 and Subdivision Map Act. 104. Security and inspection fee for monumentation shall be paid and two contiguous monuments shall be inspected prior to scheduling map approval with City Council. 105. Ownership of slopes along right -of -ways and open spaces shall be identified on the map as held by the developer. 106. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Recordation shall be with Final Map or if no map, prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 107. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.52.030 (LEMC), and consistent with the City's agreement with the Elsinore Valley Applicant's Initials: Page 13 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 Municipal Water District. UTILITIES 108. Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) on site and /or out on the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. Overhead utilities (34.5 KV or lower) shall be undergrounded. All power lines (temporary or permanent) shall comply with CALTRANS standards for vehicle clearance. 109. The developer shall apply for, obtain and submit to the City Engineering Department a letter from Southern California Edison (SCE) indicating that the construction activity will not interfere with existing SCE facilities (aka SCE NIL). Due prior to Grading Permit. 110. The developer shall submit a copy of the "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Department from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project and specify the technical data for the water service at the location, such as water pressure and volume etc. Due prior to Grading Permit. IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE 111. The developer shall implement mitigation measures identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis dated August 14, 2020, as specified in Section 6 of this Study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 112. Install a root barrier for the dripline of trees installed within 10 feet of any on or off -site hardscape (sidewalk, driveway, pavement, etc.). 113. An encroachment permit is required for all work to be done in the public right -of -way. Upon approval of engineered plans, the requirements outlined in these COAs and the permit issue letter shall be met prior to Encroachment Permit issuance. 114. Developer shall construct improvements to City Standards from the existing property line back to the proposed property line along the project frontage on Corydon Rd. and Mission Trail. New improvements to include but not limited to curb & gutter, sidewalks and commercial driveways. 115. All existing and new storm drain inlet facilities to which the project discharges shall be fitted with full trash capture devices. The device selected shall be approved by the State of California and City of Lake Elsinore. Off -site facilities shall be maintained by the City with maintenance funded through a CFD or other City authorized assessment. 116. 10 -year storm runoff shall be contained within the curb and the 100 -year storm runoff shall be contained within the street right -of -way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, drainage facilities shall be provided. 117. Project will accept flows, and is adjacent to RCFCD facilities, SEDCO line E. • Encroachment permit from RCFCD required for discharge to facility. • RCFCD review /approval of plans if discharging to facility 118. All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. All facilities 36" in diameter or larger shall be submitted to Riverside Applicant's Initials: Page 14 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 County Flood Control for review, approval, permitting and acceptance for maintenance. 119. A drainage study shall be provided. The study shall identify the following: identify storm water runoff from and upstream of the site; show existing and proposed off -site and on -site drainage facilities; and include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of the facilities. The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff from a 10 -year storm of 6- hours or 24 -hours duration under developed condition is equal or less than the runoff under existing conditions of the same storm frequency. Both 6 -hour and 24 -hour storm duration shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results. 120. All storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked "Only Rain Down the Storm Drain" using the City authorized marker to prevent illegal dumping in the drain system. 121. Provide public street lighting, consistent with City Standards. Street light plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. 122. Developer shall submit signing and striping plans for City review and approval. Plans shall include details showing compliance with sight distance standards and Professional Traffic Consideration 123. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to City of Lake Elsinore Standards and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34), or as directed or approved by the City Engineer. 124. The developer shall coordinate with Riverside Transit Authority for location and installation of bus transit facilities. Required bus stop improvements and /or relocation shall be shown on plans submitted for project grading and development. Improvements are subject to review and approval by the (RTA). Improvements shall be installed prior to Final Building Certificate of Occupancy. 125. The installation of permanent bench marks / monuments per City Standards at intersection of the project entrance and the centerline of Corydon Rd. and adjacent street Mission Trail shall be shown on the plan. GRADING PERMIT 126. A grading plan signed and stamped by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for City review and approval for all addition and /or movement of soil (grading) on the site. The plan shall include separate sheets for erosion control, haul route and traffic control. The grading submittal shall include all supporting documentation and be prepared using City standard title block, standard drawings and design manual (available at WWW.lake- elsinore.org). 127. All grading plan contours shall extend to minimum of 50 feet beyond property lines to indicate existing drainage pattern. 128. If the grading plan identifies alterations in the existing drainage patterns as they exit the site, a Hydrology and Hydraulic Report for review and approval by City Engineer shall be required prior to issuance of grading permits. All grading that modifies the existing flow patterns and /or topography shall be in compliance with federal, state and local law and be approved by the City Engineer. Applicant's Initials: Page 15 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 129. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. Slopes steeper than 2 to 1 shall be evaluated for stability and proper erosion control and approved by the City. 130. The developer shall coordinate all grading and improvements with adjacent property owners to the satisfaction of the City. Any grading or drainage onto adjacent properties shall require written approval of those property owners affected, with said approval provided to the City Engineer. 131. The soil study shall include a seismic investigation of the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults, liquefaction and /or subsidence zones present on -site and include recommendations for parameters for seismic design of buildings, and walls. A certified letter from a registered geologist or geotechnical engineer shall be submitted confirming the absence of this hazard prior to grading permit. 132. An Alquist Priolo seismic study /investigation shall be performed. The study shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for plan check. The cost of plan check shall be paid by the developer. 133. The developer shall obtain all necessary off -site easements and /or permits for off -site grading and /or drainage acceptance from the adjacent property owners prior to grading permit issuance. 134. The requirements outlined in these COAs and the permit issue letter shall be met prior to grading permit issuance. 135. Haul — Import or Export: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, developer shall provide the City for review and approval a plan of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of import or export material. Export or Import sites located within the Lake Elsinore City limits must have an active grading permit. Public Noticing and City Council approval is required for haul routes of over 5,000 cubic yards. The cost of noticing shall be paid by the developer. 136. Obtain and submit an environmental clearance from City Planning Division to the Engineering Department. This approval shall specify that the project is in compliance with any and all required environmental mitigation triggered by the proposed grading activity. (ex. burrowing owl) 137. Erosion & Sediment Control — Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for construction or demolition, the developer shall submit for review and approval by the City Engineer, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as a separate sheet of the grading plan submittal to demonstrate compliance with the City's NPDES Program and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be property covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into local drainages or waters by wind, rain, tracking, or dispersion. The plan shall also describe how the project will ensure that all BMPs will be maintained during construction of any future right of ways. 138. A copy of the plan shall be incorporated into the SWPPP as applicable, kept updated as needed to address changing circumstances of the project site, be kept at the project site Applicant's Initials: Page 16 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 and available for review upon request. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY /FINAL CLOSEOUT 139. Compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8'/2 x 11" mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Department before final inspection will be scheduled. 140. Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy or building permits for individual tenant improvements or construction permits for a tank or pipeline, uses shall be identified and, for specified uses (where the proposed improvements will store, generate or handle hazardous materials in quantities that will require permitting and inspection once operational), the developer shall propose plans and measures for chemical management (including, but not limited to, storage, emergency response, employee training, spill contingencies and disposal) to the satisfaction of the County /City Building Official(s). 141. Paper copy of plan with any redlines (record drawing) shall be submitted to the Engineering Department before final inspection will be scheduled. 142. All required public right -of -way dedications, easements, dedications and vacations and easement agreement(s) for ingress and egress through adjacent property(ies)shall be recorded with a recorded copy provided to the City prior to final project approval. 143. Developer shall As -built all Engineering Department approved project plan sets. After City approval of paper copy, developer /developer /owner is responsible for revising the original mylar plans. Once the original mylars have been approved, the developer shall provide the City with a USB flash drive of the "as built" plans in .tif format. 144. Prior to acceptance of improvements by the City, the developer shall perform half street roadway surface improvements, such as slurry seal or overlay as required by the City Engineer, and shall install any additional traffic signs, striping and pavement markings determined necessary by the City's Traffic Engineer, after inspection of the final physical improvement, to insure safe operation of all intersections and segments of streets before any building can be occupied. 145. Developer shall submit documentation pursuant to City's Security Release handout. 146. All final studies and reports shall be submitted in .tif format electronically or on a USB flash drive. Studies and reports include, Soils, Seismic, Hydrology, Hydraulics, Grading, WQMP, etc. 147. Provide on compact disc auto cad and GIS Shape files of all final maps and street and storm drain plans. *ALL DATA MUST BE IN projected Coordinate System: NAD 83 State Plane California Zone VI U.S. Fleet. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FIRE MARSHAL 148. The applicant/operator shall comply with all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department Lake Elsinore Office of the Fire Marshal. Questions should be directed to the Riverside County Fire Department, Lake Elsinore Office of the Fire Marshal at 130 S. Main St., Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. Phone: (951) 671 -3124 Ext. 225. Applicant's Initials: Page 17 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 149. The applicant or developer shall provide fire hydrants in accordance with the following: a. Prior to placing any combustibles on site, provide an approved water source for firefighting purposes. b. Prior to building permit issuance, submit plans to the water district for a water system capable of delivering fire flow as required by the California Fire Code and Fire Department standards. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance with the California Fire Code. Based on current standards, the required fire flow is estimated to be 2,000 GPM at 20 PSI for 2 -hour duration. Estimated fire flow is based on 22,080 square foot building area, Type V -B construction, and buildings having a fire sprinkler system per 2019 California Fire Code. 150. Prior to building permit issuance, install the approved water system, approved access roads, and contact the Fire Department for a verification inspection. 151. City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code requires new buildings 5,000 square feet in area and larger to have a fire sprinkler system. 152. Emergency vehicle access roads must meet fire department standards at the time of building permit application. Current standards require minimum 24 -foot wide roads. Roads must be capable of supporting at least 80,000 pounds. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Annex into the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2015 -2 (Maintenance Services 153. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit or building permit (as applicable), the applicant shall annex into the Community Facilities District No. 2015 -2 (Maintenance Services) or current Community Facilities District in place at the time of annexation to fund the on -going operation and maintenance of the public right - of -way landscaped areas and neighborhood parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right -of -way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison, including parkways, street maintenance, open space and public storm drains constructed within the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project. Alternatively, the applicant may propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project with respect to Maintenance Services. Applicant shall make a non - refundable deposit of $15,000 or at the current rate in place at the time of annexation toward the cost of annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 154. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Review No. 2020 -04; SCH # 2020100576) prepared for the Project. Applicant's Initials: Page 18 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 I hereby state that I acknowledge receipt of the approved Conditions of Approval for the above named project and do hereby agree to accept and abide by all Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on I also acknowledge that all Conditions shall be met as indicated. Date: Applicant's Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number: Applicant's Initials: Page 19 of 19 CITY OF LADE LS ORE DREAM EXTREME CORYDON GATEWAY PLANNING APPLICATION No. 2019-69 Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No. 2020-04 (FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION) Prepared By: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Applicant: MARK COOPER RED Corydon, LLC 25425 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 101 Murrieta, CA 92562 Environmental Consultant: HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 December 2020 This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Section COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE Page Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND i DECLARATION AND RESPONSES ......................... ............................... ..........................RTC -1 Comment Letters Received ............................................ ............................... ..........................RTC -1 Revisions to the Draft MND .................................................................... ............................... RTC -1 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. ..............................1 A. Purpose .................................................................................................. ..............................1 B. California Environmental Quality Act ................................................. ............................... l C. Intended Uses of Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ... ............................... 2 D. Contents of Initial Study ...................................................................... ............................... 2 E. Scope of Environmental Analysis ........................................................ ............................... 3 F. Tiered Documents, Incorporation by Reference, and Technical Studies ............................ 3 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... ............................... 7 A. Project Location and Setting ................................................................ ............................... 7 B. Project Description .............................................................................. ............................... 7 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................. .............................11 A. Background .......................................................................................... .............................11 B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................ .............................12 C. Determination ...................................................................................... .............................12 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................. ............................... 22 I. Aesthetics ................................................................................ .............................22 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................... ............................... 24 III. Air Quality ............................................................................ ............................... 25 IV. Biological Resources ............................................................ ............................... 32 V. Cultural Resources ................................................................ ............................... 44 VI. Energy ..................................................................................... .............................49 VII. Geology and Soils ................................................................. ............................... 50 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................... ............................... 53 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................ ............................... 57 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................... ............................... 59 XI. Land Use and Planning ......................................................... ............................... 63 XII. Mineral Resources ................................................................ ............................... 64 XIII. Noise ....................................................................................... .............................64 XIV. Population and Housing ........................................................ ............................... 67 XV. Public Services ...................................................................... ............................... 67 XVI. Recreation ............................................................................. ............................... 70 XVII. Transportation ......................................................................... .............................70 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................... ............................... 72 Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND i XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................... ............................... 74 XX. Wildfire ................................................................................... .............................76 V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................ ............................... 78 VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED VIL REFERENCES ............................ ............................... LIST OF APPENDICES A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study B Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Analysis C Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project Review D Agencies Review of Joint Project Review E Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment F CEQA Energy Review G Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment I Water Quality Management Plan J Noise Impact Study K Traffic Impact Analysis L VMT Evaluation M Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program LIST OF FIGURES 81 No. Title Follows Page 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................. ............................... 8 2 Project Vicinity (Aerial Photograph) ................................................................ ............................... 8 3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................ ............................... 8 4a -c Conceptual Street Views ................................................................................... ............................... 8 5 Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................ ............................... 10 Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND ii Table of Contents (cont.) 14R111[)aIFR.110V No. Title Page 1 Tentative Tract Map Parcels ............................................................................. ............................... 8 2 Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds (Pounds per Day) ............................. ............................... 26 3 South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status .......................... ............................... 26 4 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (Pounds per Day) .......................... ............................... 27 5 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (Pounds per Day) ............................ ............................... 28 6 Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions (Pounds per Day) ......... ............................... 29 7 Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions (Pounds per Day) ........... ............................... 30 8 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ........................................................ ............................... 53 9 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions .......................................................... ............................... 54 Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND iii This page intentionally left blank Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND iv COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSES Comment Letters Received A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was published in the Press - Enterprise on November 2, 2020. The Draft MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and circulated for a 30 -day public review period beginning on November 2, 2020 and ending on December 1, 2020 (SCH No. 2020100576). Written comments were received from the following: A. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District B. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians C. Inland Empire Biking Alliance The comment letters received on the Draft MND have been numbered and the City of Lake Elsinore (City) has provided a written response to each numbered comment. The comment letters and responses are provided on the following pages in side -by -side format. The numbered comments are provided on the left side of the page and the City's response is provided on the right of the page opposite each comment. Revisions to the Draft MND Comments received during the public review period for the Draft MND resulted in changes to the Initial Study (IS) prepared for the proposed project. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND are provided in strike - eet/underline format to signify Miens and insertions in the Final IS /MND text. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -1 COMMENTS JASON E. LMFY 1995 MARK i' STREET General N&mger -Chief Engmeer RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.7813.9965 FAX w .mflood,org RIVERSIDE COUNTY" FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 20, 2020 City of Lake Elsinore BO South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Attention: Damaris Abraham Re: PA 2019 -69, TTM 37977, CDR 2020 -02 and CUP 2020 -05 The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood A -1 hazard reports for such cases, District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension ofa master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided The District's review is based on the above - referenced project transmittal, received November 4, 2020, The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue: ® This project would not he impacted by District Master Drainage Plan Facilities, nor are other facilities of regionalnrterest proposed. 0 This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, . The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request ofthe City. Facilities must be A-2 constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. ❑ This project proposes charnels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature andlor a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. ❑ This project is located within the limits of the District's West Elsinore Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted. If the project is proposing to create additional impervious surface area, applicable fees should be paid by cashiefs check or money order only RESPONSES A -1 This comment is introductory and indicates that the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) limits its comments and recommendations on projects to those of specific interest to the District. No response is necessary. A -2 Project construction may overlap with the District's Sedco Master Drainage Plan Line E, which is located to the east and south of the project site within Mission Trail, Corydon Street, and the adjacent drainage channel, and therefore an encroachment permit will be obtained. This permit requirement will be a condition of project approval and has been incorporated into the Final IS/MND. Revisions to the Draft IS /MND are provided in sti�ke- out/underline format to signify deletions and insertions in the Final IS/MND text. Project construction would not result in physical adverse impacts to the facilities or their ability to continue to convey flows. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -2 COMMENTS City of Lake Elsinore -2- Re PA 2019 -69, TTM 37977, CDR 2020 -02 and CUP 2020 -05 November 20, 2020 235321 to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Fees to be A -2 paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. cont. El An encroachment permit shall be obtainedfor any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, Sedco MDP Line E. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. ❑ The District's previous comments are still valid. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the A -3 State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. A -4 If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the -5 applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification maybe required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. ec: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: John Hildebrand SLJ:blm Very truly yours, DEB ORAH DE CHAMBEAU Engineering Project Manager RESPONSES A -3 The project would comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction of Land Disturbance Activities (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] Order No. 2009 - 0009 -DWQ, NPDES No. CA2000002). The information included in this comment is consistent with that provided in the Draft IS /MND. A -4 The project site is located within two types of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood Zone "X." The western portion is within a Zone "X" defined as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard, areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. The eastern portion of the site is within a Zone "X" defined as areas determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. No portion of the site is mapped within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood. As such, the project would not result in modification to a SFHA, regulatory floodway, or Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and the applicant does not need to provide studies, calculations, plans, or other information to meet FEMA requirements or obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). A -5 There are no natural watercourses on the project site and no direct impacts to an off -site watercourse would occur from project implementation. Potential indirect impacts to nearby watercourses would be avoided through implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO -3 and MM BIO -4. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -3 COMMENTS RESPONSES A -5 (cont.) As mentioned above in Response A -4, the project site is not mapped within a FEMA SFHA. As such, the applicant is not required to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements, or a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -4 COMMENTS Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians o 4� ° ° "4`9Py, a CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT e One Goverranent Center Lane I Valley Center I CA 92082 (760) 749 -1051 1 Fax, (740) 749 -8901 1 rincon- ❑stt.gov December 1. 2020 •/�" "" �'` Sent only via email to: dabraham @lake -elsinore.org City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department Damaris Abraham 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Re: PA2019 -69 Corydon Gateway Project, City efLake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Dear Ms. Abraham B -1 This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseilo Indians ( "Rincon Band" or "Band'J. a federally recogni-red Indian Tribe and sovereign government. Thank you for providing w with the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above referenced project. The identified location is within the Territory of the Luiseno people, and is also within Rincon's specific area of Historic interest. B -2 We have reviewed the provided documents and we are in agreement with the measures which include archaeological and tribal monitoring, a monitoring report, and protocols for discovery of cultural material and human remains. We do request that the Rincon Band be notified of any changes in project plans. In addition, we request a copy of the final monitoring report, when available. If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience at (760) 297 -2635. 'thank you for the opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets. Sincerely. Cheryl Madrigal Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cultural Resources Manager Bo Mazzetti TishmalI Turner Laurie E. Gonzalez Alfonso Kolb, Sr. John Constantino Chairman vice Chi, Caun[il Member Cacndlm -ba C-wil Member RESPONSES B -1 This comment notes that the letter was written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians and that the project's identified location is within the Territory of the Luiseno people and is also within Rincon's specific area of Historic Interest. No response is necessary. B -2 This comments notes that the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians has reviewed the Draft IS /MND and is in agreement with the mitigation measures that include archaeological and tribal monitoring, a monitoring report, and protocols for discovery of cultural material and human remains and that they request to be notified of any changes to the project and request a copy of the final monitoring report. The Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians will be notified of any project changes and will be provided a copy of the final monitoring report as requested. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -5 COMMENTS J"ft LAND Vr BIKING ALLIANCE 1 December 2020 Damaris Abraham City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Re: Corydon Gateway Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2020100576) Dear Damaris, I am writing on behalf ofthe Inland Empirc [liking Alliance. a local nonprofit dedicated to making sure that the Inland Empire is a safe and accessible place to bike for people from all rolls of life. ibis C -1 letter is in response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration which has been prepared for the Corydon Gateway development ( "Project ") which has been proposed there in the city. After reviewing the available documents. a few concems have conic to light ul'some currently unmitigated impacts which would be caused by the proposed Project. These concerns are detailed below. In October of 2019, the C try of lake E:Isinorc adopted its Active Translxntation Plan, the Active LE Plan L. This plan document came about due to an invok ed cotantunh y process with a number of meetings attended by community nientbers and organizations, including us here at IEBA. C -2 Collectively, we provided a considerable amount of input to advance a vision for the future for people who would get around Lake 1skinore by hike or on foot and which was incorporated into the final Active LE Plan as adopted by the Council. At no point during the development process were we informed that it was just a practice esercisc which the C it had no intention of actually making use of. However, as proposed, the Project .sure makes it seem like that is in fact what is happening. In both Figure 5-1 Planned Bicycle Network and Table 5 -1 Lake Elsinore Complete Bicycle Network of the Active LE Plan, the map and descriptions detail that tlierc is a Mufti -Use Path planned along what would be the Project frontage on Mission Trail and Corydon Road2. Yet. after reviewing the Project documents, I cannot find any evidence that this Path has been considered in the planning and C -3 that if the developer would not be responsible for constructing 4 as part ofthe improvements. that at least everything possible will be done to avoid the Project compromising the ability to complete the Path. Additionally, in Table 5 -2 Lake Elsinore Proposed Pedestrian Improvements — Intersections, there are additional pedestrian- focused improvements recommended to improve safety forthose who travel by foot and which will likely be appreciated by bicyclists too. A City of Lake Elsinore (n.d.). Active LE. Retrieved online from http: / /www. lake- elsinore.erecity- hall /cemmunity- se rvices /active- transportation -plan. 2 City of Lake Elsinore, 2019. Active LE Plan. Retrieved online from http: / /www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocume nt7 id= 25086. P.O. BOX 8636 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org 951.394.3223 RESPONSES C -1 This comment is introductory and indicates concern about what the commenter believes to be unmitigated impacts caused by the project. Please see Responses C -2 through C -9 below regarding the project's potential for associated impacts. C -2 This comment discusses the City of Lake Elsinore Active Transportation Plan (Active LE Plan), the Inland Empire Biking Alliance's relation to the Active LE Plan, and the impression that the project has not considered the Active LE Plan in its design. The City does intend to implement the Active LE Plan as adopted by the City Council. Please see Responses C -3 through C -9 below regarding the project's relation to the Active LE Plan. C -3 The commentor is correct in that the Active LE Plan shows conceptual plans for a multi -use path along Mission Trail and Corydon Road and planned pedestrian improvements at the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Road. The City has determined that although the project would not construct the multi -use path identified in the Active LE Plan, it would not conflict with the Active LE Plan. The Active LE Plan provides a conceptual framework for future improvements but currently does not provide construction -level plans for implementation by individual development projects. As such, the project would provide bicycle facilities (Class II bike lanes) in accordance with the City's General Plan, which would contribute to the overall goals of the Active LE Plan of providing active transportation improvements where none currently exist. In addition, American with Disabilities Act (ADA)- compliant ramps and sidewalks would be provided along the project frontages and the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Road will have high - visibility Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -6 COMMENTS RESPONSES Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -7 COMMENTS Aft INLAND EMPIRE Vr BIKING ALLIANCE While the subsection XV II a) of the MND does mention that the Project would build [Class IIl bike lanes along the Frontages which face Corydon and Mission Trail, as made clear by the Active LE Plan. bike lanes and Class I bicycle paths are not the same on a number of different measures, C -4 especially those related to riding accessibility and comfort. Therefore. while there is a potential for includ ing bike lanes to be an improvement over the existing conditions. they uhimately are not what are appropriate for the location which is undoubtedly why they were not originally planned for in the first place. Included in the Active LE Plan are a number of Goals and supporting Policies. Several are applicable to this situation. Policy 1.5 states that the City endeavors to "[rlequire the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities... as a condition of approval of new development projects..." (p. 43� Policy 2.4 seeks to "[i[mplement policies and facilities proposed in the Active LE Plan whenever planning new C -5 facilities... that may be related to bicycle or pedestrian improvements" (p. 45), Policy 4.3 requires that the City "[sjtandardize the incorporation of lighting in all active transportation facilities and require private developers to do the same' (p. 47). and Policy 6.2 which looks to 1clonduct before and after bicycle and pedestrian counts with the implementation of new infrastructure projects..." (p. 49). Taken together, it is evident that those Policies (and indeed, the entire Active LE Plan itself) mean that this Project is in fact in conflict with an adopted plan. We would hope that the Project would he modified accordingly to avoid this situation, Unfortunately. I was unable to locate the Appendicesto C -6 the Active LE Plan which are referenced within the document, including Appendix A - Lake Elsinore Design Guidelines. It is assumed that those Guidelines contain information for the design of all proposed facilities, including Class I multiuse paths. However, if forsome reason theydonot address them, then the standards in Chapter 1000 ofthe Caltrans Highway Design Manual should be referenced forthe design and construction ofthe path. Additionally, Policy 1.3 indicates that the City would be adopting design guides from the National Association of City Transport Officials tosupplement the Caltrans Manual ofUnifonnTraffic Control Devices. In light of that, we would like to see the guidance which they have developed for C -7 intersections to be applied to this Project, including the driveways as well as the modification of the intersection at Lemon Street. "Ibis is to ensure that path users are afforded an uninterrupted path of travel. On the other hand, failure to do so would likely mean that the inclusion of the path would introduce hazards due to design. Finally, although the V MT analysis prepared for the Project determined that it has a less -than- significant impact due to its size and type, inclusion ofthe planned path would still provide a positive contribution to that portion of the Project by making it easier for people to access the planned shops C -8 by means outside of a car. As noted in the V MT analysis, this project is presumed to be beneficial because R is local - serving and reduces the distance that people would have to travel to reach it and that also applies to bicycling and walking as those modes typically happen within a close proximity P.O. BOX 8636 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org 951.394.3223 RESPONSES C -4 The City recognizes the differences between Class I and Class II bicycle facilities. For reasons discussed in Response C -3, the project would develop Class II bike lanes, which would be in accordance with the original plans included in the City's General Plan. These would be an improvement over existing conditions and would not preclude future implementation of additional planned improvements. C -5 In accordance with goals and policies included in the Active LE Plan, the project would provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities where none currently exist, thus improving the City's active transportation network. Many of the goals and policies included in Active LE Plan are to be implemented at the City-wide level to guide the development of future improvements under the Active LE Plan, where and when determined by the City to be appropriate and feasible. C -6 The City respectfully disagrees that the project is in conflict with an adopted plan, as discussed in Responses C -3 and C -5, and project modifications are not necessary. C -7 The project's driveways and intersection improvements at Lemon Drive have been designed in accordance with applicable guidelines and have undergone review with the City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Department to ensure safe and effective use for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The project would not introduce design - related hazards. C -8 The City agrees that pedestrian and bicycle facilities can be beneficial by serving as additional access options to the project and can contribute to reducing project - generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would be provided would allow for such benefits. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -8 COMMENTS JOW INLAND EMPIRL Vr BIKING ALLIANCE C -g Cont. ofhome. The path would improve that access even furl her, pro,, id an increase in economic activity to the shops themselves in the proressl. In sunanary, the IS-101TI) which has been prepared for the Project has exposed a potentially worrying situation which is that alter all the effort that went into preparing the Active I.F. plan. the City is not bothering to follow it and ensure [hat future developments such as this Projecl adhere to it. We are C -9 lookntg to ensure that the City and developer return to the drawing board to ensure that the planned facilities are included in the Project (or at the very least, to ensure that the necessary space for their construction is dedicated from the Project and fair share dctcmtined ). Anything less amounts to an unmitigated impact which is quite significant as it would rcquirc substantial resources from the City to rectify in the fur ure while also putting bicyclists and pedestrians at risk in that interim. Ifthere are any additional questions about the conunents being provided, please do not hesitate to mach out to have them clarified. Sincerely. (KING ALLIANCE Marven E•. Norman, Executive I ' Flusche, D. (20121. Bicycling means business: The economic benefits of bicycle infrastructure. Advocacy Advance. Revievedonline from https://www,bikeleague.crg/ sites / default / files /Bicycling_and_the_Economy- Econ_lmpact_Studles_we b.pdf. P.O. BOX 8636 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org 951.394.3223 RESPONSES C -9 Please see Response C -3. The Active LE Plan provides a conceptual framework for future active transportation improvements. Construction - level plans are not currently available for the multi -use path and the project can therefore not integrate the multi -use path into its design; however, the project would not preclude the future development of a multi -use path in this area. Development of a portion of the multi -use path along the project frontage as part of the project would be piecemeal and isolated from other sections of multi -use path. By contrast, a more detailed design developed in the future would allow for a more complete, consistent, and functional active transportation network. The City has determined that the project would not result in a significant impact under CEQA as related to conflict with a transportation plan. Through providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities where none currently exist, the project would reduce risk for bicyclists and pedestrians rather than increase risk. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -9 This page intentionally left blank Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -10 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Corydon Gateway project. For purposes of this document, this application will be called the "proposed project." B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT As defined by Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur: The project has the potential to: substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. • The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. • The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. • The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration can be adopted if it can be determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted if it is determined that although the Initial Study identifies that the project may have potentially significant effects on the environment, revisions in the project plans and/or mitigation measures, which would avoid or mitigate the effects to below the level of significance, have been made or agreed to by the applicant. This Initial Study has determined that the proposed project may result in potentially significant environmental effects but that said effects can be reduced to below the level of significance through the implementation of mitigation measures and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary environmental evaluations and clearance. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page I of 84 This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.); the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA Guidelines "), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.); applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or agency with jurisdiction by law. The City of Lake Elsinore is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment. C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents which are intended to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision - makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021). The City of Lake Elsinore City Council, as Lead Agency, has determined that environmental clearance for the proposed project can be provided with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study and Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration were circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments received on the document were considered by the Lead Agency before it acted on the proposed project. D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed project. I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of Lake Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental procedures, and incorporation by reference documents. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of discretionary approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City's Environmental Checklist Form. The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those areas that would have either a potentially significant impact, a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, a less than significant impact, or no impact. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS provides the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures are also set forth, as appropriate, that would reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to levels of less than significance. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 2 of 84 V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form for the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 21083(b) of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those individuals consulted and involved in the preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document. E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. All responses will take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including: 1. No Impact: A "No Impact" response is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels of thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. 3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 4. Potentially Significant Impact: There is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have impacts that are considered potentially significant and an EIR is required. F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on the incorporation by reference of tiered documentation and technical studies that have been prepared for the proposed project which are discussed in the following section. 1. Tiered Documents As permitted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a)the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 3 of 84 Tiering is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15385 as follows: "Tiering" refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site - specific EIRs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the EIR subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of EIRs is: (a) From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIR of lesser scope or to a site - specific EIR; (b) From an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the Lead Agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which discourages repetitive analyses, as follows: "Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site - specific EIR or negative declaration." Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states: "Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which: (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions or other means." For this document, the "City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report" certified December 13, 2011 (SCH #2005121019) serves as the broader document, since it analyzes the entire City area, which includes the proposed project site. However, as discussed, site - specific impacts, which the broader document (City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report) cannot adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This document, therefore, evaluates each environmental issue alone and will rely upon the analysis contained within the Lake Elsinore General Plan Final EIR with respect to remaining issue areas. 2. Incorporation by Reference An EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 4 of 84 document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]) Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs /MND and is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly- drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as follows: 0 Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, such other document shall be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building. The EIR or Negative Declaration shall state where the incorporated documents will be available for inspection. At a minimum, the incorporated document shall be made available to the public in an office of the Lead Agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b]) • The incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]) • This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]). 3. Documents Incorporated by Reference /Technical Studies a. The following document(s) is /are incorporated by reference: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report ( "General Plan EIR ") (SCH #2005121019), certified December 13, 2011. The General Plan EIR, from which this document is tiered, addresses the entire City of Lake Elsinore and provides background and inventory information and data which apply to the project site. Incorporated information and/or data will be cited in the appropriate sections. b. Various technical reports have been prepared to assess specific issues that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. As relevant, information from these technical reports has been incorporated into the Initial Study. The following technical reports are included as appendices to this Initial Study: • Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, September 14, 2020. Appendix B: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Determination, prepared by L &L Environmental, Inc., September 2020. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 5 of 84 • Appendix C: Joint Project Review (JPR 20- 06- 09 -01) for the LEAP 2020 -02 1Corydon Gateway, prepared by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservative Authority (RCA), September 24, 2020. • Appendix D: Review of the Joint Project Review (JPR 20- 06- 09 -01) for the LEAP 2020- 02 /Corydon Gateway, provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, October 12, 2020. • Appendix E: Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by L &L Environmental, Inc., March 18, 2020. • Appendix F: CEQA Energy Review, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, January 28, 2020. • Appendix G: Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, prepared by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., June 12, 2020. • Appendix H: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., September 27, 2019. • Appendix I: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by KWC Engineers, September 2020. • Appendix J: Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, September 15, 2020. • Appendix K: Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Trames Solutions, Inc., August 12, 2020. • Appendix L: Vehicles Miles Traveled Evaluation, prepared by Trames Solutions, Inc. August 12, 2020. c. The above - listed documents and technical studies are available for review at: City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Hours: Mon- Thurs: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Friday: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. Closed Holidays Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 6 of 84 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The proposed project is located in the City of Lake Elsinore (City), in the western portion of Riverside County, California (see Figure 1, Regional Location). The approximately 6.05 -acre project site (Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030]) is located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street, approximately 0.7 mile west of Interstate (1 -) 15 and 2.3 miles east of Lake Elsinore (see Figure 2, Project Vicinity [Aerial Photograph]). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan area and has a land use designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation. The site is zoned Specific Plan (SP). Access to the site is provided from Corydon Street and Mission Trail. The site is currently vacant and characterized by non - native grassland that is regularly disturbed for weed abatement. Topographically, the site is generally level with the elevation ranging from 1,267 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) along the western edge of the site to 1,278 feet AMSL along the eastern edge. The predominant surface soil type is Ramona very fine sandy loam with some Waukena loamy fine sand present along the western portion of the site. Land to the north of the project site is vacant and land to the south is developed with light industrial uses. Commercial and light industrial uses, interspersed with low- density residential uses, are located to the east across Mission Trail within the City of Wildomar. The Lake Elsinore Motorsports Parkway is located to the west, separated from the project site by a chain- link/barbed wire fence and a low- relief berm. A fenced/gated drainage easement owned by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is present along the project site's southern boundary. Additional uses in the vicinity include Skylark Field and Skydive Lake Elsinore southwest of the project site along Cereal Street. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 37977), Commercial Design Review (CDR 2020 -02) Application, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2020 -05). TTM 37977 would subdivide the 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy (Parcel 2) with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year, a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6), including 10 1,920 -sf condos and one (1) 2,880 -sf condo. Each of the flex -tech condos would include 500 sf of office space (see Figure 3, Site Plan). The remaining area within Parcels 5 and 6 would be used for storage or warehouse space, including 1,420 sf for the 1,920 -sf condos and 2,380 sf for the 2,880 -sf condo. As the flex -tech condos would be leased, internal improvements may be conducted after initial project development to meet the layout requirements of prospective tenants. The project would also involve off - site roadway improvements, including extending Lemon Street west along the northern boundary of the project site and widening and improving the portions of Mission Trail and Corydon Street adjacent to the project site to include project access driveways, sidewalks, and bike lanes. The proposed uses would be developed over two phases. Development of the convenience store and gas station, tunnel car wash, fast food restaurant, and detention basin, as well as off -site improvements and utility infrastructure, would occur during Phase 1. Development of the flex -tech condos and tire store would occur during Phase 2. Table 1, Tentative Tract Map Parcels, details the phase, size, and use of each of the six TTM parcels and detention basin Lot A. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 7 of 84 Table 1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PARCELS Parcel Number Phase Number Approximate Parcel Size acres Approximate Building Size s Proposed Use 1 1 0.63 2,300 Fast food restaurant with drive -thru 2 1 1.09 4,088 Convenience store with gas statin 3 1 1.10 4,333 Tunnel car wash 4 2 0.86 5,200 Tire store 5 2 1.04 9,600 Flex -tech condos 6 2 1.10 12,480 Flex -tech condos Lot A 2 0.22 N/A Detention basin N/A = not applicable; sf = square feet The 7- Eleven proposes to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The Superstar Car Wash proposes to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days per week. The hours of operation of the remaining uses would be based on tenants that occupy the uses. Architectural Design The zoning of the project site restricts the maximum building height to 30 feet. Buildings would range in height from 26 feet (for the fast food restaurant and tire shop) to 30 feet (for the flex -tech condos). The maximum height of each building would not be uniform across the building. Rather, each building would incorporate varying facades and architectural elements (such as parapets) of different heights that would provide for a varying roofline. The gas station canopy would be level and would have a height at the top of the canopy of 17.5 feet and at the bottom of the canopy of 14.5 feet. Eight supporting canopy columns would be provided towards the center of the canopy to form a "T- shaped" structure. Figures 4a through 4c, Conceptual Street Views, provide a conceptual depiction of the exterior building materials proposed to be used, as seen from adjacent roadways. The buildings would be constructed of earth -tone (off - white, light brown, and gray) exterior cement plaster, brick veneer, and brown composite siding. The material type, as well as massing and height, would vary for the multiple fagades and architectural components proposed for each building. Portions of the building fronts would be anodized clear aluminum. The buildings would incorporate decorative architectural features including light fixtures, aluminum canopies, and aluminum cornices that would be either clear or anodized dark bronze, as well as galvanized sheet metal coping on the top of the exterior walls. Access, Circulation, and Parking Access to the site would be provided via an ingress /egress located just north of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street (central access) and an additional ingress /egress to be provided farther south along Corydon Street (southern access). The project would extend Lemon Street west from Mission Trail along the northern property boundary via a proposed reciprocal access easement, which would provide northern access to the project site. The exiting traffic signal at the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street would be modified to accommodate the new roadway segment. A total of 143 parking spaces would be provided on site, including seven (7) accessible parking spaces and 11 clean air vehicle parking spaces. All clean air vehicle parking spaces would be provided with infrastructure for the addition of future electrical vehicle charging stations. Proposed parking would exceed the minimum 121 parking spaces required for the site per the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), as Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 8 of 84 HELIXEnvironmental nning Regional Location Figure 1 ® Project Site N 1:;'s I,. { OL - r,? Li i Corvdon G E„. XM 4 AA . ,.r� Ar ifs 0 500 Feet HELIXEnvironmental Planning 'J A. mow Iti 4 �I 'T'�'-.�_i�•'� '�il�.i �.. - IT, Pic tr Source: Aerial (RCIT, 2016) Project Vicinity (Aerial Photograph) Figure 2 n I I PAIR OF TRAVEL PPACEL I /PPACEL2 CIPRWA CESS r DIRECnON SIGN DRIVEWAY �i ' r b r M01 DETENTION _ -- -- --7 -------------------------- - - - - - -- - LOT A 022 AC 9,494 SFt PARCEL 6 �0 ( ) 4 AC (48,077 SF±) - �� sew ST 94 4.3 33 SF p - — 1 2a � i oa Sj EL 4 — _ Tit � m l 1 J i ROF: I E WROGRAM 66 7,472 SF ±)I L PARCELS 4i J L - -J 1.1DAC(47AWSF;t)Fdi — � 7- ELEVEN 4 088 SF , .� allE� •� PA . DIM 194 AC 45. I � sensF 1 � - PATkGF1R4Fl f /. ' 1FFA3N3 M 'O lob ' rte- 7 J -XTECH CONDOS 22,080 SF PARCEL2 1.09 AC (47,694 SII) CORNERW UMENT EXISTING STORAGE YARD ��J��J Y SIGN- l REF: SIGN NOT A PART 0. 79 SFt , OISET�R4CIG( f� EYJSTING TRAFFIC SIGN. I Wa:awnWDmrr 41 � e � rf r EXISTING INDUSTRIAL / r NOT A PART l / ML<nreuwr r �rWV:s�Pn�o�r f�l HELIX Environmental Planning Source: GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS (2020) Site Plan Figure 3 STREET VIEW FROM CORYDON ROAD- LOOKING NORTH on Source: GK Pierce Architects (2020) HELIX Conceptual Street Views Environmental Planning Figure 4a STREET VIEW FROM CORYDON/ MISSION TRAIL INTERSECTION- LOOKING NORTHWEST HELIX Environmental Planning on Source: GK Pierce Architects (2020) Conceatual Street Views Figure 4b STREET VIEW FROM MISSION TRAIL/ LEMON INTERSECTION- LOOKING SOUTHWEST on Source: GK Pierce Architects (2020) HELIX Conceptual Street Views Environmental Planning Figure 4c well as the current California Building Code and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirements for accessible and clean air vehicle parking, respectively. Landscaping, Bio- retention Basin, and Hardscape The project site would include approximately 40,826 sf of landscaping, representing 15.5 percent of the site (see Figure 5, Conceptual Landscape Plan). As shown in Figure 5, implementation of the landscape plan would include installation of trees along the western, southern, and eastern property boundaries; it is expected that trees would be installed along the northern property boundary by the future developer of the adjacent property. A continuous line of trees along the southwestern boundary of the project site would provide visual screening between the project site and the adjacent light industrial uses. Trees, as well as shrubs and 30 -inch tall screen hedges, would also be provided within the numerous parking lot islands throughout the site. The tree planting mix is proposed to consist of six types of trees of varying sizes, shapes, and styles, including crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), Brisbane box (Lophostemon confertus), Chinese flame tree (Koelreuteria bipinnata), ornamental pear (Pyrus calleryana), London plane tree (Platanus x acerifolia), and evergreen elm (Ulmus Parvifolia) (see Figure 5). A variety of shrubs is proposed to be utilized for landscape massing, accent plantings, groundcover, and screening. Examples include, but are not limited to, bougainvillea (Bougainvillea cvr.) and orchid rockrose (Cistus x purpureus) for massing, English Lavender (Lavandula augustifolia `hidcote') and New Zealand Flax (Phormium tenax) for accent planting, and dwarf myrtle (Myrtus communis `compacta') and Indian hawthome (Rhaphiolepis indica cvr.) for screening (see Figure 5 for full list). Vines or other landscape screening would be provided around all trash enclosures, and landscape screening would be provided for above - ground equipment. Landscaping would be permanently maintained by the developer. A detention basin would be located in the westernmost portion of the project site to serve as a bioretention basin for stormwater runoff. The basin would capture stormwater runoff from a proposed 24 -inch storm drain that would run from the central portion of the site, along the northern property boundary, and into the basin. The basin would include an inlet filter that would treat stormwater runoff from the project site. Water would then be diverted into the adjacent Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channel, which leads to Lake Elsinore. The basin would be enclosed by a six - foot -high chain -link fence and separated from the project site by a five- foot -wide bench that would surround the basin for stormwater retention. The basin would be regularly maintained to ensure effective operation of runoff control. Concrete in a natural gray color would be used for all interior sidewalks. A retaining wall would be provided along the project site's southwestern boundary between the project site and the adjacent Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channel. The wall would range in height from 0.5 feet at the end portions of the wall to 3 feet to 4.5 feet in the middle portion of the wall. Signage The project's sign program presents a coordinated signage theme encompassing all phases of the project. The signs would reflect the architecture proposed for the project as related to style, materials, and colors (see Figures 4a through 4c). Proposed signs include: • A small directional sign near the project's northern access. • Two multi- tenant monument signs, one at the project's northeastern corner near the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street and one at the project's southern corner along Corydon Street. • Two single- tenant monument signs, one near the proposed 7- Eleven along Mission Trail and one near the proposed drive -thru fast food restaurant along Corydon Street. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study/MND Page 9 of 84 One corner monument sign near the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. • Two fuel pricing monument signs, one at the project's southern access along Corydon Street and one at the project's central access along Mission Trail. Utilities Water would be provided to the project site via three water lines that would connect to existing off -site water lines and feed into numerous proposed lines within the project site. The first would be an 8 -inch potable water line that would connect to an existing 24 -inch line at the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street, run west along the northern boundary of the project site within the proposed Lemon Street roadway extension, and then turn south to provide connections within the northern portion of the project site. A second 8 -inch line, this one for fire service, would connect to the same existing 24 -inch line just south of the first proposed 8 -inch line and would run along the northern portion the project site. The third line would be a 12 -inch potable water line that would connect to an existing 12 -inch line within Mission Trail just north of its intersection with Corydon Street and run southwest along Corydon Street to near the project site's southern access, where it would connect to two proposed 8 -inch lines (one being a fire water line) that would run northwest to provide connections within the southern portion of the project site. An 8 -inch sewer line would be provided within the project site and would connect to an existing 18 -inch sewer line within Corydon Street near the project site's southern access. A proposed 24 -inch storm drain would run from near the center of the project site north to the proposed Lemon Street roadway extension, then west along the roadway to the proposed detention basin. Electricity would be provided to the project by Southern California Edison (SCE). Natural gas would be provided by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas). The project would connect to existing SCE electrical lines and SoCalGas natural gas lines, as well as existing telecommunications lines. Project Phasing and Construction As discussed above, the project is proposed to be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would include all off -site improvements, utility infrastructure, convenience store and gas station, tunnel car wash, fast food restaurant, and the detention basin. Phase 2 would include the flex -tech condos and tire store. Construction of Phase 1 is anticipated to start summer 2021 and conclude in early 2022. The timing of Phase 2 would be dependent on negations with future tenants of the flex -tech condos and tire store. Earthwork for the site is anticipated to require 2,809 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 5,975 cy of fill for a net import of 3,166 cy. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 10 of 84 EXISTING PARCEL LINE BUSINESS CONDOS 22,080 SF TREES ON NORTH SIDE OF DRIVE TO BE INSTALLED BY FI IT[ IRF nFVFI nPFR 950 QO O PARCEL I /PARCEL2 RECIPROCAL ACCESS 30" HIGH SCREEN r RECTIONAL S DI IGN DRIVEWAY HEDGE n� 1.10 AC (47,910 30 "HIGH —� /// \ c� SCREEN PROJECT \DGE o� 7NAGE I� I I II PLANT PALETTE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE DESCRIPTION CITY LEMON STREET MIX OF TREES SHALL INCLUDE 4 AT LEAST: 25% 15- GALLON TREES, Lagersbcemia mama ]6 %24' -BOX TREES, AND crape MYrtle 5 %36' -BOX TREES BOx 36' Box Da=la1o11 gowenng accem 17 M_O ERIC EXISTING — — IHAFFC SIGNAL 24 ^Box Ev�rgreen tall - -I A Lop/askmon contents Bbsbane Box 36" Box ve cel 38 D.cetluau oval _ _ _ Koelreuferia bipinnak CM1lnesa Flema Tree 36' Box tree ] (�//�� PYVS raneryana Ornamental Pear 24 "Box Ded.U........ 2 `-W Plaknuaxarerildia Lantlan Plane Tree 15 Gal Decitluous oval treel tree 7 • pa Nlia'TVeG en' Eve gr en Elm Box Evergreen broetl 2 dome 1JUlmus I I II - - I m PRppi JEC�11II I 100% OF SHRUBS SHALL BE INSTALLED NOT SELLSTOCK LARGER THAN ATE GALLON SIZE UNLESS I GALLON SIZE. SHRUBS SHALL Bou9alnNlka cvr. THE SHRUB'S MATURE SIZE BE PLACED ATAMAXIMUM Bou9alnNlka IS SUCH THAT OF 36' APART 5Gal NURSERIES DO ON AVERAGE. Massing 39,3 F SIGNAGF, II I Cis NS xpuroureus Orchla ROCkrosa 5Ga1 Massing i Coprosma repens'Ma21e Oueen Mrtror Plant 5 Gal Sbade massing i I Dkles'L, FoMigM1l Lily 5 Gal Accent R.O.W. DEDTCATI L.vanaula augusfiNlia'Hitlmk' E,SINh Lavender 1Ga1 Accent Lepkspermum smpanum New Zealand Tea Tree 5Ga1 Background massing " Leuc hyl.m fiutescens'COmpada' Compad Texas Ranger E Gal Screening l Massing JI Ugustrumjappnicum Texanum' Texas Privet 5Gal Screening Utlope Big Blue Lily Turt 1 Gal SM1ade PRgJECT LL muscari massing O I SITAG& I Mynas.....ls'_t­.' Dwart Myrtle 5Ga1 Saeeningl Massing _m�i Z O PM1Ormium tmex New Zealantl Flax 5 Gel A—It I III i Pilksporum kblro Mock Orange SGaI Screening) Massing I RM1apM1idepls intlica cvr. Rosa'Flower Carpet IId- Hawlborne Groundcpver ROSe 5 Gal 5Ga1 Screening l Massing Accent l Massing 36 �J I SeI1 develaMii .1w, leuwnMa'Sanfa 6elUera' Cl­­ Sege Mexican 3 -Sage 5 Gel 50.1 Accent I Messing Accent l M ... ign ll FesNCa iaaboensis'Siskiyou Blue' Si,,Nyou Blue ld.h. Fescue 1 Gel Fore .d Massing � I - DisXdus bucunakna Blood Retl Trumpet Vlne 15 Gal BUILDING SETBACK I M.cradyana Ig.1— Cars claw Vine 15 Gel MONUMENT SIGNAGEI w.TURALCw.v carvcREre. MEDIUM ....M FINISH 30" HIGH SCREEN EXISTING TRAFFIC tOJ CT HEDGE SIGNAL G AGE O Source: Pacific Landscape Studio (2020) HELIX Conceptual Landscape Plan Environmental Planning Figure 5 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Corydon Gateway 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner, (951) 674 -3124, ext. 913 4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Mission Trail and Corydon Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC, 25425 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 101, Murrieta, CA 92562 6. General Plan Designation: Specific Plan (East Lake Specific Plan — Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation) 7. Zoning: Specific Plan (SP) 8. Description of Project: See project description in Section II.B, Project Description, above. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See project location and setting in Section II.A, Project Location and Setting, above. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction of Land Disturbance Activities (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] Order No. 2009 - 0009 -DWQ, NPDES No. CA2000002), in addition to related City requirements for storm water and erosion control; South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Permit to Operate; Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project Review; Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Encroachment Permit 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc. ?: In accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City sent notification to six (6) Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area on May 1, 2020. Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians requested formal government -to- government consultation under AB 52. Consultation was concluded on June 17, 2020 with the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, on October 26, 2020 with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and on October 20, 2020 with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Mitigation measures have been added to address a concern over the potential for uncovering tribal cultural resources (TCRs) or other tribal - affiliated resources during construction of the project. Please see Section XVIII of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist for more detail. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 11 of 84 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Geology /Soils ® Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Emissions Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ® Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities /Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ® Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ,�4 Az� 10/28/2020 Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner Date Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 12 of 84 I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, Potentially Significant Less Than No but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and Significant With Significant Impact historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact Mitigation Impact c) In non - urbanized areas, substantially degrade the Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ ❑ historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non - urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are El El ❑ those that are experienced from publicly accessible ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ® ❑ views in the area? El 11 El II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the El El ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or El El ❑ a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of El 11 El forest land to non - forest uses? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 13 of 84 III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El Less Than El applicable air quality plan? Potentially Significant Less Than No b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase Significant With Significant Impact of any criteria pollutant for which the project region Impact Mitigation Impact El non - attainment under an applicable federal or Incorporated III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El El El applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase E] ® 1:1 1:1 of any criteria pollutant for which the project region El El ® El non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to ❑ ® ❑ ❑ odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status E] ® 1:1 1:1 in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through ❑ ❑ ❑ direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory ❑ ® ❑ ❑ wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community 1:1 ® 1:1 1:1 Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 14 of 84 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the Less Than significance of a historical resource pursuant to Potentially Significant Less Than No CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? Significant With Significant Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the Impact Mitigation Impact significance of an archaeological resource pursuant ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those El [A El El outside of formal cemeteries? VI. ENERGY. Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary ❑ ❑ ® ❑ consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for ❑ ❑ ® ❑ renewable energy or energy efficiency? VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ El ® El liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ El ® El topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 15 of 84 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly Less Than or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on Potentially Significant Less Than No the environment? Significant With Significant Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or Impact Mitigation Impact regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater E] ❑ 1:1 disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? El El ® El f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ feature? VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ emissions of greenhouse gases? IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset El El ® El and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, El El ® El substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ death involving wildland fires? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 16 of 84 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ Less Than ❑ discharge requirements or otherwise substantially Potentially Significant Less Than No degrade surface or ground water quality? Significant With Significant Impact b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or Impact Mitigation Impact interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, El Incorporated ® El X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements or otherwise substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ degrade surface or ground water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, El El ® El that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ off -site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ in flooding on- or offsite; iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk L1 El ® El of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ residents of the state? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 17 of 84 XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent ❑ Less Than ® ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Potentially Significant Less Than No project in excess of standards established in the local Significant With Significant Impact general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable Impact Mitigation Impact ❑ standards of other agencies? ❑ Incorporated ® ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - El 1:1 ® El important mineral resource recovery site delineated E] ❑ ® 1:1 on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project in excess of standards established in the local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or El 1:1 ® El noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a El El ® El airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ an area, either directly (for example, by proposing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ example, through extension of roads or other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other public services /facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 18 of 84 XVI. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other Potentially Significant Less Than No recreational facilities such that substantial physical Significant With Significant Impact deterioration of the facility would occur or be Impact Mitigation Impact F-1 accelerated? Incorporated XVI. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ® ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ recreational facilities such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be F-1 F-1 ® F-1 accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ require the construction or expansion of recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ F-1 facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy ❑ ® ❑ ❑ addressing the circulation system, including transit, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with F-1 F-1 ® F-1 CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric ❑ ® ❑ ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous F-1 F-1 ® F-1 intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XVIII.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 19 of 84 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of El Less Than ® ❑ new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or Potentially Significant Less Than No storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or Significant With Significant Impact facilities, the construction or Impact Mitigation Impact ❑ relocation of which could cause significant Incorporated XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of El ❑ ® ❑ new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or El El ® El facilities, the construction or El ❑ ® ❑ relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future El El ® El during normal, dry and multiple dry El El ® El years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's projected demand in addition to the El ❑ ® ❑ provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local El El ® El infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency El ❑ ® ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose El ❑ ® ❑ project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other El El ® El that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or El ❑ ® ❑ landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 20 of 84 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially Less Than degrade the quality of the environment, Potentially Significant Less Than No substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife Significant With Significant Impact species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop Impact Mitigation Impact below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a E] Incorporated 1:1 1:1 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a E] ® 1:1 1:1 or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ beings, either directly or indirectly? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 21 of 84 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. A complete list of the reference sources applicable to the following source abbreviations is contained in Section VII, References, of this document. I. AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact The City's aesthetic setting is characterized by urbanized development of various densities occurring within varied topographical features and interspersed with undeveloped natural areas. Scenic resources within and surrounding the City include Lake Elsinore, portions of the Cleveland National Forest, rugged hillside land, distant mountains and ridgelines, rocky outcroppings, streams, vacant land with native vegetation, parkland, and buildings of historical and cultural significance. Views of these scenic resources within and surrounding the City are the prominent scenic vistas identified in the General Plan and General Plan EIR. Due to the importance of Lake Elsinore as the largest natural lake in southern California, scenic resources were addressed in the General Plan by identifying public vantage points of the lake throughout the City. Vantage points identified in Figure 4.10 of the General Plan include northbound I -15, State Route (SR -) 74 /Ortega Highway, the Lake Elsinore Recreation Area and Campground, the baseball stadium, the boat launch on the eastern edge of the lake, and the Aloha Pier lookout. There are no recognized scenic vistas on the project site or in the project vicinity. Therefore, while views of portions of the distant mountains and ridgelines to the southwest of the project site may be temporarily obstructed for passing motorists on Mission Trail from the project's buildings, this area is not a prominent public viewpoint and scenic vistas would not be substantially affected. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact) California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the legislature in 1963 to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either currently designated or eligible for designation as scenic highways. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) currently identifies both I -15 and SR -74 as eligible for listing as state scenic highways, but they not yet officially designated. The project site is located approximately 0.6 mile from I -15 and 4.5 miles from the closest portion of SR -74. The project also would not result in impacts to scenic trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Accordingly, no impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California State Scenic Highway System Map [Caltrans 2018]) c) In non - urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less Than Significant Impact) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 22 of 84 CEQA defines the term "urbanized area" to mean an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) data from 2019 indicates that the City has a population of 69,283 and the adjacent City of Wildomar has a population of 37,229 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Thus, the project site is considered to be located within an urbanized area and is evaluated relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The proposed project involves the development of a commercial retail center on an existing undeveloped lot, which would change the visual character of the site. The project site, as well as the areas to the north and west, are within the East Lake Specific Plan area and have a land use designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation. Development of the project would follow the design guidelines contained in the East Lake Specific Plan, which would provide for consistency in visual character between the project and existing and future development in the adjacent areas that are also within the East Lake Specific Plan area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts related to visual character would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: East Lake Specific Plan, U.S. Census Bureau) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less Than Significant Imnact) According to the City's General Plan, light and glare impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory are of concern to the City. Areas of light pollution impacts have been identified through a "ring analysis," where primary impacts to the Observatory are within a 30 -mile radius, and secondary impacts are within a radius of up to 45 miles. According to General Plan Figure 4.12, the project site is located within the 45 -mile secondary impacts radius. The project site is currently undeveloped, with no existing on -site sources of light or glare. Existing sources of night lighting attributed to nearby light industrial, commercial, and residential development include street lamps, accent and security lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicle headlights. Development of the project would be required to comply with Section 17.112.040, Lighting (for Nonresidential Development), of the LEMC. Section 17.112.040 requires all outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of 60 watts to be oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through the luminaire and prevent glare or illumination on adjacent properties or streets. This section of the LEMC encourages the use of low- pressure sodium vapor lighting due to the City's proximity to the Mount Palomar Observatory. Sources of glare during the day result primarily from parked cars located in large parking lots and from sunlight reflected from window glazing on buildings. The proposed project would introduce new sources of daytime glare due to the new building surfaces and vehicles at the site; however, glare created by the proposed project would be similar to the glare that is emitted by the surrounding development. Based on the above considerations, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Potential impacts associated with light or glare would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, General Plan EIR, LEMC) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 23 of 84 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? (No Impact) According to the City's General Plan EIR (City 201 lb), agricultural uses constitute approximately 0.8 percent of the City's total acreage. Some of this existing agricultural land, as well as vacant land used for purposes other than agriculture, are designated by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) as Farmland of Local Importance (554 acres within the City), Grazing Land (827 acres within the City), and Unique Farmland (25 acres within the City) (City 201 lb). Remaining land is considered Urban/Built-Up Land or Other Land, reflecting its developed uses or other characteristics making it unsuitable for agriculture. The project site is an undeveloped property that is designated by the FMMP as Farmland of Local Importance (CDC 2016). The site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In addition, the site has a land use designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation. The site is currently not used for agriculture nor is it planned to be used for agriculture. Therefore, there would be no conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non - agricultural use as a result of this project. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, CDC FMMP) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the Lake Elsinore Zoning Code does not contain agricultural zones or zones that principally allow for agriculture. Further, the City's General Plan EIR indicates that there are no Williamson Act agricultural preserves within the City boundaries. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Zoning Map, General Plan EIR) c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (No Impact) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest uses? (No Impact) Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The City's General Plan does not identify specific designations for forest land or timberland uses, nor is there a zoning designated for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production within City limits. The project site is vacant and not currently being managed or used for forest land or timberland. No impact would occur. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 24 of 84 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, Zoning Map, Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)) e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? (No Impact) There are no agricultural operations or timberland production operations within the project site; therefore, the project would not result in conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Zoning Map) III. AIR QUALITY This section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impact Study prepared for the proposed project by MD Acoustics, LLC (2020a, Appendix A). The project's construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The results and conclusions of the report and calculations relative to pollutant emissions are summarized herein. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No Impact) The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The AQMP is a series of plans adopted for the purpose of reaching short- and long -term goals for those pollutants the SCAB is designated as a `nonattainment' area because the SCAQMD does not meet federal and/or state Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). The land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP are based on the regional growth forecasts included in SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) /Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is a long -range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends over a 20 -year period to identify regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. Both the RTP /SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans. The two principal criteria for conformance to the AQMP are (1) whether a project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards; and (2) whether a project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. As described below under Item 111(b), pollutant emissions from the project would be less than the SCAQMD thresholds and would not result in a significant impact. Further, the project does not involve a change to a General Plan or zoning designation and, therefore, would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP. As such, the project would not conflict with the AQMP and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics [2020a, Appendix A]) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 25 of 84 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact) The project would result in criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operation. Construction activities that would generate emissions are anticipated to include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Operational sources of emissions would include vehicular sources, natural gas use, landscape equipment use, consumer products, and architectural coatings. Both construction and operation would result in emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROGs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5). The SCAQMD has thresholds for emissions of each of these pollutants, as identified below in Table 2, Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds. The attainment status for criteria pollutants in the SCAB is shown in Table 3, South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status. Table 2 MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS (pounds per day) Pollutant Construction Operations Reactive Organic Gases ROGs 75 55 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 Carbon Monoxide CO 550 550 Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter PMIO 150 150 Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) 55 55 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD 2019 Table 3 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN CRITERIA POLLUTANT ATTAINMENT STATUS Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone Os — 1 -hour standard o federal standard Nonattainment Ozone 03 — 8 -hour Standard Extreme Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide CO Attainment Maintenance Attainment Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter PM,o Attainment Maintenance Nonattainment Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide Oz Attainment Maintenance Attainment Sulfur Dioxide SOz Attainment Attainment Sulfates o federal standard Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) (No federal standard Attainment Source: SCAQMD 2016 If the project's criteria pollutant and precursor emissions during construction and operation are below the SCAQMD daily regional thresholds, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. To determine whether the project's emissions would result a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is in non - attainment, or contribute substantially to a projected air quality violation, the project's emissions were evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as described below and shown in Table 4, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, and Table 5, Maximum Daily Operational Emissions. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 26 of 84 Construction Emissions As discussed above, the project would result in criteria pollutant emissions during its various construction activities, including site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions." Fugitive dust emissions include PMIo and PM2.5. Average daily PMIo emissions during site grading and other disturbance average about 10 pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures (RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities. With the use of BACMs, fugitive dust emissions can be reduced to one to two pounds per day per acre disturbed. The estimated construction emissions calculated for the proposed project are presented below in Table 4. Table 4 MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Category ROG NOx CO S02 PMio PM2.5 Site Preparation <0.5 2 3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Grading 3 26 17 <0.5 4 3 Building Construction 3 24 22 <0.5 3 1 Paving 2 13 15 <0.5 1 1 Architectural Coating 20 2 3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Maximum Daily Emissions' 25 38 40 <0.5 4 2 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: MD Acoustics 2020a Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Construction emissions calculations incorporate SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (Fugitive Dust), which include standard requirements the project would incorporate. ' Maximum daily emissions would occur if /when the building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases overlap. ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District As shown in Table 4, maximum daily construction emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions and impacts would be less than significant. Operational Emissions Operational emissions associated with the proposed project, including those from area, energy, and mobile sources, are shown below in Table 5. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 27 of 84 Table 5 MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Category ROG NOx CO S02 PMio PM2.5 Area 1 0 <0.5 0 0 0 Energy <0.5 1 1 0 <0.5 <0.5 Mobile 7 44 57 <0.5 15 4 Total 8 45 58 <0.5 15 4 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: MD Acoustics 2020a Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Emissions account for VOC content in paint limits per SCAQMD Rule 1113. ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = sulfur dioxide; PMio = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District As shown in Table 5, operation emissions would be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics [2020a, Appendix A]) c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant Impact) Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called "sensitive receptors." Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio - respiratory disease). Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Schools are similarly considered to be sensitive receptors. The closest existing sensitive use to the project site is the residential property located approximately 100 feet east of the site across Mission Trail. The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level, called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that could occur, beyond which the project would cause or contribute measurably to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PMIo, and PM2.5. LSTs are developed based on the ambient pollutant concentrations for each source area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility. Potential impacts to sensitive receptors from construction- related toxic air contaminants (TACs) and operational CO hotspots and emissions associated with the proposed gas station are also assessed. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 28 of 84 Construction Localized Criteria Pollutant Emissions The construction LSTs used for this analysis are based on Source Receptor Area (SRA) 25, Lake Elsinore, a disturbance area of 2 acres per day, and a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). Construction emissions are based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. Per the LST methodology, only on -site emissions are considered. The applicable LSTs and localized construction emissions are shown in Table 6, Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions. Table 6 MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Phase NOx CO PMio PM2.5 Site Preparation 2 2 <0.5 <0.5 Grading 26 16 4 2 Building Construction 19 17 1 1 Paving 13 15 1 1 Architectural Coating 2 2 <0.5 <0.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 34 33 2 2 SCAQMD LSTs' 234 1,100 7 4 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: MD Acoustics 2020a Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Construction emissions calculations incorporate SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (Fugitive Dust), which include standard requirements the project would incorporate. 1 The LSTs used are based on Source Receptor Area (SRA) 25, Lake Elsinore, a disturbance area of 2 acres per day, and a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = Localized Significance Thresholds As indicated in Table 6, project emissions would be below the LST thresholds for construction, and LST impacts would be less than significant. Toxic Air Contaminants TACs are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Emissions during construction would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) associated with heavy equipment operations during earth - moving activities. The SCAQMD does not consider diesel - related cancer risks from construction equipment to be a significant issue due to the short-term nature of construction activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be sporadic, transitory, and short term in nature at any given location across the large project site. Further, the overall construction duration for Phase I is an anticipated to be less than one year. The construction duration for Phase 11 is not yet determined but is likely to be similar to the Phase I duration. The amount of DPM to which the receptors could be exposed, which is a function of concentration and duration of exposure, is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer -term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 29 of 84 Due to the variable and sporadic nature of construction activity and the anticipated short construction schedule in any one area, TAC emissions from the project's construction activity would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As such, project - related TAC emission impacts during construction would be less than significant. Operations Localized Criteria Pollutant Emissions The operational LSTs used for this analysis are based on SRA 25, Lake Elsinore, a disturbance area of 5 acres per day, and a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). The LST analysis only includes on -site sources; however, CaIEEMod emissions outputs do not separate on -site and off -site emissions for mobile sources. As a conservative assessment, the localized operational emissions presented herein include all on -site stationary sources and 10 percent of the project - related new mobile sources. This percentage is an estimate of the amount of project - related new vehicle traffic that would occur on site. The applicable LSTs and localized operational emissions are shown in Table 7, Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions. Table 7 MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Category NOx CO PMio PM2.5 Area 0 <0.5 0 0 Energy 1 1 <0.5 <0.5 Mobile 4 6 2 <0.5 Total 5 6 2 <0.5 SCAQMD LSTs' 371 1,965 4 2 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: MD Acoustics 2020a Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Emissions account for VOC content in paint limits per SCAQMD Rule 1113. 1 The LSTs used are based on SRA 25, Lake Elsinore, a disturbance area of 5 acres per day, and a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PMio = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = Localized Significance Thresholds As indicated in Table 7, project emissions would be below the LST thresholds for operations, and LST impacts would be less than significant. CO Hotpots A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. A quantitative screening is required in two instances: (1) if a project increases the average delay at signalized intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or F; or (2) if a project causes an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the project to operate at LOS E or F with the project. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (Trames Solutions, Inc. 2020a, Appendix K]), neither of these two scenarios would occur with implementation of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in a CO hotspot and impacts would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 30 of 84 Operational Health Risk The project proposes the development of a gas station and associated underground storage tank. Fugitive emissions associated with gasoline and/or diesel include VOCs and TACs, which can be harmful to human health. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) recommend a 50 -foot separation between gas stations and sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors, single - family residences to the east of the project site across Mission Trail, would be located approximately 150 feet from the gas station and approximately 270 feet from the underground storage tank; therefore, impacts from these facilities are not anticipated. Furthermore, the SCAQMD gasoline station HRA screening tables show that the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) at residential receptors 25 meters (the pumps are located further away at approximately 45 meters) from the fuel source would not even exceed 2.978 in a million (per 1,000,000 gallons of through put), which is a reasonable assumption given the size of the project and number of pumps. The proposed project is estimated to have approximately 1.87 million gallons of through put per year, which equates to an approximate 5.57 in a million MICR, at a distance of approximately 25 meters. The risk is below SCAQMD's 10 in a million threshold and therefore no additional mitigation is required. In addition, the fuel pump portion of the proposed development would be permitted by SCAQMD through a Permit to Operate and would be regulated by SCAQMD Rule 461. The gasoline dispensing facilities would be required to use Phase 1 /11 Enhanced Vapor Recovery systems to restrict fugitive emissions. As such, impacts related to health impacts from operation of the gas station would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics [2020a, Appendix A]; Traffic Impact Analysis, Trames Solutions, Inc. [2020a, Appendix K]) d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact) The State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 41700 and 41705 prohibit emissions from any source whatsoever in such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public health or damage to property. The project could produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from construction equipment exhaust, application of asphalt, and/or the application of architectural coatings. However, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, would disperse rapidly beyond the project site, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations (GARB 2005). The proposed project would include a commercial retail center. Therefore, the project would not result in emissions leading to odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 31 of 84 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by L &L Environmental, Inc. (2020a, Appendix B) to determine the presence /absence of biological resources within the project study area, determine the potential for sensitive species to occur, and evaluate the project's consistency with the MSHCP objectives for Criteria Cell 5 13 1. The analysis presented below is based on the findings of this report. A Joint Project Review (JPR) was completed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to determine consistency with the MSHCP and identify potential impacts to biological resources associated with the development of the proposed project (RCA 2020a; Appendix C — Joint Project Review [JPR 20- 06- 09 -01] for the LEAP 2020 -02 /Corydon Gateway, RCA, September 24, 2020). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) provided comments on the JPR as they relate to the project's consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface) (RCA 2020b; Appendix D — Review of the Joint Project Review [JPR 20- 06- 09 -01] for the LEAP 2020 -02 /Corydon Gateway, provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, October 12, 2020). a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination investigated the likelihood of project - related impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species in the vicinity of the project site. A complete list of plant and animal species observed in the project vicinity is included in the report (Appendix B). A summary of the status of sensitive species within the project site and vicinity, as well as potential impacts to these species, is presented below. Sensitive Plant Species: Sensitive plant species are those listed as federally threatened or endangered by the USFWS; state listed as threatened or endangered or considered sensitive by CDFW; included in the MSHCP as Covered Species, Non - Covered Species, Criteria Area Species, and/or Narrow Endemic Plant Species; and/or are California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) IA, 1B, or 2 species, as recognized in the CNPS' Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. A total of 39 plant species were observed and identified within the project study area site during the investigation undertaken as part of the Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination. None of the 39 observed species was a sensitive plant species. Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), which has a CRPR of 113.1 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California), has been documented approximately 700 feet north of the project site and was observed just north and outside of the project boundary. Smooth tarplant was not observed on site and impacts, if any, would be covered under the MSHCP. As such, no significant impacts to sensitive plant species would occur. Sensitive Animal Species: Sensitive animal species are those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing by the USFWS; considered sensitive animals by the CDFW; and/or included in the MSHCP as Covered Species, Non - Covered Species, and/or Criteria Area Species. The MSHCP identifies one species, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), as a species requiring a habitat assessment and/or presence /absence surveys at the project site. A total of 19 wildlife species, including 16 bird species and 3 mammal species, was observed and identified within the project study area during the Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 32 of 84 investigation undertaken as part of the Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination. Of the 19 species observed, two were special status wildlife species, including San Diego black tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennetti; CDFW Species of Special Concern) and great egret (Ardea alba; CDFW Special Animal). San Diego black tailed jackrabbit is a covered species under the MSHCP and is considered adequately conserved. Great egret is not covered under the MSHCP but was only observed flying over the project site, not utilizing it. No burrowing owl; occupied burrows; or evidence of recent burrowing owl presence, such as pellets, scat, feathers, and tracks, were observed within the study area or within a 500 -foot buffer. Potential for the presence of burrowing owl is considered low based on these observations and disturbances related to ongoing commercial activities near the site, previous clearing and possible annual disking or mowing of the site, and various other disturbances and development of adjacent areas. Impacts to burrowing owl are therefore not anticipated. The potential for impacts to occur would be further minimized through a pre - construction clearance survey for burrowing owl, as required per the MSHCP and included herein as Mitigation Measure (MM) BI0-1. Riparian Birds: Sensitive riparian bird with the potential to occur in the project vicinity include least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; state and federally listed as endangered), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; state and federally listed as endangered), and western yellow - billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis; state listed as endangered and federally listed as threatened). Least Bell's vireo has been documented by the California Native Diversity Database ( CNDDB) to occur in the vicinity of the project site at locations 1.5 miles to the west - northwest, 2.3 miles to the west, and 1.0 mile to the east - southeast. There are no CNDDB documented occurrences of southwestern willow flycatcher or western yellow - billed cuckoo within 10 miles of the project site. Each of these three species is a covered species under the MSHCP and is considered adequately conserved, but surveys are required in suitable habitat as described in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. Suitable habitat for least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow - billed cuckoo includes dense riparian vegetation. There is no riparian habitat within the project site. A small portion (approximately 0.06 acre) of scatted oaks, mule fat, and willow is present approximately 80 feet west of the site in a fenced area at the end of a constructed concrete trapezoidal tunnel. This vegetation is small, scattered, and isolated and does not provide the dense riparian habitat required by these species. In addition, this vegetation occurs within an existing motorcycle park and is subjected to high levels of noise and disturbance that create unsuitable conditions for these species. Based on these factors, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow - billed cuckoo are considered absent. Therefore, no significant impacts to these species would occur. Nesting Birds: Given the location of Lake Elsinore within the City, there are a variety of birds that migrate seasonally through the City on the Pacific Flyway, as well as certain birds that permanently reside locally. While there are no trees on site, suitable habitat for ground- nesting birds is present on site. In addition, ornamental trees 65 feet south of the site and native trees 80 feet west of the site may be utilized by nesting birds. As such, development of the proposed project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) if construction occurs during the identified breeding season (between February 1 and August 31). Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird nests are in violation of the MBTA and are, therefore, considered to be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of nesting bird pre - construction surveys included herein as MM BI0-2 would ensure that potential impacts to birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code are avoided during construction. Through implementation of MM BI0-1 and MM BI0-2, potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study/MND Page 33 of 84 Mitigation Measures MM 13I0-1: Burrowing Owl Surveys. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre - construction focused species surveys in accordance with the CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) within 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities. If burrowing owls are determined to occupy the site during pre - construction surveys and impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, the City shall consult with the CDFW and prepare and implement a project - specific Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the CDFW and implemented prior to activities that could affect burrowing owl within the project site. To avoid take, impacted individuals shall be relocated outside of the impact area by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities using passive or active methodologies approved by CDFW. The relocation shall occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl. Existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated. MM 13I0-2: Nesting Bird Pre - construction Surveys. In order to avoid violation of the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, construction activities shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31). If construction activities are to occur during the nesting season, a pre - construction nesting survey shall be conducted within three days prior to the commencement of construction (if between February 1 and August 31). A qualified biologist shall perform the nesting survey that will consist of a single visit to ascertain whether there are active raptor nests within 500 feet of the project footprint or other protected bird nests within 300 feet of the project footprint. Nests will be searched for in the trees and shrubs. This survey shall identify the species of nesting bird and to the degree feasible, nesting stage (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging). Nests shall be mapped (not by using GPS because close encroachment may cause nest abandonment). The follow -up nesting survey shall be conducted for five (5) consecutive days and no more than three (3) days prior to construction. If an active nest is observed, the nest location shall be fenced off surrounding an adequate radius buffer zone as determined by the biological monitor, to be at least 350 feet. The buffer zone shall not be disturbed until the nest is inactive. Biological monitoring shall occur during vegetation removal activities. (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Sensitive natural communities include land that supports unique vegetation communities or the habitats of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants as defined by Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination conducted for the project involved a general habitat assessment for the project site that included vegetation mapping and an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resource assessment for the two Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channels located approximately 80 feet from the project site's western boundary and adjacent to the project site's southwestern boundary. The results of the assessments determined that one vegetation community /land cover type, non - native grassland, is present within the project site. Non - native grassland is not considered a sensitive natural community. The nearby Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 34 of 84 MSHCP riparian/riverine areas are outside of the project limits and would not be impacted by the project. Further, while the farther of the two MSHCP riparian/riverine areas (the one 80 feet to the west) supports riparian habitat, the closer of the two areas (the one adjacent to the project site's southwest boundary) does not support riparian habitat. No direct impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would occur. As discussed below in Item IV(f), no on -site habitat conservation is required. In order to mitigate potential adverse effects on adjacent MSHCP Conservation Areas, MM BI0-3 would require implementation of guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. MM BI04 would require the Property Owner /Developer to comply with Construction Best Management Practices from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP. With implementation of MM BI0-3 and MM BI04, potential impacts associated with adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM BI0-3: MSHCP Guideline Implementation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall include a note on the plans that outlines the following requirements from Section 6.1.4 of the MHSCP: 1. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm downstream biological resources or ecosystems. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project will incorporate a detention basin, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices to filter runoff from the project site. 2. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area and the avoided area on site to protect species from direct night lighting. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project will direct night lighting away from the MSHCP Conservation Area and incorporate light shielding in the project designs to avoid excess ambient light from entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. 4. Proposed noise - generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area, including designated avoidance areas, shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. 5. Avoid use of invasive, non - native plant species listed in Table 6 -2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, including avoidance areas. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 35 of 84 Conservation Areas and designated avoidance areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project landscape plans will avoid utilizing any species listed in Table 6 -2 in the landscaping plans. 6. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into existing and future MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. 7. Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. 8. Weed abatement and fuel modification activities are not permitted in the Conservation Area, including designated avoidance areas. MM BI0-4: MSHCP Construction Best Management Practices Implementation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall include a note on the plans that outlines the following Construction BMPs from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP shown in italics, and specific requirements in plain text: Construction Best Management Practices: A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare and implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) to train all project personnel prior to grading. The details of the training should be consistent with MSHCP Appendix C Standard BMP No. 1, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act, include a detailed discussion of how to identify the potential special - status plant and animal species that may be encountered during ground disturbance and construction activities, and necessary actions to take if the species are observed on site. 2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall submit to the City a project- specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to initial ground disturbance. The project - specific SWPPP shall describe BMPs that will be implemented in pre -, during -, and post - construction phases. Examples of BMPs may Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 36 of 84 include dust suppression BMPs, Low Impact Developments (LIDS) such as vegetated swales, and a spill response protocol. The SWPPP is a dynamic document that shall be amended when site conditions warrant changes to protect natural resources and prevent discharge of non - stormwater to neighboring parcels. The Qualified Stormwater Developer (QSD) shall develop and implement the SWPPP with site - specific BMPs to prevent/reduce the potential for erosion, sedimentation, and offsite discharge of non - stormwater in accordance with the Construction General Permit (CGP), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit, and a 401 Water Quality Certification Permit (if applicable). The QSD shall provide training to the contractor for performing regular site inspections, and for pre -, during -, and post -storm events to ensure that BMPs are functioning as intended. 3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre- existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City a construction management plan that demonstrates that the construction footprint will remain within the limits of the current property boundary, site ingress/ egress will be limited to the least impactful location on the Project Site. Trackout (riprap, rumble strips) shall be installed to prevent tracking of sediment to public roadways. 4. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City a construction management plan that the construction footprint will remain within the limits of the current property boundary, project site boundaries shall be clearly delineated with visible means (i.e. stakes, rope, flagging, snow fence, etc.). The contractor shall adhere to the measures and conditions in all environmental permits to protect Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. 5. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. The Habitat Assessment found that no habitat for target species was observed within the project boundaries. The project site does not contain stream channels, gravel bars, or streambanks. The coarse - grained soil onsite has insufficient clay /fines and does not allow standing water to persist in durations sufficient to support many of the target species. All project - related construction activities would occur within the property boundaries and no equipment or personnel would work outside the clearly identified project boundaries. 6. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel insensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 37 of 84 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to monitor ground disturbance activities that would occur during the nesting season. The Habitat Assessment found that no sensitive habitats were observed within the project boundaries, including riparian habitat. The Construction Contractor shall take are to ensure that construction activities do not negatively impact potentially sensitive habitats or species surrounding the project site. Construction equipment and personnel shall be made aware of MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7 as part of the WEAP training and would always remain within project site boundaries. 7. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport ofsediments offsite. Settlingponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. No water diversion activities are proposed during project activities. The Property Owner /Developer shall implement erosion and sediment control BMPs as identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) throughout the project site to reduce/ prevent sediment impacts in pre -, during- and post - construction phases. Personnel would be educated during WEAP training as to the importance of preventing impacts to the Temescal Wash from construction activities. 8. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities, including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, USFWS, CDFW, and SARWQCB, and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to an approved disposal areas. Ongoing during construction and operation, all project activities shall occur within the property boundary. Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas shall be located outside any sensitive habitats and in areas with no risk of direct drainage into riparian areas and other sensitive habitats. All fuel storage tanks shall have secondary containment to retain fuel spills. The project site - specific SWPPP shall have BMPs designed to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters or bare soil, as required by the RWQCB. All potentially hazardous materials shall be stored appropriately on site away from sensitive habitats or Waters of the United States. Concrete washouts and active /inactive materials stockpiles shall have secondary containment BMPs to prevent the accidental release of hazardous substances to bare soil. The SWPPP is required to have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) to describe necessary actions that should occur in the event of a spill or release of potentially hazardous substances. Spills or releases of toxic substances greater than five gallons shall be reported to the RWQCB, DTSC, Local Municipalities, and /or federal agencies, as appropriate. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 38 of 84 9. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. Materials stockpiles shall be located away from sensitive areas. Inactive materials stockpiles shall be covered and bermed to prevent windborne dust or accidental release. The SWPPP shall describe BMPs to prevent fugitive dust from migrating to neighboring parcels or the Temescal Wash. 10. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to monitor ground disturbance activities to ensure that all measures to protect species on and off site are being implemented during construction activities, including burrowing owl surveys (MM BIO -1), and nesting bird surveys (MM BIO -2). Additional protective measures recommended by the qualified wildlife biologist shall be implemented as necessary by the Property Owner/Developer to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. 11. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre- existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. No clearing and grubbing of native vegetation would be anticipated during the project activities as the project site is almost entirely devoid of vegetation. 12. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. No exotic species were encountered during the project Habitat Assessment and none would be utilized in any revegetation efforts. The final landscaping design may incorporate native plant species; however, regular landscape maintenance shall prevent exotic, or noxious plant species from taking root on the Project Site. 13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). The SWPPP shall contain BMPs for trash storage and removal, including containment of sanitation facilities (e.g. portable toilets), and covering waste disposal containers at the end of every business day and before rain events. Trash cans shall have a fastenable lid to prevent animals from accessing or spreading trash onsite. The Project QSD should consult the MSHCP Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices, RWQCB recommendations, and any applicable environmental permit measures and conditions when developing the project SWPPP. 14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 39 of 84 complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. In accordance with the WEAP, all project activities would occur within the clearly delineated property boundaries. Construction activities shall be confined to the project footprint, and approved routes of travel shall be established, including ingress /egress points. Exclusion fencing shall be utilized throughout the project duration. 15. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration /enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including these BMPs. The Contractor shall allow the Permittee access to the construction site. All visitors shall check in with the Project Engineer (or Site Supervisor) prior to accessing the construction site and will be escorted within project boundaries during normal business hours when construction activities are occurring. (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]; JPR, RCA 2020a [Appendix C]; Wildlife Agencies Review of the JPR, RCA 2020b [Appendix D]; MSHCP) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact) No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) occur within the project area. No cracked soils, evidence of vegetation changes, or other evidence of long -term inundation is present. The proposed project would not result in direct impacts to the nearby off -site MSHCP riparian/riverine habitat and indirect impacts would be avoided through compliance with standard construction BMPs included in Appendix C of the MSHCP (County 2003). As such, no impacts to wetlands would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]; MSHCP) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) According to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update EIR, there are numerous identified or potential wildlife movement corridors located within the City, especially where development is sparse and open space or ephemeral watercourses are available. In addition, the City provides forage and nesting sites for both locally common and rare bird species and migrating birds covered by the MBTA. The project site is characterized by non - native grassland that does not provide high - quality habitat as it is regularly cleared for weed abatement. In addition, the areas surrounding the project site are predominately developed and/or disturbed and do not contain high - quality wildlife habitat that would serve as wildlife corridors. In order to address the potential loss or disturbance of nesting habitat for burrowing owl and migratory birds, the Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 40 of 84 project would implement MM BI0-1 and BI0-2 during construction. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to follow the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP to minimize urban/wildlands interface issues in the nearby Temescal Wash and conservation areas as outlined in MM BIO -3 and Construction Best Management Practices from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP as outlined in MM BIO -4. These include measures related to indirect impacts such as water quality (drainage), use of toxics, night lighting, indirect noise, invasive plant and wildlife species, protection of habitat areas (barriers), and grading /land development adjacent to habitat areas. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO -1, MM BI0-2, MM BI0-3, and MM BIO -4 (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]; JPR, RCA 2020a [Appendix C]; Wildlife Agencies Review of the JPR, RCA 2020b [Appendix D]) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) The proposed project would be consistent with local policies and ordinances related to biological resources. The LEMC includes a City Tree Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance 1256) that protects the City's streetscape and trees. The City has also determined that certain species of palm trees in the family Palmaceae are locally significant resources through the City Significant Palm Tree Ordinance (LEMC Ordinance 1160). Implementation of the project would not result in the removal of existing trees, including palm trees, as there are no trees located within the project site. As part of implementation of the conceptual landscape plan prepared for the project, tree spacing, distance from curbs and sidewalks, and other aesthetic guidelines would be followed in accordance with LEMC Ordinance 1256. As such, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]; LEMC) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi jurisdictional effort that includes unincorporated County of Riverside lands and multiple cities in the western portion of the County, including the City. Rather than address sensitive species on an individual basis, the MSHCP focuses on the conservation of 146 species, proposing a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres and a mechanism to fund and implement the reserve system (County 2003). The MSHCP allows participating entities to issue take permits for listed species so that individual applicants need not seek their own permits from USFWS and/or CDFW. The MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003 by the County Board of Supervisors. The Incidental Take Permit was issued by both the USFWS and CDFW on June 22, 2004. Pursuant to the provisions of the MSHCP, all discretionary development projects within a Criteria Area are to be reviewed for compliance with the "Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy" (LEAP) process or equivalent process. The LEAP process "ensures that an early determination will be made of what properties are needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area, that the owners of property needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area are compensated, and that owners of land Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 41 of 84 not needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area shall receive Take Authorization of Covered Species Adequately Conserved through the Permits issues to the County and Cities pursuant to the MSHCP." A formal and complete LEAP application (LEAP 2020 -02) was submitted to the City on April 3, 2020 and a JPR (20- 06- 09 -01) was completed by the RCA on September 24, 2020. Concurrence from CDFW and USFWS (collectively, the Wildlife Agencies) was received on October 12, 2020. A small portion of the project impact footprint (approximately 1. 12 acres) occurs within Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit (Elsinore). The Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination for the project involved a general habitat assessment that included vegetation mapping; determination of potential burrowing owl habitat and the presence /absence of burrowing owl individuals; determination of potential jurisdictional waters /wetlands on site; determination of the presence /absence of riparian /riverine areas, vernal pools, associated species, and fairy shrimp identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP; and evaluation of the proposed development plans to determine if they are consistent with implementation of the MSHCP. No special status plant species were identified during the habitat assessment. Two special status wildlife species were identified on site, including San Diego black - tailed rabbit and great egret. San Diego black - tailed rabbit is a covered species under the MSHCP and is considered adequately conserved. Great egret is not covered under the MSHCP but was not observed utilizing the site and is not expected to. No burrowing owl; occupied burrows; or evidence of recent burrowing owl, such as pellets, scat, feathers, and tracks, were observed within the study area or within a 500 -foot buffer. Burrowing owl are not anticipated to occur on site based on these observations and disturbances related to ongoing commercial activities near the site, previous clearing and possible annual disking or mowing of the site, and various other disturbances and development of adjacent areas. Impacts to burrowing owl are not anticipated and the potential for impacts to occur would be further minimized through a pre - construction clearance survey for burrowing owl, as required per the MSHCP and included herein as MM BI0-1. Impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA would be avoided through implementation of MM BI0-2 which requires pre - construction surveys to be conducted if site - preparation activities are to occur during the nesting season (between February 1 and August 31). Impacts to riparian birds are not anticipated as the riparian vegetation located approximately 80 feet west of the project site is small, scattered, and isolated and does not provide suitable habitat and is exposed to noise from the adjacent motorsports track. No jurisdictional waters /wetlands or riparian/riverine features are present on site and the project would not impact the nearby off -site MSHCP riparian/riverine habitat associated with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channels located approximately 80 feet from the project site's western boundary and adjacent to the project site's southwestern boundary. The MSHCP calls for conservation of native grassland habitat within Criteria Cell 5131 of 30 to 40 percent. Approximately 119 out of 167 acres, or 71 percent, of Criteria Cell 5131 is still available for conservation and the project would only impact 1.12 acres of Criteria Cell 5131. Conservation within Criteria Cell 5131 is also focused within the southwestern portion of the Cell and the project site is located in the extreme northeastern portion of the cell. Further, these conservation requirements set forth have been replaced with the preservation of 770 acres of habitat in the Back Basin of Lake Elsinore through an agreement between USFWS, CDFW, RCA, and the City. Conservation with the 770 acres focuses on habitat that benefits shorebird or wetland/marsh associated species, vernal pool species, sensitive plant species, and/or Planning Species for Subunit 3 and Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3, as described in MSHCP. The project site is not located within or adjacent to this conservation area and is not identified as an area for conservation. Based on these factors, the project's use of 1.12 acres within Criteria Cell 5131 is consistent with the goals of the MSHCP. Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP includes guidelines that are intended to address indirect effects associated with development near MSHCP Conserved Areas. Development in proximity to MSHCP Conserved Areas may Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 42 of 84 result in "edge effects" that might adversely affect biological resources within MSHCP Conserved Area. Since at some point a portion of Criteria Cell 5131 near the project site may be conserved, the following guidelines would be implemented for the project to minimize potential "edge effects." Drainage: The proposed project would incorporate measures, including measures required through NPDES requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged from the site is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into any MSHCP Conserved Area. Stormwater systems would be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within MSHCP Conserved Area or state or federal jurisdictional areas downstream. This project proposes to construct a detention basin in the northernmost corner of the site that would capture stormwater runoff via a 24 -inch stormwater pipeline with an inlet located in the central portion of the site; however, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices are also acceptable. The detention basin would be regularly maintained to ensure effective operation of runoff control systems. Toxics: Land use in proximity to a MSHCP Conserved Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality are required to incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge into MSHCP Conserved Area or state or federal jurisdictional areas downstream. Measures such as those employed to address on -site drainage (see above) would be implemented as part of the proposed project. Lighting: Night lighting within the project development area would be directed away from MSHCP Conserved Area to protect species within the area from direct night lighting. Shielding would be incorporated in project design to ensure ambient lighting in MSHCP Conserved Area is not increased. Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting MSHCP Conserved Area are required to incorporate setbacks, berms, and/or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conserved Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within MSHCP Conserved Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The project would generate noise during construction and operations; however, there are no MSHCP Conserved Areas adjacent to the project site that would be subject to project - generated noise. Further, as discussed in Item XIII(a), long -term operational noise generated by the project would not result in perceptible increases over existing ambient noise levels and would therefore not affect potential future MSHCP Conserved Areas in proximity to the project site. Invasives: Invasive, non - native plant species included in MSHCP Table 6.2 would not be used on site. Barriers: The project development area would be surrounded by a chain link fence. Fencing would prevent access to adjacent MSHCP Conserved Area. The fencing would also minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, and/or dumping in MSHCP Conserved Area. Grading/Land Development: Grading on site would be relatively balanced, with a net import of approximately 3,166 cy; no manufactured slopes would extend into MSHCP Conserved Area. As discussed above, the project would be consistent with the MSCHP and would incorporate applicable design measures per MSHCP requirements to avoid "edge effects." The Property Owner /Developer would be required to follow the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP to minimize urban/wildlands interface issues in the nearby conservation areas as outlined in MM BI0-3 and Construction Best Management Practices from Volume 1, Appendix C of the MSHCP as outlined in MM BI04. These include measures related to indirect impacts such as water quality (drainage), use of Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 43 of 84 toxics, night lighting, indirect noise, invasive plant and wildlife species, protection of habitat areas (barriers), and grading/land development adjacent to habitat areas. Further, as a condition of project approval, the applicant would be required to pay MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees in effect at the time of payment. Therefore, with implementation of the recommendations in the Habitat Assessment, consistent with the MSHCP and LEMC, MM 13I0-1, MM 13I0-2, MM 13I0-3, and MM 13I0-4, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan and potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO -1, MM BI0-2, MM BI0-3, and MM BIO -4 (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]; JPR, RCA 2020a [Appendix C]; Wildlife Agencies Review of the JPR, RCA 2020b [Appendix D]; MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021, RCA 2020c). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the proposed project by L &L Environmental, Inc (2020b, Appendix E) to evaluate the potential for cultural resources within the project study area. The assessment included a historical resources records search; historical, archaeological, and geoarchaeological background research; coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local Native American tribes, organizations, and individuals; and a pedestrian survey of the site. The results and conclusions of the report are summarized herein. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (Less than Significant Impact) The records search conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicated that eight previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within a one -mile radius of the project site. One of the resources is Lake Elsinore (33- 11009), which at its closest point is less than 0.25 mile from the project site. The seven additional resources include two historical - period built features, one historic -age isolated artifact, one prehistoric archaeological site, and two prehistoric isolated artifacts. No resources have been recorded within the project site and no historical resources were observed within the project site during the pedestrian survey conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. While no on -site resources were identified, the project site is considered to be within the sphere of influence of Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore is listed in the Historic Property Data File as an individual property eligible for local listing or designation, is presumed eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and is considered a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. Although the project site is located near past shoreline limits of Lake Elsinore and may at times have been covered by the lake, the land within the project site itself does not exhibit any characteristics of a shoreline. Furthermore, there are no know natural or cultural elements visible on the surface of the project site that may contribute to the significance of the lake. As such, the project would not have a direct impact on Lake Elsinore (33- 11009). There is also little potential for the project to cause indirect visual, audible, or vibrational impacts to Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance if a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020b [Appendix E]) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 44 of 84 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) As discussed above under Item V(b), the records search conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicated that eight previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within a one- mile radius of the project site, including Lake Elsinore, two historical -period built features, one historic - age isolated artifact, one prehistoric archaeological site, and two prehistoric isolated artifacts. No resources have been recorded within the project site and no resources were observed within the project site during the pedestrian survey conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. While no on -site resources were identified, there is moderate to high potential for encountering buried archaeological resources during project construction due to the cultural significance of Lake Elsinore associated with past human occupation and use of the area. As such, MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -5 would be implemented and would reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation Measures MM CUL -1: Unanticipated Resources. The developer /permit holder or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed: 1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic /cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the significance of the find. 2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting. 3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. 4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures. MM CUL -2: Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department that a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and certified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) that addresses the details of all activities that must be completed and procedures that must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this project. The CRMP document shall be created in coordination with the consulting tribe(s), and provided to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP provides direction as to how the project mitigation measures will be implemented. The CRMP requires that impacts on cultural resources will not occur without procedures in place, which would reduce any Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 45 of 84 impacts to less than significant. These measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Archaeological Monitor - An adequate number of qualified monitors shall be present to ensure that all earth - moving activities are observed and shall be on -site during all grading activities for areas to be monitored including off -site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor. Cultural Sensitivity Training - The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre - grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all Construction Personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the project site. A sign -in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report. Unanticipated Resources - In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. Phase IV Report - A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe. MM CUL -3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department: Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 46 of 84 Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. 2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity. Relocation shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains, as they are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. If relocation is not agreed upon by the Consulting Tribes then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources, ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. MM CUL -4: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the AB 52 and/or the SB 18 process ( "Monitoring Tribes "). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project's approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City's mitigation measures /conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. MM CUL -5: Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning Department's requirements for such reports for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 47 of 84 of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of any feature relocation or residue analysis required as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre -grade meeting. (Sources: Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020b [Appendix E]) c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incornorated) The project is not located on or adjacent to a known formal or informal cemetery. No impacts to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, are anticipated. In the unlikely event that unknown human remains are uncovered during project construction, MM CUL -6 and MM CUL -7, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, would ensure that the project's impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM CUL -6: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). MM CUL -7: Non - Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). (Sources: Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020b [Appendix E]) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 48 of 84 VI. ENERGY This section is based on the CEQA Energy Review prepared for the proposed project by MD Acoustics, LLC (2020b, Appendix F). a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less Than Significant Impact) Energy used during construction would primarily consist of fuels in the form of diesel and gasoline for the operation of construction equipment and construction worker vehicles. While construction activities would consume petroleum -based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction. Construction of the proposed commercial development would require the typical use of energy resources. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities, or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. Energy used during project operations would primarily consist of fuel in the form of gasoline for visitor and employee vehicles traveling to and from the project site and electricity and natural gas for the proposed uses. As discussed further under Item XVII(b), the project would not result in a substantial generation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as it would be a local - serving commercial retail development providing commercial options in proximity to residential uses, thus reducing vehicle travel and associated energy usage. It should also be noted that over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of vehicles is expected to increase. As such, the amount of gasoline consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation is expected to decrease over time. As for electricity and natural gas usage, development would be subject to and required to comply with, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 6) and CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11), which establish energy efficiency standards for residential and non - residential buildings constructed in California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. Based on these considerations, the project would not result in a substantial increase in demand of local or regional energy supplies, and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: CEQA Energy Review, MD Acoustics, LLC 2020b [Appendix F]) b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact) The project would be built and operated in accordance with existing applicable regulations governing energy efficiency. As noted above, future development of the proj ect site would be subject to, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11). The City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), which outlines the actions necessary to achieve the City's proportional share of state GHG emission reductions to be compliant with AB 32 and Executive Order 5 -3 -05 (City 2011 c). Appendix D of the CAP includes a project- level CAP consistency worksheet used to demonstrate consistency with the CAP, including compliance with energy efficient building standards. Future development of the project site would be required to be consistent with the CAP measures for energy efficiency. Construction equipment would be maintained to Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 49 of 84 allow for continuous energy - efficient operations. Accordingly, the project would not conflict with state or local plans related to renewable energy or energy efficiency, and potential impacts associated with obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics 2020a [Appendix A]) VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. (2020, Appendix G) to evaluate the fault hazard potential for the project site. Portions of the following analysis are based on the findings of this report. a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California, a seismically active region where several earthquake faults are known to occur. The geologic structure of the region is dominated mainly be northwest trending faults associated with the San Andreas system, including the San Andreas Fault, San Jacinto Fault, Newport- Inglewood Fault, and Whittier - Elsinore Fault. No active faults are known to occur within the project site and the site is not located within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest known active fault in the Elsinore Fault at 0.2 mile from the project site. The northeastern corner of the project site extends into the southwestern portion of the County Fault Zone established for the Glen Ivy North Fault. Based on mapping of the subject site, review of current and historical aerial imagery, lack of lineaments indicative of active faulting, and the data compiled during preparation of the Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, the potential for surface rupture to adversely impact the proposed structures is considered very low to remote. As such, impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2020 [Appendix G]) ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact) As noted in Item VII(a)(i), no active faults are known to occur within the project site. The Elsinore Fault, a known active fault located 0.2 mile from the project site, is the closest fault with the potential to cause ground shaking at the project site. A seismic event from other faults within the vicinity of the project could also cause significant ground shaking at the project site. To minimize seismic ground shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake, design and construction of development within the project site would be required to comply with all seismic - safety development requirements, including the Title 24 standards of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (CBC). Mandatory compliance with all applicable seismic - safety development requirements would minimize seismic ground shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake and ensure that the potential seismic or geologic hazard impacts would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 50 of 84 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2020 [Appendix G]) iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than Significant Impact) Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs during severe ground shaking whereby soils reduce greatly in strength and temporarily behave similarly to a fluid rather than a solid. Severe or extended liquefaction can result in significant effects to surface and subsurface facilities through the loss of support and/or foundation integrity. Liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily recently deposited sand and silt in areas with high groundwater levels. The borings conducted to a depth of 21.5 feet at the project site as part of the Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis did not encounter groundwater and groundwater depth in the area averages 150 feet below ground. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is considered negligible. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements, which would reduce risks associated with liquefaction. Therefore, potential impacts to people or structures from liquefaction shaking would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2020a [Appendix G]) iv. Landslides? (Less than Significant Impact) The General Plan EIR indicates that slopes of 30 percent or steeper are at risk of seismically induced slope failure. The project site and surrounding areas are characterized by level topography without slopes that would be risk of failure. As such, the project site is not at risk of landslides. Additionally, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer of the proposed project would be required to submit grading and foundation plans to the City for review to demonstrate compliance with the City's grading requirements. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements, which would reduce risks associated with landslides. Therefore, potential impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project has the potential to result in soil erosion during grading and construction activities where disturbed soil is exposed. Potential short-term erosion impacts from grading and construction activities would be addressed through the implementation of BMPs in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association's Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook and City's Plan Preparation and Design Manual to control erosion and protect the quality of surface water runoff. Additionally, potential sedimentation and erosion impacts would be minimized or avoided with the implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures in compliance with NPDES permit requirements. The project would be required to prepare an erosion control plan that details protective measures. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 51 of 84 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above in Items VII(a)(iii) and VII(a)(iv), the project would not be subject to landslide - related risks or liquefaction. Development of the project site would be required to incorporate measures and recommendations proposed by the UBC and the CBC to accommodate potential geologic hazards. Based on the incorporation of applicable design guidelines, potential impacts associated with a geologic unit or soil that is unstable would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2020 [Appendix G]) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less Than Significant Impact) Expansive soils are attributable to the water holding capacity of clay materials. Such behavior can adversely affect structural integrity (including underground facilities) through shifting of support materials during the shrink -swell process. If expansive soils are present/ encountered during project implementation, associated potential impacts would be addressed through conformance with regulatory /industry standards, including applicable elements of the CBC. Specifically, this may include efforts such as removal of expansive soils and replacement with engineered fill. Conformance with the described regulatory standards would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils from project implementation to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed as part of the proposed project. The project would connect to the existing sewer system for the disposal of wastewater and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant Impact) According to Figure 3.2 -3 of the General Plan EIR, the project site is located in area of low paleontological sensitivity and is therefore not anticipated to directly or indirectly destroy paleontological resources. The project site is characterized by non - native grassland and does not include known unique geologic features. The possibility of finding buried paleontological deposits on site is very low. Therefore, potential impacts to a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 52 of 84 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section is based on the Air Quality and GHG Impact Study prepared for the proposed project by MD Acoustics, LLC (2020a, Appendix A). The project's construction and operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2. The results and conclusions of the report and calculations relative to pollutant emissions are summarized herein. Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole. GHGs contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by allowing solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth's atmosphere, but preventing radiative heat from escaping. The principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, CCR Section 15364.5 defines GHGs to include CO2, CH4, N20, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off - highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -fourth of total emissions. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed "global warming," the trend of warming of the Earth's climate from anthropogenic activities. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) The project would result in GHG emissions during construction and operation. Construction activities that would generate emissions are anticipated to include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating. Operational sources of emissions would include vehicular sources, energy use, landscape equipment use, consumer products, solid waste generation, and water use. Construction Emissions Off -road construction equipment and on -road vehicles would generate GHG emissions during construction. The project's estimated construction emissions are presented in Table 8, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions. For construction emissions, SCAQMD recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over 30 years and added to operational emissions. Table 8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS Ir Activity Total Emissions (MT CO2e) Site Preparation 2 Grading 28 Building Construction 501 Paving 22 Architectural Coating 5 Total Emissions 557 Amortized Emissions) 19 Source: MD Acoustics 2020a Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 1 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years. MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 53 of 84 Operational Emissions Once the proposed project is constructed, continuous GHG emissions would result from mobile, area, and other operational sources. Area sources, including consumer products, landscaping equipment, and other sources, would result primarily in emissions of CO2. Energy utilization (i.e., electricity and natural gas) and water consumption also would result primarily in emissions of CO2. Mobile sources, including vehicle trips to and from the project site, would result primarily in emissions of CO2, with minor emissions of CH4 and N20. Disposal of solid waste would result in emissions of CH4 from the decomposition of waste at landfills, coupled with CO2 emission from the handling and transport of solid waste. These sources combine to define the long -term GHG emissions for the project. Table 9, Estimated Operational GHG Emissions, shows the project's operational emissions. Table 9 ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS Category Total Emissions MT CO2e Area 0 Energy 393 Mobile 3,645 Solid Waste 86 Water 42 Amortized Construction' 19 Total Emissions 4,185 SCA MD Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Source: MD Acoustics 2020a ' Construction emissions amortized over 30 years. MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent As shown in the table, emissions are estimated at 4,185 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per year, which would exceed the applicable SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. As such, MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -9 would be required. Table 10, Estimated Mitigated Operational GHG Emissions, shows the project's mitigated operational emissions. Table 10 ESTIMATED MITIGATED OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS Category Total Emissions (MT CO2e) Area 0 Energy 393 Mobile 2,046 Solid Waste 21 Water 32 Amortized Construction' 19 Total Emissions 2,511 SCA MD Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Source: MD Acoustics 2020a ' Construction emissions amortized over 30 years. MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 54 of 84 As shown in the table, with implementation of MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -9 emissions are estimated at 2,511 metric tons of CO2e per year, which would be below the applicable SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM GHG -1: Pedestrian Infrastructure. The applicant shall incorporate into the project site plan and design documentation sidewalks or pedestrian paths along all new streets as well as internal sidewalks that link all internal uses. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that pedestrian improvements meeting the requirements of CAP Measure T -1.2 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -2: Bike Lanes. The applicant shall incorporate into the project site plan and design documentation a bike lane along the project site boundary with Corydon Street and Mission Trail to connect to the Class Il bikeways currently located on Corydon Street and Mission Trail. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that bike lane improvements meeting the requirements of CAP Measure T -1.4 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG-3: Indoor Water Conservation. The project applicant shall demonstrate, in the project building plans or other design documentation, faucets, toilets, and showers installed within the proposed uses that utilize low -flow fixtures that would reduce indoor water demand by 30 percent per CALGreen Standards. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that low -flow fixtures meeting the requirements of CAP Measure E -4 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -4: Landscaping. The applicant shall incorporate into the project landscape plan one 15- gallon non - deciduous umbrella form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary length. The landscape plan shall be designed to be consistent with the requirements of AB 1881. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that the landscaping meeting the requirements of CAP Measures E -1.1 and E -4.1 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG-5: Construction Waste Management Plan. The applicant shall provide a Construction Waste Management Plan which demonstrates how the project would recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Prior to issuing a demolition, grading, building, or other construction permit, the City shall verify that a Construction Waste Management Plan is in place meeting the requirements of CAP Measure 5 -1.4. MM GHG-6: Bicycle Parking. The project applicant shall incorporate into the project site plan and design documentation, a permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitor entrance and readily visible to passers -by for at least five percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that bicycle parking improvements meeting the requirements of CAP measure T -1.5 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG-7: Parkingfor Fuel - Efficient Vehicles. The applicant shall designate, through signage and/or pavement marking, at a minimum, 10 percent of the total project employee and visitor parking spaces for Clean Air Vehicles. Parking spaces for Clean Air Vehicles may be any combination of low- emitting, fuel - efficient, and carpool/vanpool vehicles. Prior to issuing Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 55 of 84 an occupancy permit, the City shall verify that a minimum of 10 percent of parking spaces are designated for Clean Air Vehicles (e.g., through signage and/or pavement marking), meeting the requirements of CAP Measure T -2.1. MM GHG -8: Cool Roof Requirements. The applicant shall specify in the building plans or design documentation, roofing materials that have a thermal emittance or Solar Reflectance Index 3 per CALGreen Tier 1 values. Prior to final building plan approval, the City shall verify that cool roof improvements meeting the requirements of CAP Measure E -1.2 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG-9: Solid Waste Reduction. The applicant shall require recycling programs that reduce the project's operational waste to landfill be a minimum of 75 percent, per AB 341. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics 2020a [Appendix A]) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The City has adopted a CAP that outlines the actions for City to undertake to achieve its proportional share of state GHG emission reductions to be compliant with AB 32 and Executive Order 5 -3 -05 (City 2011c). Appendix D of the CAP includes a project -level consistency worksheet used to help demonstrate consistency with the General Plan growth potential and CAP. If the project is consistent with the land use designation, population and employment projections, and incorporates applicable CAP measures in the project design, then the project would be deemed consistent with the General Plan and CAP. The worksheet considers the following three questions to determine if a project is consistent with the General Plan growth potential and CAP (City 2011c): 1. Is the project consistent with the General Plan land use designation? 2. Is the project consistent with the General Plan population and employment projections for the site, upon which the CAP modeling is based? 3. Does the project incorporate the following CAP measures as binding and enforceable components of the project? Until these measures have been formally adopted by the City and incorporated in to applicable codes, the requirements must be incorporated as mitigation measures applicable to the project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5(b)(2)). The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan (East Lake Specific Plan — Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use designation). As discussed in further detail in Item IX(b), the project, as a commercial development, would be consistent with the applicable underlying land use designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation, and would therefore be consistent with the General Plan land use designation. Because the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation, it would also be consistent with the General Plan population and employment projections for the site, which have anticipated the site to be developed with commercial uses. The project would be required to implement the applicable measures from the CAP worksheet, presented above at MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -9, as well as CAP Measure E -1.3, which involves compliance with the mandatory California Energy Code. Implementation of these project- specific mitigation measures and compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 56 of 84 Mitigation Measures: MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -9. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics 2020a [Appendix A]; CAP) IKl�1, EVA.1 ; 117.1 n1orrw:3;91z11110uIFNIW IVR A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed project by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. (2019, Appendix H) to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) within the project site and vicinity. The ESA included a review of the hydrogeologic setting; a review of historical records to assess historical land use and indications of potential contamination or sources of contamination within the project site; an environmental database search to identify documented "hazardous waste" facilities within proximity to the project site; and site reconnaissance. The results and conclusions of the ESA are summarized herein. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less Than Significant Impact) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) As a commercial development, the proposed project would not conflict with hazardous materials regulations or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through potential accident conditions during operation. The transport of fuel and tank filling operations associated with the gas station would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Other potentially hazardous materials associated with the gas station, car wash, and tire shop would be used and stored at the project site in accordance with regulatory requirements. During construction, the proposed project would involve the use and/or generation of materials including fuels (gasoline and diesel), equipment fluids (oils and antifreeze), concrete, cleaning solutions, solvents, and adhesives. While the potential exists for indirect impacts to human health and the environment from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials, the proposed project would follow existing federal and state standards that regulate the handling, storage, and transport of these materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less Than Significant Impact) One school, Jean Hayman Elementary School, is located approximately 0.25 mile east of the project site. As discussed above in Items IX(a -b), as a commercial development the project would not involve a high usage of hazardous materials. Future development within the project site would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous wastes during construction and operations. As such, impacts related to handling or emissions of hazardous materials near a school would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 57 of 84 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Less Than Significant) According to the evaluation conducted for the project's Phase I ESA, no listed sites or RECs that would result in significant hazard to the public or the environment are located within the project site or vicinity. No evidence was observed that the project site has been adversely impacted by contamination and no evidence of recognized environmental conditions exist on the project site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would be less than significant Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Phase I ESA, Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2019 [Appendix H]) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Less Than Significant Impact) According to Figure 2.7 of the General Plan, the project site is within the Influence Area of Skylark Airport, which is approximately 0.3 mile southwest of the project site. The project would comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding encroachment into the airport's navigable airspace in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. Compliance with FAA regulations would ensure that the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan; General Plan EIR) f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) for fire protection and emergency management services. Project construction would involve off -site improvements within Mission Trail and Corydon Street that could temporarily affect access for emergency vehicles; however, construction would not result in the full closure of the roadways and emergency access would be maintained. Compliance with the County of Riverside's Emergency Operations Plan would be required during construction to ensure adequate emergency access. Following construction, the project would not interfere with emergency access to surrounding areas. Fire lanes with appropriate fire truck turning radii would be provided on site to allow for adequate emergency access to the project's proposed uses. As such, implementation of the project would not impair an emergency response or evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, County of Riverside's Emergency Operations Plan) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 58 of 84 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less Than Significant Impact) According to Figure 3.10 -2 of the General Plan EIR, which is based on CalFire's fire hazard severity zone mapping, the project site is not located in an area mapped as a moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zone. As such, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The proposed project would be subject to the plan check process and would undergo a fire, life, and safety review by the Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance with Fire Department requirements. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildland fires would be less than significant.. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the San Jacinto River Basin Sub - Watershed of the Santa Ana Watershed region of Riverside County. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) sets water quality standards for all ground and surface waters within this region. Water quality standards are defined under the Clean Water Act to include both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of water quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses (water quality objectives). Construction of the proposed project would include site clearing, grading, excavation, installation of subsurface infrastructure, and other earthmoving activities that would have the potential to cause erosion that could degrade surface or ground water quality and/or violate water quality standards. The use of heavy construction equipment could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials (e.g., oils, fuels, and other water quality pollutants) that also could potentially affect surface and/or ground water quality. As required by the Clean Water Act, the project would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) NPDES Permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit Program, which is administered in the project area by Riverside County and is issued by the SARWQCB, regulates storm water and urban runoff discharges from developments to natural and constructed storm drain systems in the City. Since the proposed project would disturb one or more acres of soil, construction activities would be subject to the CGP ( NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements, Order No. 2009 - 0009 -DWQ, adopted September 2, 2009 and effective as of July 2, 20 10) issued by SWRCB. The CGP requires implementation of a SWPPP for site clearing, grading, and disturbances such as excavation. The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, storm water collection and discharge points, general pre- and post - construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. Development of the currently vacant project site would result in an increase in impervious surfaces associated with roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, and other hardscape features. This increase in on -site impervious surfaces would allow less water to percolate into the ground and would therefore generate more surface water during rainfall events. Impervious surfaces would collect dust, soil, and other impurities that would then be assimilated into surface runoff. The project proposes an on -site bio- retention basin that would capture runoff generated by the impervious surfaces within the project site. The site has been designed such that stormwater not captured within on -site landscaped areas would enter a storm drain inlet located in the approximate center of the site and be transmitted via a 24 -inch storm drain to the Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 59 of 84 proposed bio- retention basin. The bio- retention basin would serve as a stormwater BMP to collect and treat stormwater captured on site. Treatment would occur via an inlet filter that would be installed in the bio - retention basin and would capture fine to coarse sediments, floatable trash, debris, total suspended solids, nutrients, metals, and hydrocarbons conveyed in the stormwater. The treated stormwater would then be diverted into the adjacent Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channel that eventually leads into Lake Elsinore. With the proposed bio- retention basin and landscaped areas, stormwater would be captured and treated on site such that polluted sources of runoff would not be released off site. The project's various uses that have the potential to result in additional discharges would also incorporate source control BMPs to restrict certain discharges from being transported into the proposed storm drain system and bio- retention basin. Specifically, the carwash wastewater would be collected into a sanitary sewer drain, instead of the storm drain, for disposal. The gas station would include quick- shutoff fuel dispensing nozzles and would use the floor around the fuel dispensing area as a containment system. Implementation of these BMPs, along with regulatory compliance, would preclude violations of applicable standards and discharge regulations. The project would not otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: WQMP, KWC Engineers 2020 [Appendix 1]) b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ). Since the City has a large amount of vacant land, substantial changes to recharge systems could occur from development of the vacant parcels. Soil testing performed for the project's Preliminary WQMP indicated that natural infiltration on the site is poor. The increase in impervious surfaces that would occur for the project, as discussed above in Item X(a), would result in further decreased on -site percolation capabilities. The project proposes pervious surfaces including on -site landscaping and a bio- retention basin that would collect stormwater runoff from the project site. Water collected in the bio- retention basin would be treated and then diverted into the adjacent Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channel for output into Lake Elsinore, where infiltration and groundwater recharge occur. This would be consistent with the City's requirement that treated stormwater be directed to Lake Elsinore and not infiltrated on site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: WQMP, KWC Engineers 2020 [Appendix 1]) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Less Than Significant Impact) The existing on -site drainage pattern is generally from east to west across the site. While the project would maintain this same general drainage direction, impervious surfaces would be constructed on currently vacant land, which would increase the amount and change the drainage pattern of on -site runoff. The project Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 60 of 84 would incorporate on -site drainage infrastructure, such as curbs, gutters, and storm drains, which would collect on -site runoff and convey it to the proposed on -site bio- retention basin in the western corner of the site. With these features, storm water runoff generated during project operation would be adequately captured on site and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. There is a potential for erosion and siltation to occur during project construction, specifically during site clearing, grading, and other earthmoving activities. Grading activities would be conducted in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Grading Ordinance Nos. 636, 801, and 882, and the standards outlined in the City's Plan Preparation and Design Manual (City 2005). Implementation of the NPDES permit requirements and an erosion control plan would reduce potential erosion, siltation, and water quality impacts to receiving water bodies and adjacent property. Therefore, potential impacts associated with erosion or siltation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: WQMP, KWC Engineers 2020 [Appendix I]; Plan Preparation; and Design Manual Site Plan) ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above in Item X(c)(i), implementation of the project would alter the drainage pattern of the site through an increase in impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in surface runoff; however, proposed drainage infrastructure and the on -site bio- retention basin would be designed to adequately accommodate runoff. Therefore, the project would not result in on- or off -site flooding and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Site Plan) iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or; (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above in Item X(c)(i), implementation of the project would alter the drainage pattern of the site through an increase in impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in surface runoff; however, proposed drainage infrastructure and the on -site bio- retention basin would be designed to adequately accommodate runoff. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Site Plan) iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within two types of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood Zone "X." The western portion is within a Zone "X" defined as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard, areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. The eastern portion of the site is within a Zone "X" defined as areas determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. No portion of the site is mapped within a special Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 61 of 84 flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood. As such, the risk of flooding at the site is low and the project is not anticipated to substantially impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: FEMA Flood Map Service Center) d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Less Than Significant Impact) Based on distance to the Pacific Ocean (approximately 24 miles) and to Lake Elsinore (approximately 2.4 miles), there is no potential for a tsunami or seiche to inundate the project site. As discussed above in Item X(c)(iv), the project site is not within a special flood hazard area and the risk of inundation by flood at the project site is low. During construction, the project would implement a SWPPP to minimize the release of sediments and other pollutants off site. Following construction, the project site would not include vacant land with exposed soils that could result in erosion and sedimentation in the instance of a flood event. In addition, other potential pollutant sources that may be present on site, such as fuels at the proposed gas station, would be stored in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the Santa Ana River watershed, which is regulated by the SARWQCB. The SARWQCB has developed a "Water Quality Control Plan" for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the SARWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The SARWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region's ground and surface water. Permits are issued under several programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. The SARWQCB ensures compliance with the Basin Plan through its issuance of NPDES Permits, issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and Water Quality Certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In conformance with these requirements, the project applicant has prepared a WQMP, which demonstrates that the proposed project's drainage plan would meet all applicable requirements of the Basin Plan, including requirements and conditions of approval associated with NPDES permits, issuance of WDRs, and Water Quality Certifications. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Basin Plan, and potential impacts associated with implementation of a water quality control plan would be less than significant. As discussed above in Item X(a), the project site is located within the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone GMZ. Since the City has a large amount of vacant land, substantial changes to recharge systems could occur from development of the vacant parcels. In order to reduce pollutants, the City has implemented policies to minimize pollutants in the local and regional waterways, which includes water that percolates into the groundwater through Water Resources Policies 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Water Resources Policies 4.1 and 4.2 require development projects to acquire a NPDES permit and implement BMPs to reduce pollutants. Water Resources Policy 4.3 requires the City to review future development project's beneficial uses during the environmental review stage. As described in Items X(a) and X(b), above, the project would not Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 62 of 84 substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or result in adverse impacts associated with release of pollutants into groundwater. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable sustainable groundwater management plans, and potential impacts associated with implementation of a groundwater management plan would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: WQMP, KWC Engineers 2020 [Appendix I] and General Plan EIR) XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) A significant impact would occur if the proposed project were sufficiently large or configured in such a way that it would create a physical barrier within an established community. The proposed project is surrounded by vacant land to the north, light industrial uses to the south, commercial and residential uses to the east across Mission Trail, and the Lake Elsinore Motorsports Parkway to the west. The project site is not currently used for access between existing uses and implementation of the project would not create a physical barrier that would divide an established community. Moreover, project implementation would not provide for infrastructure systems such as new roadways that would divide or disrupt existing neighborhoods or other established community elements in a previously developed and urbanized area. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is zoned Specific Plan (SP) and has a General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan (East Lake Specific Plan — Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use designation). The proposed drive- through restaurant, convenience store, and flex - condos are permitted uses in the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use designation. The proposed gas station, car wash, and tire shop are permitted uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the site's land use designation under the East Lake Specific Plan. Further, the proposed project has been designed to meet the development standards as identified in the East Lake Specific Plan and LEMC, including but not limited to setbacks, building heights, parking spaces, drive aisles, and floor area ratio, and to be consistent with the applicable land use policies and regulations of the East Lake Specific Plan and General Plan. As discussed in Item IV(f), above, the project would not conflict with the MSHCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. Land -use related impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: East Lake Specific Plan, MSHCP) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 63 of 84 XIL MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Less than Significant Impact) Substantial mineral resources have been identified within the City and are noted within the City's General Plan, in particular aggregate type mineral resources. These resource areas are primarily designated within Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ -2) pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram based on available geological information. The designation of MRZ -2 indicates the area is underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data shows that significant measured or indicated resources are present. According to Figure 3.12 -1 of the General Plan EIR, the project site is located within the Mineral Resource Zone 3 Area (MRZ -3), or areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The project site is not located within an area that has been classified or designated as a mineral resource area by the State Board of Mining and Geology, nor has mineral extraction been documented to occur on site. The project site has a land use designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation and is not planned for mineral extraction use. Further, given the location of the site in relation to surrounding development, it is highly unlikely that surface mining or mineral recovery operations could occur on site Therefore, potential impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed in Item XII(a), the project is located in an area designated as MRZ -3, considered to have moderate potential for the discovery of economic mineral deposits; however, because the project site is not located within one of the designated locally- important mineral resource areas within the City. Therefore, potential impacts associated with loss of a mineral resource recovery site would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: (List mitigation measures. No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) XIII. NOISE A Noise Impact Study was prepared for the proposed project by MD Acoustics, LLC (2020c, Appendix J) to assess the project's potential noise - related impacts. Portions of the following analysis incorporate information from the study. a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction Noise LEMC Section 17.176.080 prohibits the generation construction noise between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, on weekends, and on holidays. Section 17.176.080 also provides construction Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 64 of 84 noise level limits at affected properties, "where technically and economically feasible" to achieve. Properties to the east and southeast of the project site are within the city of Wildomar; the proposed project is not subject to the regulations of the City of Wildomar and these properties are therefore not considered for the project's noise impact analysis. These properties are also separated from the project site by Mission Trail and Corydon Street, which would provide distance between the project's construction activities and potential noise receptors located at the properties. Properties to the north (vacant) and west (motor sports track) do not include sensitive receptors and are also not considered for the project's noise impact analysis. The property to the southwest includes an industrial use. While this use is not considered a sensitive receptor, LEMC Section 17.176.080 indicates a construction noise level limit of 85 A- weighed decibels (dBA) for mobile equipment at business properties. The project would result in temporary increases in noise levels during its various construction phases, primarily from the use of heavy off -road construction equipment. The use of equipment would be transitory and sporadic across the relatively large project site. The highest noise levels would likely occur during the project's grading phase, which is conservatively assumed to include the simultaneous use of one grader, one dozer, two excavators, two scrapers, and two backhoes. When considered to operate simultaneously at a single location, these pieces of equipment would together generate a noise level of 90 dBA noise equivalent level (LEQ) at 50 feet. Due their individual size and nature of activity, however, these pieces of equipment would not all operate at the same location at the same time but would rather be dispersed across the project site. Therefore, noise levels generated by the project's construction activities are not anticipated to exceed 85 dBA at the nearby industrial property. Project construction would also occur within the permissible construction hours. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Operational Stationary Source Noise LEMC Section 17.176.060 establishes daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) exterior noise level limits for properties receiving noise generated by operation of a project. Although the project's proposed 7- Eleven use would operate 24 hours a day, it would not generate substantial noise. The project's primary noise - generating uses (the car wash and tire shop) would operate during daytime hours. As such, noise generated by the proposed project's operations would be considered significant if it exceeds to 70 dBA (anytime) light industrial noise level limit at the property to the southwest or the 65 dBA (daytime) commercial noise level at all other adjacent properties. Stationary noise sources associated with operation of the project include dryers/blowers (with silencers) and vacuums at the proposed car wash use, tire store activities, drive -thru speakers at the proposed fast food restaurant, delivery trucks loading and unloading, and on -site vehicles. To provide a conservative estimate of the project's operational noise generation, all noise sources were assumed to operate simultaneously, when in reality noise source activities would be intermittent and sporadic. In the noise model, receivers were placed at property lines adjacent to the project site. Noise levels were modeled to range from 35.6 dBA (at the adjacent property line to the west) to 52.4 dBA (at the adjacent property line to the north). Project generated noise levels would be below the applicable 65 dBA and 70 dBA noise level limits, and impacts would be less than significant. To further evaluate the project's potential to result in operational noise impacts, the project's modeled operational noise levels were combined with existing ambient noise levels to estimate the project- caused increase in noise levels. Ambient noise levels were determined through noise measurements conducted as part of the project's Noise Impact Study (MD Acoustics, LLC 2020c) and were found to range between 57.7 dBA LEQ in the western portion of the site to 72.7 dBA LEQ in the eastern portion of the site. When combined with existing ambient noise levels, it was calculated that the project would not result in an increase in noise levels over ambient levels and would therefore be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 65 of 84 Operational Traffic Noise For operational traffic- related noise, impacts are considered significant in areas where noise levels are above the limits for what the City General Plan Noise Element considers "clearly compatible," and if implementation of the project would result in an increase of the ambient noise level by 3 CNEL or more (where the CNEL is the Community Noise Equivalent Level, a 24 -hour average where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have a 5 dBA weighting and during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dBA weighting). A 3 CNEL increase is considered a perceptible increase in noise levels. Project generated traffic is estimated to result in a 0.3 -CNEL increase along Corydon Street and a 0.4 CNEL increase along Mission Trail. As such, the project's operational traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Noise Impact Study, MD Acoustics 2020c [Appendix J]) b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant Impact) Groundborne vibration can result in a range of impacts, from minor annoyances to people to major shaking that damages buildings. The most prominent vibration - generating construction activities are typically pile driving and rock blasting; the proposed project would not include either of these activities. The primary source of vibration during construction would likely be a bulldozer. A large bulldozer could generate a vibration level of 0.042 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 50 feet, which might be slightly perceptible at the nearest occupied property to the southwest of the project site; however, this would not exceed the 0.1 in/sec PPV vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors or the 0.5 in/sec PPV potential criteria for architectural damage to normal dwelling structures. Further, a bulldozer would not continuously operate adjacent to the nearest off -site use but would be mobile across the project site. Therefore, construction- related vibration impacts would be less than significant. As a commercial development, the proposed project would not generate substantial vibration during operations and no impacts associated with groundborne vibration or noise levels would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Noise Impact Study, MD Acoustics 2020c [Appendix J]) c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact) The closest public use airport to the project site it the Perris Valley Airport, located approximately 9.5 miles to the northeast. The closest private airstrip to the project site is the Skylark Airport, located approximately 0.3 mile to the southwest. Skylark Airport provides glider and skydiving opportunities, but due to its private use restrictions and gravel /sand runway surface, it generally does not provide optimal conditions for frequent and convenient airport operations (City 201 lb). Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from airport operations and impacts would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 66 of 84 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less Than Significant Impact) Population growth is a complex interaction between immigration, emigration, birth, deaths, and economic factors. The U.S. Census Bureau indicated that the City had a population of 28,930 in 2000 and 51,821 as of 2010, which would represent an approximately 79 percent increase. The SCAG RTP /SCS estimated a 2008 population for Lake Elsinore of 50,200 and projected an estimated population of 70,500 and 93,800 by 2020 and 2035, respectively. SCAG released an updated RTP /SCS Growth Forecast in 2016, which estimated the population of Lake Elsinore to be 54,100 in 2012 and projected an estimated population of 63,000 and 103,200 by 2020 and 2035, respectively (SCAG 2016). It should be noted that while this is the most recent population growth forecast released by SCAG, it was released several years prior to the most recent Profile Report for Lake Elsinore, which estimated that between the years 2000 and 2018, the City's population increased from 28,930 to 63,365; an increase of 34,435 people, or 119 percent (SCAG 2019). The project entails the development of a commercial center expected to serve the existing population. No residential uses or other land uses associated with directly impacting population growth are included with the project. Although the project would result in an increase in temporary construction jobs and permanent commercial jobs, these jobs are expected to be filled by members of the existing population of the area. Additionally, the extension of Lemon Street would allow access to the project site but would not result in indirect population growth through the extension of infrastructure. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial direct or indirect population growth and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, SCAG RTP /SCS, LEMC) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The proposed project site is currently vacant. No existing people or housing would be displaced upon implementation of the project. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 67 of 84 a) Fire protection? (Less Than Significant Impact The City Fire Department is comprised of contracted fire services with RCFD and CalFire. The RCFD operates 93 fire stations in 17 battalions, providing fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services throughout Riverside County. Equipment used by RCFD has the ability to respond to both urban and wildland emergency conditions. Specifically, Battalion 2 in the Southwest Division of RCFD services the City. The nearest fire station is Station No. 11, located approximately three miles west of the project site. Future development of the project site would be subject to the City's policies and ordinances for hazard mitigation and fire prevention. The project would be required to comply with all applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the site and as such, will be reviewed by the City Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance with these requirements. Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the benefit of the citizens whereby as a condition to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy by the City, the property owner or land developer is required to pay development impact fees or provide other consideration to the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which will benefit such new development. Section 16.74.049 includes a "fire facilities fee" to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for City fire facilities. Since the proposed project does not propose new housing, potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate development impact fees. As such, the project would not require new or altered fire facilities and would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to fire protection. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, LEMC) b) Police protection? (Less Than Significant Impact) As a contract service to the City provided by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department, the Lake Elsinore Police Department is responsible for police protection within the City, including enforcement of local, state, and federal statutes; public safety; traffic enforcement; and maintaining public order. The California Highway Patrol provides traffic enforcement to the County with additional support from the local County Sheriff's Department. The Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff's Station is located at 333 Limited Avenue, approximately 3.2 miles northwest of the project site. Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which would benefit such new development. The proposed project would participate in this development impact fee program to mitigate potential impacts to police protection resources. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with applicable law enforcement requirements and standards to ensure adequate law enforcement protection is available to serve the project site. Potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the development impact fee and compliance with regulatory requirements. As such, the project would not require new or altered police facilities and would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to police protection. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, LEMC) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 68 of 84 c) Schools? (No Impact) The Lake Elsinore Unified School District ( LEUSD) covers a 144 - square mile area within the City of Lake Elsinore, City of Canyon Lake, City of Wildomar, and a portion of the unincorporated County of Riverside. LEUSD is composed of 25 schools including 13 elementary schools, 2 K -8 schools, 4 middle schools, 3 comprehensive high schools, a continuation school, and 2 alternative education centers. The proposed project would not generate new housing and the additional jobs provided by the project are anticipated to be filled by the local workforce. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in population growth or require expanded school facilities, and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC, LEUSD Website) d) Parks? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City includes 19 parks with hundreds of acres of active and passive recreation opportunities. The proposed project does not include residential uses; thus, while there may be minimal use of parks by the project's commercial employees, a direct increase in park uses is not expected as a result of project implementation. Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) for the LEMC requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner or developer must pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section. Paragraph D of Section 16.34.060 describes the City's Park Capital Improvement Fund and describes that the City Council has the option to request dedication for park purposes or, in lieu thereof, request that the property owner or developer pay a fee for the purpose of purchasing the land and developing and maintaining the City park system. The project would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining park land within the City. Since the proposed project does not propose new housing, potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical effects related to parks, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC) e) Other public services /facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City is part of the Riverside County Library System. The closest library to the project site is the Wildomar Branch Library at 34303 Mission Trail, approximately 0.6 mile south of the project site. Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) of the LEMC requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner or developer must pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section. Paragraph B of Section 16.34.060 describes the City's Library Mitigation Fee and states that an in -lieu fee for future construction of library improvements shall be paid to the City to assure the necessary library facilities are provided the community. Since the proposed project does not propose new housing, potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate library mitigation fees. Therefore, potential impacts associated with libraries would be less than significant. Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which would benefit such new Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 69 of 84 development. Section 16.74.048 includes an "Animal shelter facilities fee" to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for animal facilities. In addition, the property owner would be required to pay City Hall & Public Works fees, Community Center Fees, and Marina Facilities Fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, potential impacts associated with other public services and facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC) XVL RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008 — 2030 (adopted July 14, 2009) establishes a goal of providing five acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The proposed project does not propose residential or other uses that would result in substantial increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Indirect impacts to park facilities from the proposed project would be limited to the occasional use of a park by the project's commercial employees. As described in Item XV(d), the project applicant would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining parkland within the City. Since the proposed project does not propose new housing, potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, potential impacts associated with parks or recreational facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, LEMC) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment ? (No Impact) The proposed project does not include recreational facilities, nor, as discussed in Item XVI(a), would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. XVII. TRANSPORTATION A Traffic Impact Analysis and a VMT Evaluation were prepared for the proposed project by Trames Solutions, Inc. (2020a, Appendix K, and 2020b, Appendix L) to assess the project's potential to affect the circulation system and to generate VMT. Portions of the following analysis are based on the findings of these reports. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 70 of 84 a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project consists of a convenience store and gas station, tunnel car wash, fast food restaurant, flex -tech condos, and tire store, which would generate vehicle trips to and from the currently vacant site and would increase vehicular traffic volumes on nearby roadways compared to existing conditions. The increased traffic volumes could generate impacts to the existing roadways and intersections, that could potentially result in conflicts with an adopted plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project ( Trames Solutions, Inc. 2020a) assessed the project's potential to affect the circulation system and provided recommendations for improvements to the roadway system. The project would incorporate these recommendations, which include widening the portions of Mission Trail and Corydon Street adjacent to the project site, modifying the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street to accommodate the proposed Lemon Street extension and project's northern access, and providing stop sign controls at the project's central and southern access points. The project would also provide sidewalks and bicycle lanes along Mission Trail and Corydon Street where none currently exist, thus improving the pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems. As such, the project would not conflict with an adopted plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system with implementation of proposed design features, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Traffic Impact Analysis, Trames Solutions, Inc. 2020a [Appendix K]) b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less Than Significant Impact) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) sets forth specific criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts as related to VMT. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) and Senate Bill (SB) 743, the City recently updated their Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide to include VMT analysis methodology. Land use projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population (compared to the City's baseline threshold) are evaluated for potential impacts. Per the City's VMT analysis methodology, if a project can demonstrate consistency with one of the following three screening process steps, a project -level assessment is not required, and the project would be considered to result in a less- than - significant impact related to VMT. The three screening steps include: • Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening • Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening • Step 3: Project Type Screening The project would be consistent with screening process Step 3. Step 3 (Project Type Screening) indicates that local - serving retail projects less than 50,000 sf may be presumed to have a less- than - significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local- serving retail generally involves the convenience of shopping use close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel. The proposed project would have a building area of 38,395 sf, which falls below the 50,000 -sf threshold. Further, the types of uses proposed for the project are not anticipated to draw customers from outside the area but rather provide convenience to the local community. Therefore, the project's impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 71 of 84 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: VMT evaluation, Trames Solutions, Inc. 2020b [Appendix L]) c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses and would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. The project does not propose a dangerous design feature, nor would the proposed access driveways connect to existing roadways in such a way that would pose a danger to increased traffic. Sight distance and project access would be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that project circulation and access has been designed per City regulations. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous geometric design features would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less Than Significant Impact) Refer to Item IX(f). Potential impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, County of Riverside's Emergency Operations Plan, Site Plan) XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) As discussed in Item V, the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicated that eight previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within a one -mile radius of the project site, including Lake Elsinore, two historical -period built features, one historic -age isolated artifact, one prehistoric archaeological site, and two prehistoric isolated artifacts. Some of these resources may be considered TCRs. No resources have been recorded within the project site and no resources were observed within the project site during the pedestrian survey conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. A search of the NAHC Sacred Lands Files indicated that no sacred Native American sites have been recorded within the immediate project area; however, NAHC noted that the absence of specific site information does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in a project area and that other resources should be consulted to obtain information regarding known and previously recorded sites. An information scoping process was then untaken as part of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment in which 24 tribes and individuals named by the NAHC were contacted. Five responses were provided from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI), the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the Pala Band of Mission Indians. Only one response, from the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, identified potential concern regarding resources of Native American cultural value. The response Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 72 of 84 indicated that the project area lies within the territory of the Luiseno people and is of historic interest to the Rincon Band. Specifically, the response identified the City of Lake Elsinore as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and Traditional Cultural Landscape (TCL) of the Rincon Band that is associated with the Luiseno Creation Story and traditional practices. The Rincon Band knows of several Luiseno named places within the city; however, none are in the project area. AB 52, signed into law in 2014, amended CEQA and established new requirements for tribal notification and consultation. AB 52 applies to all projects for which a notice of preparation or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is issued after July 1, 2015. AB 52 also broadly defines a new resource category of tribal cultural resources and establishes a more robust process for meaningful consultation that includes: • Prescribed notification and response timelines; Consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact evaluation, and mitigation measures; and • Documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings. A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or (2) a parry, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. AB 52 also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c). On May 1, 2020, the City provided written notification of the project in accordance with AB 52 to six (6) Native American tribes that requested to receive such notification from the City. Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians requested formal government -to- government consultation under AB 52. As a result, the following consultations occurred: Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians: The City held a consultation meeting with the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians on June 17, 2020. As part of the consultation, the Rincon and of Luiseno Indians did not identify potential TCRs within the project's potential impact limits. However, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians did indicate a concern over the potential for uncovering TCRs or other tribal - affiliated resources during construction of the project. In response, City Planning staff provided the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians with recommended mitigation measures for review to address the potential for subsurface TCRs on the project site. The mitigation measures agreed to by the various tribes that were consulted are provided in MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 in Item V. The Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians indicated that they were in agreement with the identified mitigation measures, and the AB 52 consultation process was concluded on June 17, 2020. 0 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians: The City held a consultation meeting with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians on June 25, 2020. As part of the consultation, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians did not identify potential TCRs within the project's potential impact limits. However, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians did indicate a concern over the potential for uncovering TCRs or other Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 73 of 84 tribal - affiliated resources during construction of the project. In response, City Planning staff provided the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians with recommended mitigation measures for review to address the potential for subsurface TCRs on the project site. The mitigation measures agreed to by the various tribes that were consulted are provided in MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 in Item V. The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians indicated that they were in agreement with the identified mitigation measures, and the AB 52 consultation process was concluded on October 20, 2020. Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians: The City held an initial consultation meeting with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on July 9, 2020. As part of the consultation, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians did not identify potential TCRs within the project's potential impact limits. However, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians did indicate a concern over the potential for uncovering TCRs or other tribal affiliated resources during construction of the project. In response, City Planning staff provided the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians with recommended mitigation measures for review to address the potential for subsurface TCRs on the project site. The mitigation measures agreed to by the various tribes that were consulted are provided in MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 in Item V. The AB 52 consultation process was concluded on October 26, 2020. Based on the absence of recorded resources within or adjacent to the project site, no adverse changes in the significance of TCRs are anticipated; however, it is possible that unknown TCRs may be discovered during grading and other ground - disturbing activities. Therefore, MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 identified in Items V(b) and V(c), above, would be implemented to ensure that potential impacts to TCRs pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 (Sources: Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020b [Appendix E]) XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project would require the installation of new utility infrastructure. The project would install new water and wastewater lines that would connect to existing Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) water and wastewater lines located within Mission Trail and Corydon Street. Although these connections would occur off site, the impacts associated with the connections are considered together with the overall project impacts and are analyzed throughout this IS. Additional off -site water or wastewater facility improvements, such as new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities, would not be required for the project. Off -site stormwater infrastructure improvements would not be required for the project as the project would include on -site infrastructure that would convey stormwater to an on -site detention basin. The project would connect to existing SCE electrical lines and SoCalGas natural gas lines, as well as existing telecommunications lines, and would not require the construction or expansion of new off -site facilities. Based on these considerations, potential impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility infrastructure would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 74 of 84 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (Less Than Significant Impact) Domestic water is provided to the project site by EVMWD. EVMWD obtains its potable water supplies from imported water from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, local surface water from Canyon Lake, and local groundwater from the Elsinore Basin. According to EVMWD's Urban Water Management Plan, EVMWD has determined that its current and anticipated future supplies are sufficient to meet the projected dry -year and multiple dry -year demand for its service area. Thus, there are sufficient water supplies as well as water shortage contingency plans to protect existing and future water needs within the EVMWD service area. The project would result in an incremental increase in demand for water during construction (e.g., minimal use of water for dust control during grading activities) and operation (e.g., potable water use for proposed commercial uses). The proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designation for the property, and thus, anticipated water use has been considered in the water supply planning for future water supplies in the EVMWD service area. The anticipated demand would be an amount that the existing entitlements under EVMWD would be able to supply. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: EVMWD Urban Water Management Plan) c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Less Than Significant Impact) EVMWD would provide wastewater service to the proposed project site. Wastewater generated by the proposed commercial uses would be typical of commercial sources and would not result in a significant demand for wastewater treatment beyond that provided by existing facilities. Wastewater flows from the project site would be collected and conveyed to the existing sewer line via an 8 -inch sewer line and connect to an existing 18 -inch sewer line within Corydon Street near the project site's southern access. Construction of new lines or expansion of existing lines is not proposed, as there is sufficient capacity to convey wastewater from the proposed project. The Regional Reclamation Facility operated by EVMWD has sufficient capacity to treat wastewater generated at the proposed project site. Additionally, the project would be required to pay utility rates and development impact fees for wastewater service. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less Than Significant Impact) Riverside County Waste Management facilitates solid waste disposal services for Riverside County, and the City contracts with CR &R, Inc. Environmental Services for trash pickup. Lake Elsinore is served three landfills, including El Sobrante Landfill, Badlands Landfill, and Lamb Canyon Landfill. El Sobrante Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2045. Badlands Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2024 and Lamb Canyon Landfill by 2021. Both Badlands and Lamb Canyon Landfills have the potential to expand their facilities and capacity. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 75 of 84 Solid waste disposal is managed at the regional level; therefore, generation of solid waste within the City, including by the proposed project, is one part of a regional issue. The project would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations, including Section 40050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code, to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC requires that project construction divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris. The project is anticipated to meet or exceed this requirement during construction. The amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project is anticipated to be accommodated by the existing landfills, and recycling and green waste collection would reduce the overall solid waste generated. Therefore, potential impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC) e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less Than Significant Impact) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989 as amended [IWMA]) under the Public Resource Code requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000, and 50 percent diversion each year following. This is achieved at the city -wide level. Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC requires that project applicants divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris; the project would meet or exceed this requirement. The project would also comply with AB 341 which establishes mandatory commercial recycling and requires businesses that generate four or more cy of trash per week to arrange recycling services. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC, Public Resources Code) XX. WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact) Refer to Item IX(f). Potential impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, County of Riverside's Emergency Operations Plan) b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Less Than Significant Impact) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 76 of 84 c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Less Than Significant Impact) According to Figure 3.10 -2 (City of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility) of the General Plan EIR, which is based on CalFire's fire hazard severity zone mapping, the project site and surroundings areas are not located in areas mapped as a moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, including through the installation of the proposed Lemon Street extension. In addition, due the level topography of the project site and surrounding areas, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 77 of 84 V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Potentially significant impacts to the environment resulting from the proposed project have been identified for biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions, and TCRs. All potentially significant impacts to biological resources related to adjacent MSHCP Conservation Areas, burrowing owl, and nesting birds would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with implementation of MM 13I0-1 through MM BI0-4. The project is not expected to impact resources related to major period of California history or prehistory. Based on the cultural sensitivity of the area, however, the project would have the potential to impact unknown subsurface cultural resources or TCRs. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less -than- significant level with implementation of MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7. Implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG -9 would reduce potential impacts associated with GHG emissions to a less- than - significant level. Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Mitigation Measures: MM 13I0-1 through MM 13I0-4, MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7, MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -9. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual project effects that, when considered together or in concert with other projects, combine to result in a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the proposed project would result in potentially significant project - specific impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions, and TCRs; however, project - related effects either would be avoided by incorporation of project design measures or mitigated to levels below significance. As described in Item IV, project construction could result in potentially significant direct and/or indirect impacts to burrowing owl, nesting birds and raptors, and migratory birds and their habitat, as well as nearby MSHCP Conservation Areas. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant through compliance with applicable permits (pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, MBTA, federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act) and implementation of MM BI0-1 through MM 13I0-4. Other development in the project area also would be required to comply with applicable environmental laws and mitigation requirements. The Western Riverside County MSHCP, which has been adopted by local jurisdictions and approved by the wildlife agencies, is largely designed to Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 78 of 84 address potential cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from development in the western portion of the County through assembly of a comprehensive reserve system. Based on the project - specific mitigation measures that would be implemented and on the existence of an approved region -wide conservation plan, the proposed project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative biological resources impact. As discussed in Items V and XVIII, the proposed project would not adversely affect known cultural resources. Potentially significant impacts could occur if archaeological resources, TCRs, and/or human remains are disturbed during ground - disturbing activities associated with project construction. While it is possible that unknown cultural resources or TCRs may be encountered during construction, mitigation measures MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 have been included that would reduce impacts to these resources to below a level of significance. Accordingly, the proposed project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative cultural resources impact. The Air Quality and GHG Impact Study and Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project considered cumulative impacts in their respective analyses. The project would be consistent with local and regional plans, and the project's air quality emissions would not exceed established thresholds of significance; therefore, no cumulatively considerable impacts related to air quality would occur. Implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG -9 would ensure that the project would be consistent with the CAP, and thus, would not result in cumulatively considerable environmental impacts relative to GHG emissions. Fourteen cumulative projects were identified in the traffic analysis prepared for the project: 1. TAG Property — 50,000 -sf automotive sales development 2. LE Sport Complex — 525,000 -sf soccer complex 3. Diamond Specific Plan — 114 -unit multi - family housing development, 150 -room hotel, 425,000 -sf office development, and 472,000 -sf shopping center 4. Artisan Alley — 95 -unit multi - family residential development 5. The Colony /TAG Property/John Laing Homes — variety of residential developments 6. Triangle (The Point Commercial) — 3,524 -sf car wash and shopping center 7. Store America Self Storage — 588 -unit self - storage 8. Wildomar Shooting Academy — shooting Range 9. Subway — 10,500 -sf fast food restaurant 10. Bundy Canyon Plaza — 36,990 -sf shopping center 11. Retail Building — 194,000 -sf shopping center 12. Village at Monte Vista — 80 -unit single - family residential development and 136,000 -sf business park 13. KB /Summerhill — 70 -unit single - family residential development 14. Darling /Bundy Canyon — 140 -unit multi - family residential development Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 79 of 84 These 14 projects, in combination with the proposed project, would generate vehicular traffic on Mission Trail and Corydon Street. As discussed in Item XVII(a), the project would incorporate recommendations provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis to ensure adequate circulation to accommodate long -term traffic volumes. Associated impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project is consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan — Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use designation and with the existing underlying zoning. Therefore, incremental increases in impacts to the environment would be within the thresholds set by the General Plan, East Lake Specific Plan, and supporting planning and regulatory documents. When considering all potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, including impacts identified as less than significant in the Initial Study, together with the impacts of other present, past, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, there would not be a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO -1 through MM BIO -4, MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7, MM GHG-1 through MM GHG -9 (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study and Traffic Impact Analysis) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction and operation of the project would not cause environmental effects that would significantly directly or indirectly impact human beings. The proposed project would adhere to regulatory codes, ordinances, regulations, standards, and guidelines applicable to each of the environmental issue areas analyzed herein. For project - related construction activities that have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings (sound, traffic, dust), the project is required to meet all LEMC grading and construction requirements and BMPs, which would be implemented during project construction to reduce these effects to below a level of significance. As evidenced by the Initial Study, no other substantial adverse effects on human beings, either indirectly or directly, would occur as a result of project implementation. Impacts would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 80 of 84 VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines. HELIX Environmental Planniniz Hunter Stapp, Project Manager Vanessa Toscano, Senior Project Manager Daniel Young, GIS Specialist City of Lake Elsinore Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Associate, Planning Manager Nick Lowe, PERMS, Consultant Traffic Engineer Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 81 of 84 VII. REFERENCES The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document. Except as noted, they are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674 -3124. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. April. California Department of Conservation (CDC) 2016 California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https: / /maps. conservation. ca. gov/DLRP /CIFF /. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2018 California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at: https:// www. arcgis. com/ apps/ webgppviewer /index.html ?id= 2e921695c43643b 1 aaf7000d fcc19983. City of Lake Elsinore (City) 2020 Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LakeElsinore/. 2017 East Lake Specific Plan. Adopted November 28, 2018, updated September 7, 2018. 2014 City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map. September 23, as amended. 2011 a City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. December 13. 201 lb City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report. December 13. 2011c City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan. December 13. 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008 — 2030. July 14. 2005 Plan Preparation and Design Manual County of Riverside 2003 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Available at: https: / /rctlma.org/ Portals /0 /mshcp /volumel /index.html. Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2020 Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis. June 12. 2019 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. September 27. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 82 of 84 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2020 FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address. Available at: https: / /msc. fema. goy/portal/ search? AddressQuery = lake %20elsinore #searchresultsanchor. KWC Engineers 2020 Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan. September. L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Determination. September. 2020b Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. March 18. Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) 2020 Our District, About Us. Accessed September 15. Available at: hllps://www.leusd.kl2.ca.us/gpps/paizes/index.jsp?uREC ID=324467&1ype=d&pREC I D= 732453. MD Acoustics, LLC. 2020a Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study. September 14. 2020b CEQA Energy Review. January 28. 2020c Noise Impact Study. September 15. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2019 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. April. Available at: http: / /www.agmd. gov /docs/ default - source /ceq a/handbook/scagmd- air- quality- significance- thresholds.pdf. 2016 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. February. Available at: http: / /www.agmd.gov /docs /default- source /clean - air -plans /air - quality -mana eg ment- plans /naa fis- caaqs- feb20l6.pdf. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2019 Local Profiles Report for the City of Lake Elsinore. Available at: h!Ltps://www.scaiz.ca.jzov/Documents/LakeElsinore.pd f. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Final Growth Forecast. Available at: http: / /www.scag ca. gov /DataAndTools /Pages /GrowthForecasting.aspx. Trames Solutions, Inc. 2020a Traffic Impact Analysis. August 12. 2020b Vehicles Miles Traveled Evaluation. August 12. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 83 of 84 U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) 2020 QuickFacts, Lake Elsinore city, California; Wildomar city, California. Available at: hllps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lakeelsinorecitycalifomia,wildomarciiycalif omia /PST045219. 2012 Households and Families: 2010. April. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). 2020a. Joint Project Review (JPR 20- 06- 09 -01) for the LEAP 2020 -02 /Corydon Gateway. September 24. 2020b Review of Joint Project Review (JPR 20- 06- 09 -01) for the LEAP 2020 -02 /Corydon Gateway, provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. October 12. 2020c Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021. Available at: https://www.wrc-rca.ora/wp- content/uploads /2020 /07/FY2021- MSHCP -FEE- SCHEDULE -.pdf. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 84 of 84 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2020 -04) (SCH NO. 2020100576) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2019 -69 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020 -05 AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02) Whereas, Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02) to subdivide a 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one (1) lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030); and, Whereas, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: "CEQA ") and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines ") because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code Section 21065); and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the Project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2020 -04), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project; and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, on November 2, 2020, the City duly issued a notice of intent to adopt the MND; and, Whereas, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the MND was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days beginning on November 2, 2020, and ending on December 1, 2020; and, Whereas, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) for adopting MNDs, and, CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 2 of 3 Whereas, the MND was sent to the Commission members on or about November 2, 2020 and considered by the Commission on December 15, 2020 at a duly noticed Public Hearing and, after consideration of evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties on the adequacy of the MND, the Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Council adopt the MND for the Project; and, Whereas, on January 12, 2021, 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 evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed the MND. The Council hereby finds and determines that all public comments have been addressed. Section 3: The Council hereby finds that the MND for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City's procedures for implementation of CEQA. The Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND and finds that the MND represents the independent judgment of the City. Section 4: The Council further finds and determines that none of the circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation of the MND are present and that it would be appropriate to adopt the MND as proposed. Section 5: The Council hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates the following findings regarding the lack of potential environmental impacts of the Project and the analysis and conclusions set forth in the MND: Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study was released for public review and mitigation measures set forth in the Initial Study would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the Project, there is substantial evidence suggesting that all potential impacts to the environment resulting from the Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. All appropriate and feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the Project design. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan contains an implementation program for each mitigation measure. After implementation of the mitigation contained in the MMRP, potential environmental impacts are effectively reduced to less than significant levels. 2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency including the initial study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have significant effect on the environment. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 3 of 3 Pursuant to the evidence received, including comment letters, and in the light of the whole record presented, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 7: Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Council hereby adopts MND (ER 2020 -04) and the MMRP, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A1 ", for Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02). Section 8: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 9: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 12th day of January, 2021. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 12, 2021, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist has been prepared for the Corydon Gateway project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: (1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented, (2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure, and (3) retention of records in the Corydon Gateway project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the Program, but also allows the City of Lake Elsinore (City) flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented and generally involves the following steps: • The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate persons for verification of compliance. • Departments /agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. • The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits /approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, program redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Date Process Timing Responsibility Completed Biological Resources MM BI0-1, Burrowing Owl Surveys. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre- Pre - construction Prior to Qualified Date: construction focused species surveys in accordance with the California Survey issuance of a Biologist, Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW's) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl grading permit Project Applicant/ Mitigation (CDFW 2012) within 30 days prior to commencement of construction Developer, activities. If burrowing owls are determined to occupy the site during pre- Planning and construction surveys and impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, the City Engineering Depts. shall consult with the CDFW and prepare and implement a project - specific Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the CDFW and implemented prior to activities that could affect burrowing owl within the project site. To avoid take, impacted individuals shall be relocated outside of the impact area by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities using passive or active methodologies approved by CDFW. The relocation shall occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl. Existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated. MM BI0-2, Nesting Bird Pre - construction Surveys. In order to avoid violation Pre - construction Prior to Qualified Date: of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Survey issuance of a Biologist, Code, construction activities shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible during grading permit Project Applicant the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31). /Developer, If construction activities are to occur during the nesting season, a pre - construction Planning and Engineering nesting survey shall be conducted within three days prior to the commencement of Depts. construction (if between February 1 and August 31). A qualified biologist shall perform the nesting survey that will consist of a single visit to ascertain whether there are active raptor nests within 500 feet of the project footprint or other protected bird nests within 300 feet of the project footprint. Nests will be searched for in the trees and shrubs. This survey shall identify the species of nesting bird and to the degree feasible, nesting stage (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging). Nests shall be mapped (not by using GPS because close encroachment may cause nest abandonment). The follow -up nesting survey shall be conducted for five (5) consecutive days and no more than three (3) days prior to construction. If an active nest is observed, the nest location shall be fenced off surrounding an adequate radius buffer zone as determined by the biological monitor, to be at least 350 feet. The buffer zone shall not be disturbed until the nest is inactive. Biological monitoring shall occur during vegetation removal activities. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed MM BI0-3, MSHCP Guideline Implementation. Prior to the issuance of a Site Inspection Prior to Project Date: grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include a note on the plans issuance of a Applicant/ that outlines the following requirements from Section 6.1.4 of the Western grading permit, Developer, Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ( MHHCP): during and after Construction 1. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the construction Contractor, Planning, site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall Building and be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from Engineering developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas. Best Depts. Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm downstream biological resources or ecosystems. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project will incorporate a detention basin, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices to filter runoff from the project site. 2. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. 3. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area and the avoided area on site to protect species from direct night lighting. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project will direct night lighting away from the MSHCP Conservation Area and incorporate light shielding in the project designs to avoid excess ambient light from entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. 4. Proposed noise - generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area, including designated avoidance areas, shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. 5. Avoid use of invasive, non - native plant species listed in Table 6 -2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, including avoidance areas. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas and designated avoidance areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project landscape plans will avoid utilizing any species listed in Table 6 -2 in the landscaping plans. 6. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into existing and future MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocksiboulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. 7. Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. 8. Weed abatement and fuel modification activities are not permitted in the Conservation Area, including designated avoidance areas. MM BI0-4, MSHCP Construction Best Management Practices Site Inspection Prior to Project Applicant Date: Implementation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property issuance of a /Developer, Owner /Developer shall include a note on the plans that outlines the following grading permit Construction Construction BMPs from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP shown in italics, and ongoing Contractor, and specific requirements in plain text: during Planning, Construction Best Management Practices: construction Building, and - Engineering 1. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist Depts. to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare and implement a Worker Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) to train all project personnel prior to grading. The details of the training should be consistent with MSHCP Appendix C Standard BMP No. 1, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act, include a detailed discussion of how to identify the potential special- status plant and animal species that may be encountered during ground disturbance and construction activities, and necessary actions to take if the species are observed on site. 2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City a project - specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) prior to initial ground disturbance. The project - specific SWPPP shall describe BMPs that will be implemented in pre -, during -, and post - construction phases. Examples of BMPs may include dust suppression BMPs, Low Impact Developments (LIDS) such as vegetated swales, and a spill response protocol. The SWPPP is a dynamic document that shall be amended when site conditions warrant changes to protect natural resources and prevent discharge of non - stormwater to neighboring parcels. The Qualified Stormwater Developer (QSD) shall develop and implement the SWPPP with site - specific BMPs to prevent/reduce the potential for erosion, sedimentation, and offsite discharge of non - stormwater in accordance with the Construction General Permit (CGP), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit, and a 401 Water Quality Certification Permit (if applicable). The QSD shall provide training to the contractor for performing regular site inspections, and for pre -, during -, and post -storm events to ensure that BMPs are functioning as intended. 3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre- existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall submit to the City a construction management plan that demonstrates that the construction footprint will remain within the limits of the current property boundary, site ingress/ egress will be limited to the least impactful location on the Project Site. Trackout (riprap, rumble strips) shall be installed to prevent tracking of sediment to public roadways. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed 4. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall submit to the City a construction management plan that the construction footprint will remain within the limits of the current property boundary, project site boundaries shall be clearly delineated with visible means (i.e. stakes, rope, flagging, snow fence, etc.). The contractor shall adhere to the measures and conditions in all environmental permits to protect Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. 5. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. The Habitat Assessment found that no habitat for target species was observed within the project boundaries. The project site does not contain stream channels, gravel bars, or streambanks. The coarse- grained soil onsite has insufficient clay /fines and does not allow standing water to persist in durations sufficient to support many of the target species. All project - related construction activities would occur within the property boundaries and no equipment or personnel would work outside the clearly identified project boundaries. 6. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to monitor ground disturbance activities that would occur during the nesting season. The Habitat Assessment found that no sensitive habitats were observed within the project boundaries, including riparian habitat. The Construction Contractor shall take are to ensure that construction activities do not negatively impact potentially sensitive habitats or species surrounding the project site. Construction equipment and personnel shall be made aware of MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7 as part of the WEAP training and would always remain within project site boundaries. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed 7. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end ofconstruction activity to minimize the transport ofsediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. No water diversion activities are proposed during project activities. The Property Owner/Developer shall implement erosion and sediment control BMPs as identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) throughout the project site to reduce/ prevent sediment impacts in pre -, during- and post - construction phases. Personnel would be educated during WEAP training as to the importance of preventing impacts to the Temescal Wash from construction activities. 8. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities, including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, USFWS, CDFW, and SARWQCB, and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to an approved disposal areas. Ongoing during construction and operation, all project activities shall occur within the property boundary. Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas shall be located outside any sensitive habitats and in areas with no risk of direct drainage into riparian areas and other sensitive habitats. All fuel storage tanks shall have secondary containment to retain fuel spills. The project site - specific SWPPP shall have BMPs designed to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters or bare soil, as required by the RWQCB. All potentially hazardous materials shall be stored appropriately on site away from sensitive habitats or Waters of the United States. Concrete washouts and active /inactive materials stockpiles shall have secondary containment BMPs to prevent the accidental release of hazardous substances to bare soil. The SWPPP is required to have a Spill Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) to describe necessary actions that should occur in the event of a spill or release of potentially hazardous substances. Spills or releases of toxic substances greater than five gallons shall be reported to the RWQCB, DTSC, Local Municipalities, and/or federal agencies, as appropriate. 9. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. Materials stockpiles shall be located away from sensitive areas. Inactive materials stockpiles shall be covered and bermed to prevent windborne dust or accidental release. The SWPPP shall describe BMPs to prevent fugitive dust from migrating to neighboring parcels or the Temescal Wash. 10. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to monitor ground disturbance activities to ensure that all measures to protect species on and off site are being implemented during construction activities, including burrowing owl surveys (MM BI0-1), and nesting bird surveys (MM BI0-2). Additional protective measures recommended by the qualified wildlife biologist shall be implemented as necessary by the Property Owner/Developer to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. 11. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre- existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. No clearing and grubbing of native vegetation would be anticipated during the project activities as the project site is almost entirely devoid of vegetation. 12. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. No exotic species were encountered during the project Habitat Assessment and none would be utilized in any revegetation efforts. The final landscaping design may incorporate native plant species; however, regular Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed landscape maintenance shall prevent exotic, or noxious plant species from taking root on the Project Site. 13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). The SWPPP shall contain BMPs for trash storage and removal, including containment of sanitation facilities (e.g., portable toilets), and covering waste disposal containers at the end of every business day and before rain events. Trash cans shall have a fastenable lid to prevent animals from accessing or spreading trash onsite. The Project QSD should consult the MSHCP Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices, RWQCB recommendations, and any applicable environmental permit measures and conditions when developing the project SWPPP. 14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. In accordance with the WEAP, all project activities would occur within the clearly delineated property boundaries. Construction activities shall be confined to the project footprint, and approved routes of travel shall be established, including ingress /egress points. Exclusion fencing shall be utilized throughout the project duration. 15. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration /enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including these BMPs. The Contractor shall allow the Permittee access to the construction site. All visitors shall check in with the Project Engineer (or Site Supervisor) prior to accessing the construction site and will be escorted within project boundaries during normal business hours when construction activities are occurring. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Date Process Timing Responsibility Completed Cultural Resources MM CUL -1, Unanticipated Resources. The developer /permit holder or any Assessment of During Project Applicant Date: successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If Resources construction /Developer, during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are Construction discovered, the following procedures shall be followed: Contractor, 1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural Project Archaeologist, resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, Tribal Monitor, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from Planning and consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic /cultural group representative), Engineering and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the Dept. significance of the find. 2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting. 3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. 4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures. MM CUL -2, Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. Prior to Monitoring Prior to Project Applicant Date: issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Program issuance of a /Developer, Community Development Department that a Secretary of Interior Standards grading permit Project qualified and certified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) has been and during Archaeologist, contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) that construction Tribal Monitor, addresses the details of all activities that must be completed and procedures that Planning Dept. must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this project. The CRMP document shall be created in coordination with the consulting tribe(s), and provided to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP provides direction as to how the project mitigation measures will be implemented. The CRMP requires that impacts on cultural resources will not occur without Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed procedures in place, which would reduce any impacts to less than significant. These measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Archaeological Monitor: An adequate number of qualified monitors shall be present to ensure that all earth - moving activities are observed and shall be on -site during all grading activities for areas to be monitored including off -site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor. Cultural Sensitivity Training: The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre - grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all Construction Personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the project site. A sign -in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report. Unanticipated Resources: In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. Phase IV Report: A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 11 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe. MM CUL -3, Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American Disposition of During Project Applicant Date: cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent Resources Construction /Developer, discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of Construction the discoveries: Contractor, One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed Project Archaeologist, with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Tribal Monitor, Development Department: Planning and 1. Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in Engineering place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they Depts. were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. 2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity. Relocation shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains, as they are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. 3. If relocation is not agreed upon by the Consulting Tribes then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources, ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by a ment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Date Process Timing Responsibility Completed Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. MM CUL -4, Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Monitoring Prior to Project Applicant Date: applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have Program issuance of a /Developer, requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the Assembly Bill grading permit Tribal Monitor, (AB) 52 and/or the Senate Bill (SB) 18 process ( "Monitoring Tribes "). The and during Planning and applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal construction Engineering Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to Depts. the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project's approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City's mitigation measures /conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. MM CUL -5, Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Project Records After Project Applicant Date: Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies construction /Developer, with the Riverside County Planning Department's requirements for such reports Project for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report Archaeologist, shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources Tribal Monitor (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of any feature relocation or residue analysis required as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre -grade meeting. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 13 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Process Monitoring Timing Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed MM CUL -6, Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or Assessment, During Project Applicant Date: remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or Treatment, and construction /Developer, earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist and/or designated Disposition of Construction Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of Human Remains Contractor, the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and Project the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and Archaeologist, the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Tribal Monitor, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that Riverside County excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no Coroner, further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the Planning Dept. necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commissions (NAHC; Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the most likely descendent (MLD) are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). MM CUL -7, Non- Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties Non - Disclosure During and Project Applicant Date: that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American of Resource after /Developer, human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be Reburials construction Riverside County governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. Coroner The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Date Process Timing Responsibility Completed Greenhouse Gas Emissions MM GHG -1, Pedestrian Infrastructure. The applicant shall incorporate into the Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: project site plan and design documentation sidewalks or pedestrian paths along all Review issuance of a /Developer, new streets as well as internal sidewalks that link all internal uses. Prior to final Building Permit Planning and site plan approval, the City shall verify that pedestrian improvements meeting the Engineering requirements of Climate Action Plan (CAP) Measure T -1.2 are incorporated into Depts. the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -2, Bike Lanes. The applicant shall incorporate into the project site Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: plan and design documentation a bike lane along the project site boundary with Review issuance of a /Developer, Corydon Street and Mission Trail to connect to the Class II bikeways currently Building Permit Engineering located on Corydon Street and Mission Trail. Prior to final site plan approval, the Dept. City shall verify that bike lane improvements meeting the requirements of CAP Measure T -1.4 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -3, Indoor Water Conservation. The project applicant shall Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: demonstrate, in the project building plans or other design documentation, faucets, Review issuance of a /Developer, toilets, and showers installed within the proposed uses that utilize low -flow Building Permit Building Dept. fixtures that would reduce indoor water demand by 30 percent per California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Standards. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that low -flow fixtures meeting the requirements of CAP Measure E -4 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -4, Landscaping. The applicant shall incorporate into the project Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: landscape plan one 15- gallon non - deciduous umbrella form tree per 30 linear feet Review issuance of a /Developer, of boundary length. The landscape plan shall be designed to be consistent with the Building Permit Planning Dept. requirements of AB 1881. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that the landscaping meeting the requirements of CAP Measures E -1.1 and E -4.1 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -5, Construction Waste Management Plan. The applicant shall Construction Prior to Project Applicant Date: provide a Construction Waste Management Plan which demonstrates how the Waste issuance of a /Developer, project would recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of Management Building Permit Construction nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Prior to issuing a demolition, Plan Contractor, grading, building, or other construction permit, the City shall verify that a Building Dept. Construction Waste Management Plan is in place meeting the requirements of CAP Measure S -1.4. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 15 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Date Process Timing Responsibility Completed MM GHG -6, Bicycle Parking. The project applicant shall incorporate into the Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: project site plan and design documentation, a permanently anchored bicycle racks Review issuance of a /Developer, within 200 feet of the visitor entrance and readily visible to passers -by for at least Building Permit Building and five percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity. Prior to final site plan Planning Depts. approval, the City shall verify that bicycle parking improvements meeting the requirements of CAP measure T -1.5 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -7, Parking for Fuel - Efficient Vehicles. The applicant shall designate, Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: through signage and/or pavement marking, at a minimum, 10 percent of the total Review Issuance of /Developer, project employee and visitor parking spaces for Clean Air Vehicles. Parking Occupancy Building Dept. spaces for Clean Air Vehicles may be any combination of low- emitting, fuel- Permit efficient, and carpool /vanpool vehicles. Prior to issuing an occupancy permit, the City shall verify that a minimum of 10 percent of parking spaces are designated for Clean Air Vehicles (e.g., through signage and/or pavement marking), meeting the requirements of CAP Measure T -2.1. MM GHG -8, Cool Roof Requirements. The applicant shall specify in the Site Design Prior to Project Applicant Date: building plans or design documentation, roofing materials that have a thermal Review issuance of a /Developer, emittance or Solar Reflectance Index 3 per CALGreen Tier 1 values. Prior to final Building Permit Building Dept. building plan approval, the City shall verify that cool roof improvements meeting the requirements of CAP Measure E -1.2 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -9, Solid Waste Reduction. The applicant shall require recycling Site Inspection During Project Applicant Date: programs that reduce the project's operational waste to landfill be a minimum of operations /Developer, City 75 percent, per AB 341. Corydon Gateway Project December 2020 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 16 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2019- 69 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020- 05 AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02) to subdivide a 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one (1) lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030); and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the Joint Project Review (JPR) to analyze the scope of the proposed development and establish a building envelope that is consistent with the MSHCP criteria; and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP further requires that the City adopt consistency findings demonstrating that the proposed discretionary entitlement complies with the MSHCP Criteria Cell, and the MSHCP goals and objectives; and, Whereas, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.070 (Conditional Use Permits), Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review), and Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to tentative maps, conditional use permits, and design review applications; and, Whereas, on December 15, 2020, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and, Whereas, on January 12, 2021 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 Council has considered the Project and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to adopting Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 2 of 7 Section 2: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Council makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: 1. The Project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. Approximately 1. 12 acres of the project site is located in the northeastern corner of Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The area that will be developed by the Proposed Project is approximately 0.89 acres of that area. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with "Other Plan Requirements. " These include the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, § 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, § 6.3. 1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, § 4). 2. The Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Joint Project Review processes. Approximately 1. 12 acres of the project site is located in the northeastern corner of Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The area that will be developed by the Proposed Project is approximately 0.89 acres of that area. Therefore, a formal and complete LEAP application, LEAP 2020 -01 was submitted to the City on April 3, 2020. The JPR application, JPR 20- 06 -09 -01 was submitted to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The RCA completed the review on September 24, 2020 and found the Project consistent with both the Criteria and Other Plan Requirements. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Woody water - dependent vegetation or drainages are not present on the project. Approximately 2.4 inches of rain fell on December 23 through 26, 2019. Nine days later, at the time of the survey on January 4, 2020, areas of the site had damp soils but no evidence of ponding. The only water observed occurred in a single soil test pit which contained potable water added by the soils technician. The soil pit was later backfilled. No cracked soils, evidence of vegetation changes or other evidence of long -term inundation is present. Botanical species present on the site did not include facultative, obligate, or vernal pool species. No fairy shrimp or potential fairy shrimp habitat was observed during this study. Vernal pools are not present on the parcel. Habitat subject to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP is not present on the project site. Eighty (80) feet to the west of the site, a double row of planted oaks, mulefat, and willow is present in a fenced area at the end of a constructed concrete trapezoidal channel about 190 feet long and 30 feet wide (Figure 3). L &L observed this habitat from accessible public vantage points and using aerial and street view images on Google Earth. Based on the height of the fence, the trees appear to be recently planted and range in height between 6 and 8 feet. Birds maybe present on occasion and is the basis for a recommendation to construct the project outside of the nesting season. If construction cannot avoid the nesting season a preconstruction nesting season clearance survey should be conducted within three (3) days CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 3 of 7 prior to the start of vegetation or ground disturbance. If nesting birds are found to be present an avoidance buffer of at least 350 feet as determined by the biologist should be avoided until the biologist has determined that the birds have fledged from the nest or the nest is otherwise inactive. The habitat in this channel is located in a motorcycle recreation area (Lake Elsinore Motorsport Park) and surrounded by large areas of highly disturbed and developed land subject to ongoing and high levels of noise and disturbance. The habitat is not suitable for special status riparian birds. Another concrete lined trapezoidal channel is located between the property and the adjacent industrial complex on the south. This channel is unvegetated with limited ruderal vegetation adjacent to the channel; there is no riparian habitat present. Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is state and federally listed as endangered. It is a covered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved, but surveys are required in suitable habitat as described in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. This species is migratory and breeds in California, arriving in March and departing by September or October. Males establish and defend territories in riparian woodlands and riparian scrub. Dense shrub cover is required for nesting. CNDDB documented occurrences of least Bell's vireo territories in the project vicinity include three records in the Lake Elsinore Back Basin (Element Occurrence [EO] #404 through 406) and one record along the San Jacinto River (EO #407). EO #404 is from 2006 and located about 1.5 miles west - northwest of the site (two territorial males in willow /mulefat scrub), EO #405 is from 2009 and located about 2.3 miles west of the site (two territories), EO #406 is from 2009 and 2010 and located about 1.0 miles east - southeast of the site (one territory in 2009 and one territory in 2010). There are no CNDDB documented occurrences of southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trail/ii extimus) or the western yellow - billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) within 10 miles of the site. There is no riparian habitat on the site. The few willows present in the motorcycle park channel are small, scattered, and isolated and do not provide the dense riparian habitat required by least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow - billed cuckoo. The lack of any immediately adjacent habitat and the ongoing high levels of noise and disturbance in and adjacent to the motorcycle park also create unsuitable conditions for these species. Therefore, there is no suitable habitat for these species on or adjacent to the site and these species are considered absent. The Project is therefore consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The property is not in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for any narrow endemic species, and no NEPSSA surveys are required. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in certain locations. Pursuant to MSHCP Figure 6 -2 (Criteria Area Species Survey Area), Figure 6 -3 CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 4 of 7 (Amphibian Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6 -4 (Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6 -5 (Mammal Species Survey Areas With Criteria Area), burrowing owl surveys are required for the subject property prior to approval of a development proposal. The property is not located within survey areas for criteria area species (MSHCP Figure 6 -2), amphibian species (MSHCP Figure 6 -3), or mammal species (MSHCP Figure 6 -5) and surveys for those species are not required. The Project site is located within the MSHCP Survey Area for the burrowing owl. L &L Environmental, Inc. visited the project area on October 10, 2019 to describe vegetation and habitat and evaluate probabilities that special status animals and plants might occur within the project site. The weather was 67° to 78° F and conditions were clear and hazy, with winds varying between 1 -3 mph. About 2.25 person -hours were spent onsite. All habitat types on the site were visited on foot. The site was surveyed by conducting a series of transects across the subject property, stopping periodically for observations and notations. The entire project area was visually assessed and a buffer area of 500 feet from the project boundary was surveyed around the site for potential suitable habitat for burrowing owl.. A burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat assessment was performed by L &L biologist Guy Bruyea during the nesting season to conduct focused breeding season burrowing owl surveys. The focused Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys were conducted by in accordance with the survey requirements established for the MSHCP (MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions, 2006). A total of ±5.75 person -hours were spent onsite during burrowing owl surveys. The site was examined for suitable burrow sites and for signs of occupation by burrowing owl, including pellets, feathers, whitewash, prey remains, and eggshell fragments, as well as individual owls. A search for potentially suitable burrows within dirt, wood, and rock debris piles, artificially created berms, and other locations was conducted during the surveys. The surveys included the entire project site and an additional 150 -meter (500 -foot) buffer area surrounding the site. (Figure 4) These areas were visually inspected, where possible, in areas identified as potential burrowing owl habitat. Any developed areas in the buffer were visually surveyed with binoculars due to trespassing concerns on private property. Transects were walked throughout the property. Coupled with binocular surveys of any restricted areas, this allowed for complete visual coverage of the survey area. Distance between transects was approximately 15 to 20 meters. California ground squirrels or burrows were not observed on the site or adjacent to the property within the buffer area. Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) mounds were identified onsite, but no other conspicuous small mammal burrows were observed during this study. No burrowing owl (BUOW), sign of BUOW (pellets, scat, feathers, tracks, etc.), or suitable BUOW burrows are present on onsite or within the buffer area. As a mitigation measure for the proposed Project, the City of Lake Elsinore will require a pre - construction presence /absence survey for burrowing owl to be conducted within 30 days of the commencement of project- related grading or other land disturbance activities to ensure that the species has not moved onto the site since completion of the surveys. The pre- CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 5 of 7 construction survey should occur within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity. Owls located as a result of survey efforts will be relocated. If burrowing owl have colonized the project site or the offsite improvements area prior to the initiation of construction, the project proponent should immediately inform the City, RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, and coordinate on the potential need for preparation, review and approval of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to any ground disturbance. Therefore, the subject project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP. 6. The Project is consistent with the UrbaniWildlands Interface Guidelines. Section 6.1.4 addresses potential indirect impacts to the MSHCP Conservation Area via the Urban Wildland Interface Guidelines. As the Project is urban in nature and is located near the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) conserved lands, the Project must comply with all MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (UWIG) as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The entire Project site consists of Non - native Grassland. Grasses observed and identified onsite include Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus) and foxtail chess (Bromus diandrus). Additional non - native grass species are likely present but not identified due to season. The most conspicuous weedy annuals observed onsite include (but may not be limited to) Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), short -pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), red - stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis). Native annuals that are tolerant of disturbed or waste places observed include fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia), cudweed aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia), annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), doveweed (Croton setiger), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and annual bur -weed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa). Other plants less commonly observed include tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), vinegar weed (Trichostemma lanceolatum), nightshade (Solanum species), and western jimsonweed (Datura wrightii). This mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP and is consistent with the MSHCP vegetation mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. Section 6.4 of the MSHCP requires that new developments adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area (in this case the proposed 770 -acre Plan preservation areas) or other undeveloped lands incorporate any fuel /brush management zones and Best Management Practices. The Project Site is not located in or adjacent to the proposed 770 -acre Plan preservation areas, is proposed as a non - combustible commercial development, and undeveloped areas adjacent to the Project Site are anticipated to be developed and is therefore not expected to be subject to fuel modification requirements. The Project will incorporate the BMPs outlined in Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP as part of the development pursuant to regulatory and /or County requirements. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 6 of 7 9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. As a condition of approval, the Project will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits. 10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Approximately 1. 12 acres of the project site is located in the northeastern corner of Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The area that will be developed by the Proposed Project is approximately 0.89 acres of that area. Conservation within this Cell will range from 65% -75% of the Cell focusing in the southern portion of the Cell. The conservation requirements set forth for this Criteria Cell has been replaced with the preservation of habitat in the Back Basin of Lake Elsinore through the 770 -acre Agreement. The Project Site is not located within 3,200 feet of proposed preservation land in the 770 -acre Plan. Even without consideration of the 770 -acre Plan, the Project site falls outside of that portion of Criteria Cell 5131 identified for conservation and the project site does not meet the conservation requirements set forth for Subunit 3 of the Elsinore Area Plan . Therefore, conservation of the project site, or any portion thereof, is not required. The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 3: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, the Council hereby finds that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 4: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 12th day of January, 2021. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 12, 2021, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 7 of 7 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977 SUBDIVIDING 6.05 ACRES INTO SIX PARCELS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.63 ACRES TO 1.11 ACRES AND ONE DETENTION BASIN LOCATED AT APN 370 - 050 -026 AND A PORTION OF 370 - 050 -030 Whereas, Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02) to subdivide a 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one (1) lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP), at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030); and, Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to tentative maps; and, Whereas, on December 15, 2020, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 16.24.120 of the LEMC, the Council has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove recommendations of the Commission for tentative maps; and, Whereas, on January 12, 2021, 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 Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed Project pursuant to the appropriate Planning and Zoning Laws, the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP), the LEMC, and the ELSP, and Chapter 16 (Subdivisions) of the LEMC. Section 2: On January 12, 2021, after consideration and evaluation of all written reports and comments and oral testimony presented by the Community Development Department and other City departments, property owners, residents and other interested parties and such other matters as are reflected in the record of the noticed Public Hearing on the Project, the Council adopted a resolution finding and determining that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 2020 -04) (SCH No. 2020100576) is adequate and is prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 2 of 3 Section 3: That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the LEMC, the Council makes the following findings for approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 37977: The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan (Government Code Section 66473.5). a. The Project located within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and has an Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation. This designation provides for a wide range of extreme action sports and accessory manufacturing, service and retail uses. The proposed project is proposing develop a commercial center with service station with a convenience store, fast food restaurant with a drive - through, carwash, tire store, and flex -tech condominiums. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions of the ELSP. The ELSP was subject to a consistency finding with the General Plan prior to adoption. Therefore, the Project is found to be consistent with the General Plan. b. All offsite mitigation measures have been identified in a manner consistent with the General Plan. 2. The site of the proposed subdivision of land is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in accordance with the General Plan. a. The overall density and design is consistent and compatible with the adjacent communities. 3. The effects that this project are likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources have been considered and balanced. a. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The Project is located within the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation of the ELSP and will not have a direct impact on housing needs. During the approval of the General Plan, housing needs, public services and fiscal resources were scrutinized to achieve a balance within the City. 4. The proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to result in any significant environmental impacts. a. The Project has been adequately conditioned by all applicable departments and agencies and will not therefore result in any significant environmental impacts. The Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. a. TTM 37977 has been designed in a manner consistent with the General Plan and does not divide previously established communities. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 3 of 3 6. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed division of land. a. All known easements or request for access have been incorporated into the design of TTM 37977. b. The map has been circulated to City departments and outside agencies, and appropriate Conditions of Approval have been applied to the Project. Section 4: Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 37977. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 12th day of January, 2021. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 12, 2021, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020 -05 TO ESTABLISH THE CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT LOCATED AT APN 370 -050- 026 AND A PORTION of 370 - 050 -030 Whereas, Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02) to subdivide a 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one (1) lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030); and, Whereas, Section 17.415.070 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) provides that certain uses are desirable but may have operational characteristics that disproportionately impact adjoining properties, businesses, or residents. Accordingly, such uses require a more comprehensive review and approval procedure, including the ability to condition the project in order to mitigate significant impact; and, Whereas, pursuant Section 17.410.070 (Approving Authority) and Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications) of the LEMC, the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to conditional use permits; and, Whereas, on December 15, 2020 at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.410.070 of the LEMC, the Council has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove recommendations of the Commission for conditional use permits; and, Whereas, on January 12, 2021, 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, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Council has considered the Project has found it acceptable. Section 2: On January 12, 2021, after consideration and evaluation of all written reports and comments and oral testimony presented by the Community Development Department and other City departments, property owners, residents and other interested parties and such other matters CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 2 of 4 as are reflected in the record of the noticed Public Hearing on the Project, the Council adopted a resolution finding and determining that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 2020 -04) (SCH No. 2020100576) is adequate and is prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Section 3. That in accordance with LEMC Section 17.415.070.C. Findings, the Council makes the following findings regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05: That the proposed use, on its own merits and within the context of its setting, is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purpose of the planning district in which the site is located. The Project located within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and has an Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation. This designation provides for a wide range of extreme action sports and accessory manufacturing, service and retail uses. Per Section 2.5.1.a.5 and 6 of the ELSP Retail Sales and Restaurants and eating - places, including a drive - through service are permitted uses. Per Section 2.5.1.b.10 of the ELSP, the Community Development Director has deemed Car washes, Gasoline Service Stations, and Automotive Service Stations compatible with the intent of the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use category as requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The ELSP was subject to a consistency finding with the General Plan prior to adoption. Therefore, the Project is found to be consistent with the General Plan. Further, the proposed Project will assist in achieving the development of a well - balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land uses. 2. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed use or the City, or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the City. The proposed use does not propose either directly or indirectly any detrimental effects to the existing surrounding community. The Project has been conditioned as such to avoid any possible negative impacts associated with the proposed use. 3. The Site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and for all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, buffers and other features required by this title. The proposed use has been analyzed and staff has determined that the proposed use meets all applicable sections of the LEMC and will complement the existing uses, based on the submitted plans and the conditions of approval imposed on the Project. 4. The Site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways with proper design both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. The project would extend Lemon Street west from Mission Trail along the northern property boundary via a proposed reciprocal access easement, which would provide northern access to the project site. The exiting traffic signal at the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street would be modified to accommodate the new roadway segment. These improvements will be sufficient for the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 3 of 4 5. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted and normal use thereof. The Conditional Use Permit has been thoroughly reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City departments thereby eliminating the potential for any adverse effects. 6. Adequate conditions and safeguards pursuant to LEMC 17.415.070.8, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of this chapter and the planning district in which the site is located. Pursuant to Section 17.415.070.8 of the LEMC, the Project was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed Public Hearing on December 15, 2020, and subsequently by the City Council at a noticed Public Hearing on January 12, 2021, appropriate and applicable conditions of approval have been included to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 4: Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the Conditions of Approval imposed upon the Project, the Council approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 12th day of January, 2021. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 12, 2021, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 4 of 4 Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2020 -02 PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGN AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CORYDON GATEWAY PROJECT LOCATED AT APN 370 - 050 -026 AND A PORTION OF 370 - 050 -030 Whereas, Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -69 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05, and Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02) to subdivide a 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one (1) lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030); and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review), Section 17.410.070 (Approving Authority), and Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications) of the LEMC, the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to design review applications; and, Whereas, on December 15, 2020 at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.410.070 of the LEMC, the Council has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove recommendations of the Commission for design review applications; and, Whereas, on January 12, 2021, 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 Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed Project pursuant to the California Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 59000 et seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP), the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP), and the LEMC and finds and determines that the proposed Project is consistent with the requirements of California Planning and Zoning Law and with the goals and policies of the GP, ELSP, and the LEMC. Section 2: On January 12, 2021, after consideration and evaluation of all written reports and comments and oral testimony presented by the Community Development Department and other City departments, property owners, residents and other interested parties and such other matters as are reflected in the record of the noticed Public Hearing on the Project, the Council adopted a CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 2 of 3 resolution finding and determining that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 2020 -04) (SCH No. 2020100576) is adequate and is prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Section 3: That in accordance with Section 17.415.050.E of the LEMC, the Council makes the following findings regarding Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02: 1. The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, Specific Plan and the Zoning District in which the Project is located. The Project located within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and has an Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation. This designation provides for a wide range of extreme action sports and accessory manufacturing, service and retail uses. Per Section 2.5.1.a.5 and 6 of the ELSP Retail Sales and Restaurants and eating - places, including a drive - through service are permitted uses. Per Section 2.5.1.b.10 of the ELSP, the Community Development Director has deemed Car washes, Gasoline Service Stations, and Automotive Service Stations compatible with the intent of the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use category as requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The ELSP was subject to a consistency finding with the General Plan prior to adoption. Therefore, the Project is found to be consistent with the General Plan. The Project complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan because it will assist in achieving the development of a well - balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational, and institutional land uses. The Project will serve to diversify and expand Lake Elsinore's economic base. 2. The Project complies with the design directives contained in the General Plan and all other applicable provisions of the LEMC. The Project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments and blends in with the surrounding industrial development. Sufficient setbacks and enhanced onsite landscaping have been provided thereby creating interest and varying vistas as a person moves along abutting streets and within the park. The Project will create a visually pleasing, non - detractive relationship between the proposed development and existing projects through the use of a `Contemporary' architectural design that is similar to existing developments in the vicinity. In addition, safe and efficient circulation has been achieved onsite. 3. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Section 17.415.050.6.3 of the LEMC, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the Project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Section 17.415.050. Pursuant to Section 17.415.050.E of the LEMC, the Project was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on December 15, 2020 and subsequently by the City Council at a noticed Public Hearing on January 12, 2021. The Project, as reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City divisions, departments and agencies, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4: Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Council hereby approves Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. CC Reso. No. 2021 - Page 3 of 3 Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 12' day of January, 2021. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Attest: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of January 12, 2021, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PROJECT: PA 2019 -69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 PROJECT NAME: Corydon Gateway PROJECT LOCATION: APN: 370 - 050 -026 and portion of 370 - 050 -030 APPROVAL DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: GENERAL Tentative Tract Map No. 37977 is a subdivision of 6.05 acres to six (6) lots ranging in size from 0.63 acres to 1.10 acres and one (1) 0.22 -acre detention basin. Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05 include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year (Parcel 2), a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6). The project would also involve off -site roadway improvements, including extending Lemon Street west along the northern boundary of the project site and widening and improving the portions of Mission Trail and Corydon Street adjacent to the project site to include project access driveways, sidewalks, and bike lanes. The proposed uses would be developed over two phases. Development of the convenience store and gas station, tunnel car wash, fast food restaurant, and detention basin, as well as off -site improvements and utility infrastructure, would occur during Phase 1. Development of the flex -tech condos and tire store would occur during Phase 2. The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan, at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. (APN 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030). 2. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, Agents, and its Consultants (Indemnitees) from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning approval, implementation and construction of TTM 37977, CUP 2020 -05, and CDR 2020 -02, which action is bought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Sections 65009 and /or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code Section 21167, including the approval, extension or modification of TTM 37977, CUP 2020- 05, and CDR 2020 -02 or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant's indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and /or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys' fees, penalties and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City. If the project is challenged in court, the City and the applicant shall enter into formal defense and indemnity agreement, consistent with this condition. 3. Within 30 days of project approval, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Applicant's Initials: Page 1 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 4. The applicant shall submit a check for $2,530.25 made payable to the County of Riverside for the filing of a Notice of Determination. The check shall be submitted to the Planning Division for processing within 48 hours of the project's approval. PLANNING DIVISION 5. Tentative Tract Map No. 37977 will expire two years from the date of approval unless within that period of time a Final Map has been filed with the County Recorder, or an extension of time is granted by the City Council in accordance with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 37977 shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP), and applicable requirements contained in the LEMC, unless modified by these Conditions of Approval. 7. Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05 shall lapse and become void two years following the date on which the conditional use permit became effective, unless one of the following: (1) prior to the expiration of two years, a building permit related to the conditional use permit is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion; or (2) prior to the expiration of two years, the applicant has applied for and has been granted an extension of the conditional use permit approval pursuant to subsections (a), (b), and (c) of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.070.D.2. Subject to the provisions of LEMC Section 17.415.070.1, a conditional use permit granted pursuant to the provisions of this section shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site or structure, which was the subject of the Conditional Use Permit application. 8. Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02 shall lapse and become void two years following the date on which the design review became effective, unless one of the following: (1) prior to the expiration of two years, a building permit related to the design review is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion; or (2) prior to the expiration of two years, the applicant has applied for and has been granted an extension of the design review approval pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.050.1.1. Notwithstanding conditions to the contrary, a design review granted pursuant to LEMC Section 17.415.050.1.2 shall run with the land for this two - year period, subject to any approved extensions, and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site, which was the subject of the design review application. 9. An application for modification, expansion or other change in a Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed according to the provisions of the Section 17.415.070 of the LEMC, in a similar manner as a new application. 10. If operation of this use triggers concerns related to parking, noise, traffic, or other impacts, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, this Conditional Use Permit may be referred back to the Planning Commission for subsequent review at a Public Hearing. If necessary, the Commission may modify or add conditions of approval to mitigate such impacts, or may revoke said Conditional Use Permit. 11. The applicant shall provide all project - related on -site and off -site improvements as required by these Conditions of Approval. Applicant's Initials: Page 2 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 12. All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans prior to their acceptance by the Building and Safety Division, Community Development Department. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. All future development proposals shall be reviewed by the City on a project -by- project basis. If determined necessary by the Community Development Director or designee, additional environmental analysis will be required. 14. Any proposed minor revisions to approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. Any proposed substantial revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed according to the provisions of the Municipal Code in a similar manner as a new application. 15. Provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance (LEMC Chapter 17.176) shall be satisfied during all site preparation and construction activity. Site preparation activity and construction shall not commence before 7:00 AM and shall cease no later than 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Only finish work and similar interior construction may be conducted on Saturdays and may commence no earlier than 8:00 am and shall cease no later than 4:00 p.m. Construction activity shall not take place on Sunday, or any Legal Holidays. 16. No individual signs are approved as part of this approval. The applicant or designee shall submit an application for a sign permit, pay appropriate fees and receive approval from the Community Development Department for any sign(s) installed at the project site. OR The applicant shall submit a sign program for review and approval of the Planning Commission prior to installation. Sign plans submitted to the City for review shall incorporate City identification signs. 17. In accordance with Section 17.112.090.0. of the LEMC, establishments engaged in the concurrent sale of motor vehicle fuel with alcoholic beverages shall abide by the following requirements: a. No beer or wine shall be displayed within five feet of the cash register or the front door. b. No advertisement of alcoholic beverages shall be displayed at motor fuel islands. c. No sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made from a drive -in window. d. No display or sale of beer or wine shall be made from an ice tub. e. No beer or wine advertising shall be located on motor fuel islands and no self - illuminated advertising for beer or wine shall be located on buildings or windows. f. Employees on duty between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. shall be at least 21 years of age to sell beer and wine. 18. Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours. 19. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 20. No outside overnight storage of inoperable vehicles shall occur at the site. 21. Since the project is proposed to be completed in two (2) phases, unimproved portions of the property should be maintained and kept in good repair as noted on the phasing plan exhibit. Applicant's Initials: Page 3 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 22. All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened, and the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permit shall approve screening plan. 23. The property address (in numerals at least six inches high) shall be displayed near the entrance and be easily visible from the front of the subject property and public right -of -way. 24. The applicant shall construct trash enclosure(s) with a decorative roof to match the colors, materials and design of the project architecture. 25. If any of the conditions of approval set forth herein fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. Prior to Recordation of Final Map(s) 26. All lots shall comply with minimum standards set forth in the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation of the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP). 27. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided per the LEMC. 28. All of the project improvements shall be designed by the applicant's Civil Engineer to the specifications of the City of Lake Elsinore. 29. Prior to recordation of a Final Map, the applicant shall initiate and complete the formation of a Property Owner's Association (POA) which shall be approved by the City. All Association documents that address including, but not limited to, reciprocal easements, shall be submitted for review and approval by City Planning, Engineering and the City Attorney and upon City approval shall be recorded. Such documents shall include the Articles of Incorporation for the Association and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs). a. All slopes, landscaping within public right -of -way, all drainage basins, and common areas including but not limited to parking areas and drive aisles, shall be maintained by the (POA). b. Provisions to restrict parking upon other than approved and developed parking spaces shall be written into the CC &Rs for the project. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits /Building Permits 30. The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including but not limited to Development Impact Fees (DIF) and MSHCP Fees per LEMC Section 16.85, at the rate in effect at the time of payment. 31. All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment Applicant's Initials: Page 4 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened, and the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permit shall approve screening plan. 32. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free - standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 33. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit a photometric study to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The plan shall ensure that all exterior on -site lighting are shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring properties and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. 34. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, all exterior wall mounted and freestanding light fixtures shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development, or their designee. Light fixtures shall compliment the architectural style of the buildings onsite. 35. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the color, finish and pattern of all decorative paving onsite shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development, or their designee. 36. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Final Landscaping / Irrigation Detail Plans (one full size set along with a PDF copy) shall be submitted along with appropriate fees for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee. a. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with 50% plant coverage using a drip irrigation method. b. Mature specimen trees shall be planted on locations visible from public views. c. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch (6 ") high and six inch (6 ") wide concrete curb. Runoff shall be allowed from paved areas into landscape areas. d. Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress /egress points shall be no higher than twenty - four inches (24 "). e. Landscape planters shall be planted with an appropriate parking lot shade tree pursuant to the LEMC and Landscape Design Guidelines. f. No required tree planting bed shall be less than 5 feet wide. g. Root barriers shall be installed for all trees planted within 10 feet of hardscape areas to include sidewalks. h. Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. i. The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines. j. All landscape improvements shall be bonded 100% for material and labor for two years from installation sign -off by the City. Release of the landscaping bond shall be requested by the applicant at the end of the required two years with approval /acceptance reviewed by the Landscape Consultant and approved by the Community Development Director or Designee. Applicant's Initials: Page 5 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 k. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. I. Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. m. Final landscape plans to include planting and irrigation details. n. Final landscape plans shall include drought tolerant planting consistent with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District standards subject to plan check and approval by the City's landscape plan check consultant. o. No turf shall be permitted. 37. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 38. The proposed location of on -site construction trailers shall be approved by the Community Development Director or designee. A cash bond of $1,000 shall be required for any construction trailers placed on the site and used during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers and restoration of the site to an acceptable state, subject to approval of the Community Development Director or designee. Such trailer(s) shall be fully on private property and outside the public right of way. BUILDING DIVISION General Conditions 39. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety Conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 40. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2019 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes: 2019 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2019 California Energy Codes, 2019 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 41. Green Measures. The application shall provide 10% voluntary green measures on the project, as stipulated by the 2019 California Green Building Standards. 42. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. All ground floor units to be adaptable. b. Disabled access from the public way to the entrance of the building. c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Path of travel from public right -of -way to all public areas on site, such as clubhouse, trach enclosure tot lots and picnic areas. Applicant's Initials: Page 6 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 43. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi - family residential projects or a recorded final map for single- family residential projects. It takes 10 days to issue address and notify other agencies. Please contact Sonia Salazar at ssalazar @lake - elsinore.org or 951 - 674 -3124 X 286. 44. Clearance from LEUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Lake Elsinore School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department evidencing the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 45. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 46. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. 47. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On -site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. Septic systems will need to be approved from Riverside County Environmental Health Department before permit issuance. 48. House Electrical Meter. Applicant shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. At Plan Review Submittal 49. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2019 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for the persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 50. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 51. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 52. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp Applicant's Initials: Page 7 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Provide C.D. of approved plans to the Building Division. Prior to Beginning of Construction 53. Pre - Construction Meeting. A pre- construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT General 54. All required soils, geotechnical, hydrology and hydraulic and seismic reports shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or other qualified state license holder. 55. Seismic Study for Glen Ivy Fault required. 56. All new submittals for plan check or permit shall be made using the City's online Client Self - Service Portal (CSSP). 57. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the developer shall be required to contract with CR &R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 58. For commercial, industrial, office or multi - family projects, all refuse enclosures are required to provide adequate space for recycling bins... Check with CR & R Environmental Services to determine the adequate size of enclosure based on the number and size of containers to be stored in the enclosure. 59. Sight distance into and out of this project location shall comply with City of Lake Elsinore or CALTRANS Standards. 60. All open space, landscaping, and slopes except for public parks and schools and flood control district facilities, outside the public right -of -way shall be owned and maintained by property owner or property owner's association. Documentation of maintenance responsibility (ex. CR &Rs) shall be recorded prior to occupancy. 61. A preconstruction meeting with the City Engineering Inspector (Engineering Department) is required prior to commencement of ANY grading activity. 62. Phasing plan, if any, shall be approved by the City Engineer at prior to tentative map approval. Phases and /or Planning Areas are subject to additional review and conditions of approval. 63. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) and Lake Elsinore Public Works Standard Plans. 64. All on -site and off -site public improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. Applicant's Initials: Page 8 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 65. All plans (Street, Storm Drain, Improvement, Grading) shall prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer using the City's standard title block, Design Manual guidance, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, California Building Code, Riverside County Flood Control Standards for drainage, and City Standards unless otherwise noted or approved by City staff. 66. All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer 67. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, it shall be the sole responsibility of the owner /applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and /or permissions necessary to perform the grading herein proposed. 68. The developer shall coordinate all grading and improvements with adjacent property owners to the satisfaction of the City. Any grading or drainage onto adjacent properties shall require written approval of those property owners affected, with said approval provided to the City Engineer prior to grading permit. 69. Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs should drain to a landscaped area. 70. No grading shall be performed without first having obtained a permit from the City Engineer. A grading permit does not include the construction of retaining walls or other structures for which a building permit is required. 71. A Soil /Geotechnical Report is required for any land disturbance 72. Minimum good housekeeping and erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as identified by the City shall be implemented by all projects. 73. AutoCAD: To facilitate the transfer to ARC GIS, the following guidelines are provided: 1. The applicant shall submit a digital AutoCAD file (.DWG format) of all Storm Drain system sheets including all features and attributes. 2. The DWG file shall be properly projected, preferably in NAD 1983 State Plane, California Zone 406. 3. All of the parts and elements of the designed system shall be represented discretely. 4. If possible, include in the attribute table basic data for each feature, such as diameter and length, as applicable, and for pipes also include material (PVC, RCP, etc.) and slope. FEES 74. The developer shall pay all Engineering Department assessed Development Impact Fees (DIF), Plan Check and Permit fees and In Lieu /Fair Share fees (LEMC 16.34). Project applicable DIF are assessed at the prevalent rate at time of payment in full and include: • Stephens Kangaroo Habitat Fee (K -Rat). Due at grading permit. o $500 per gross acre. • Traffic Infrastructure Fee (TIF) primary use. Due at building permit: • Multi- Family - $959.00 per dwelling unit • Commercial - $3.84 per square foot of buildings. Applicant's Initials: Page 9 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 • The project maybe eligible for TIF credit and reimbursement of capacity enhancing road improvements (excludes sidewalk, landscape, streetlights) constructed on Mission Trail and Corydon Road. • Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) primary use. Due at occupancy: • Industrial - $ 1.81 per square foot of buildings • Retail - $ 7.50 per square foot of buildings • Service- $4.75 per square foot of buildings • Class A & B Office - $ 2.38 per square foot • The proposed Flex -Tech Condos are exempt from TUMF as currently designed at less than 3,000 sf each. • The project may be eligible for TUMF credit and reimbursement of road improvements constructed on Corydon Road. • Master Plan of Drainage Fee: Sedco District, $3,600.00 per gross acre (based on fee area). Due prior to approval of Tract Map. 75. The developer shall pay fee in -lieu of construction of future City road cross - section median improvements on Corydon Rd. and Mission Trail. The fee shall be equal to current cost estimate for improvements (including contingency) plus an additional 15% of the total construction cost estimate to cover design and administrative costs. FLOOD PLAIN 76. Project lies within the Floodplain Management area as defined at LEMC 15.68. Meet all requirements of LEMC 15.68 regarding floodplain management Finish floor elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of three (3) feet above the base flood elevation as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. 77. No improvement shall be made upon all lands below the 1265 ft. elevation level in the FEMA mapped Lake Elsinore flood plain southeasterly of the Lake levee (aka back basin) and no artificial change in the topography in the surface of said lands shall be made (except terracing and soil conservation measures) without first complying with all applicable local, State and Federal laws, rules and regulations and USACE Permit No. 88- 00215- 00 -RRS (Lake Elsinore Management Project) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. LEMC 15.68.052 78. Projects proposed in the back basin (elevation below 1260 ft.) that the developer deems non - jurisdictional shall receive a non - jurisdictional confirmation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any commencement of work. 79. Developer shall provide FEMA elevation certificates for all buildings (includes trailers and storage facilities) prior to final approvals. If a LOMR -F has been processed and approved by FEMA, certification may be in the form of a letter signed and sealed by a licensed civil engineer. 80. Approval of a letter of map revision (LOMR) or letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR -F) must be received from FEMA prior to building permit issuance. Applicant's Initials: Page 10 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT / POLLUTION PREVENTION Design 81. The project is responsible for complying with the Santa Ana Region NPDES Permits as warranted based on the nature of development and /or activity. These Permits include: a. General Permit — Construction b. Deminimus Discharges c. MS4 82. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (preliminary and final) shall be prepared using the Santa Ana Region 8 approved template and guidance and submitted for review and approval to the City. The Preliminary WQMP shall be approved prior to Planning Commission hearing; the Final WQMP shall be approved by the City prior to rough or precise grading plan approval and issuance of ANY permit for construction. 83. The Final WQMP shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary WQMP approved prior to entitlement. 84. The Final WQMP shall document the following: a. Detailed site and project description. b. Potential stormwater pollutants. c. Post - development drainage characteristics. d. Low Impact Development (LID) BMP selection and analysis. e. Structural and Non - Structural source control BMPs. f. Treatment Control BMPs g. Site design and drainage plan (BMP Exhibit). h. Documentation of how vector issues are addressed in the BMP design, operation and maintenance. i. GIS Decimal Minute Longitude and Latitude coordinates for all LID and Treatment Control BMP locations. j. HCOC — demonstrate that discharge flow rates, velocities, duration and volume for the post construction condition from a 2 -year 24 -hour rainfall event will not cause adverse impacts on downstream erosion and receiving waters, or measures are implemented to mitigate significant adverse impacts downstream public facilities and water bodies. Evaluation documentation shall include pre -and post - development hydrograph volumes, time of concentration and peak discharge velocities, construction of sediment budgets, and a sediment transport analysis. (Note the facilities may need to be larger due to flood mitigation for the 10 -yr 6- and 24 -hour rain events). k. The Operation and Maintenance (O &M) Plan and Agreement and /or CC &R's shall (1) describe the long -term operation and maintenance requirements for BMPs identified in the BMP Exhibit; (2) identify the entity that will be responsible for long -term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; (3) describe the mechanism for funding the long -term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; and (4) provide for annual certification of water quality facilities by a registered civil engineer. The City format shall be used. For facilities in the right of way to be maintained by the City, the project shall annex into a CFD for funding. I. The grading and /or improvement plan shall include a table listing each stormwater facility, and the plan sheet where it appears. 85. The 2010 SAR MS4 Permit requires implementation of LID Principles and LID Site Design, Applicant's Initials: Page 11 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 where feasible, to treat the pollutants of concern identified for the project, in the following manner (from highest to lowest priority): (Section XII.E.2, XII.E3, and XII.E.7). a. Evaluate site for highest and best use applicability (Exemption for projects that discharge to the Lake.) b. Preventative measures (these are mostly non - structural measures, e.g., minimizing impervious areas, conserving natural areas, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, etc.) c. The Project shall in the order presented, infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire and /or bio -treat the Design Capture Volume (DCV). d. The Project shall consider a properly engineered and maintained bio- treatment system only if infiltration, harvesting and use and evapotranspiration cannot be feasibly implemented at the project site. e. Any portion of the DCV that is not infiltrated, harvested and used, evapotranspired, and /or bio- treated shall be treated and discharged in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section XII.G. 86. Parking lot landscaping areas shall be designed to provide for treatment, retention or infiltration of runoff. 87. Project onsite hardscape areas shall be designed and constructed to provide for drainage into adjacent landscape. 88. Project trash enclosure shall be covered, bermed, designed to divert drainage from adjoining paved areas and regularly maintained. 89. If CEQA identifies resources requiring Clean Water Act Section 401 Permitting, the developer shall obtain certification through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and provide a copy to the Engineering Division. 90. All storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked "Only Rain in the Storm Drain" using the City authorized marker. 91. The project shall use either volume -based and /or flow -based criteria for sizing BMPs in accordance with NPDES Permit Provision XII.D.4. 92. The project shall implement State Water Quality Control Board approved full capture trash devices. This shall include installation of connector pipe screens on all onsite catch basins and all offsite catch basins to which the project discharges. Construction 93. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) (as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit) and compliance with the Green Building Code for sediment and erosion control are required for this project. 94. Prior to grading or building permit for construction or demolition and /or weed abatement activity projects subject to coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit shall demonstrate that compliance with the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at Applicant's Initials: Page 12 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 the project site, updated, and be available for review upon request. 95. Approval of the project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post construction shall be received prior to issuance of a grading permit. LAND DIVISION - DEDICATION 96. The developer shall submit for plan check review and approval a final Tract Map. 97. The developer shall submit for plan check review and approval a lot line adjustment; the lot line adjustment shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 98. Final Tract Map - Prior to City Council approval of the final Tract Map the developer shall, in accordance with Government Code, have constructed all improvements or have improvement plans submitted and approved, agreements executed and securities posted. 99. If applicable, the Final Tract Map shall include the phasing boundaries consistent with the parcels of the Tentative Tract. The phasing boundaries or parcels shall be processed as separate tract maps. 100. Legal agreements and financial commitments (LLMD, CFD, etc.) for operation and maintenance be recorded prior to or concurrent with recordation of a final tract or parcel map or Certificate of Occupancy if a map is not required. 101. Final Tract Map - Right of way and easement dedications to the City as required in these COA's shall be made on the Final Tract Map. a. Dedicate in fee title right of way along Mission Trail adjacent to the project to effect of half width of 60 feet. b. Dedicate in fee title right of way along Corydon Road adjacent to the project to effect of half width of 50 feet. c. Dedicate public access easement to provide access to all parcels from either Corydon Road and /or Mission Trail. 102. All required public right -of -way dedications and easements shall be prepared by the developer or his agent and shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permit. 103. Monumentation shall be in accordance with LEMC 16.32 and Subdivision Map Act. 104. Security and inspection fee for monumentation shall be paid and two contiguous monuments shall be inspected prior to scheduling map approval with City Council. 105. Ownership of slopes along right -of -ways and open spaces shall be identified on the map as held by the developer. 106. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Recordation shall be with Final Map or if no map, prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 107. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.52.030 (LEMC), and consistent with the City's agreement with the Elsinore Valley Applicant's Initials: Page 13 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 Municipal Water District. UTILITIES 108. Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) on site and /or out on the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. Overhead utilities (34.5 KV or lower) shall be undergrounded. All power lines (temporary or permanent) shall comply with CALTRANS standards for vehicle clearance. 109. The developer shall apply for, obtain and submit to the City Engineering Department a letter from Southern California Edison (SCE) indicating that the construction activity will not interfere with existing SCE facilities (aka SCE NIL). Due prior to Grading Permit. 110. The developer shall submit a copy of the "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Department from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project and specify the technical data for the water service at the location, such as water pressure and volume etc. Due prior to Grading Permit. IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE 111. The developer shall implement mitigation measures identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis dated August 14, 2020, as specified in Section 6 of this Study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 112. Install a root barrier for the dripline of trees installed within 10 feet of any on or off -site hardscape (sidewalk, driveway, pavement, etc.). 113. An encroachment permit is required for all work to be done in the public right -of -way. Upon approval of engineered plans, the requirements outlined in these COAs and the permit issue letter shall be met prior to Encroachment Permit issuance. 114. Developer shall construct improvements to City Standards from the existing property line back to the proposed property line along the project frontage on Corydon Rd. and Mission Trail. New improvements to include but not limited to curb & gutter, sidewalks and commercial driveways. 115. All existing and new storm drain inlet facilities to which the project discharges shall be fitted with full trash capture devices. The device selected shall be approved by the State of California and City of Lake Elsinore. Off -site facilities shall be maintained by the City with maintenance funded through a CFD or other City authorized assessment. 116. 10 -year storm runoff shall be contained within the curb and the 100 -year storm runoff shall be contained within the street right -of -way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, drainage facilities shall be provided. 117. Project will accept flows, and is adjacent to RCFCD facilities, SEDCO line E. • Encroachment permit from RCFCD required for discharge to facility. • RCFCD review /approval of plans if discharging to facility 118. All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. All facilities 36" in diameter or larger shall be submitted to Riverside Applicant's Initials: Page 14 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 County Flood Control for review, approval, permitting and acceptance for maintenance. 119. A drainage study shall be provided. The study shall identify the following: identify storm water runoff from and upstream of the site; show existing and proposed off -site and on -site drainage facilities; and include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of the facilities. The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff from a 10 -year storm of 6- hours or 24 -hours duration under developed condition is equal or less than the runoff under existing conditions of the same storm frequency. Both 6 -hour and 24 -hour storm duration shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results. 120. All storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked "Only Rain Down the Storm Drain" using the City authorized marker to prevent illegal dumping in the drain system. 121. Provide public street lighting, consistent with City Standards. Street light plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. 122. Developer shall submit signing and striping plans for City review and approval. Plans shall include details showing compliance with sight distance standards and Professional Traffic Consideration 123. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to City of Lake Elsinore Standards and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34), or as directed or approved by the City Engineer. 124. The developer shall coordinate with Riverside Transit Authority for location and installation of bus transit facilities. Required bus stop improvements and /or relocation shall be shown on plans submitted for project grading and development. Improvements are subject to review and approval by the (RTA). Improvements shall be installed prior to Final Building Certificate of Occupancy. 125. The installation of permanent bench marks / monuments per City Standards at intersection of the project entrance and the centerline of Corydon Rd. and adjacent street Mission Trail shall be shown on the plan. GRADING PERMIT 126. A grading plan signed and stamped by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for City review and approval for all addition and /or movement of soil (grading) on the site. The plan shall include separate sheets for erosion control, haul route and traffic control. The grading submittal shall include all supporting documentation and be prepared using City standard title block, standard drawings and design manual (available at WWW.lake- elsinore.org). 127. All grading plan contours shall extend to minimum of 50 feet beyond property lines to indicate existing drainage pattern. 128. If the grading plan identifies alterations in the existing drainage patterns as they exit the site, a Hydrology and Hydraulic Report for review and approval by City Engineer shall be required prior to issuance of grading permits. All grading that modifies the existing flow patterns and /or topography shall be in compliance with federal, state and local law and be approved by the City Engineer. Applicant's Initials: Page 15 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 129. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. Slopes steeper than 2 to 1 shall be evaluated for stability and proper erosion control and approved by the City. 130. The developer shall coordinate all grading and improvements with adjacent property owners to the satisfaction of the City. Any grading or drainage onto adjacent properties shall require written approval of those property owners affected, with said approval provided to the City Engineer. 131. The soil study shall include a seismic investigation of the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults, liquefaction and /or subsidence zones present on -site and include recommendations for parameters for seismic design of buildings, and walls. A certified letter from a registered geologist or geotechnical engineer shall be submitted confirming the absence of this hazard prior to grading permit. 132. An Alquist Priolo seismic study /investigation shall be performed. The study shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for plan check. The cost of plan check shall be paid by the developer. 133. The developer shall obtain all necessary off -site easements and /or permits for off -site grading and /or drainage acceptance from the adjacent property owners prior to grading permit issuance. 134. The requirements outlined in these COAs and the permit issue letter shall be met prior to grading permit issuance. 135. Haul — Import or Export: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, developer shall provide the City for review and approval a plan of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of import or export material. Export or Import sites located within the Lake Elsinore City limits must have an active grading permit. Public Noticing and City Council approval is required for haul routes of over 5,000 cubic yards. The cost of noticing shall be paid by the developer. 136. Obtain and submit an environmental clearance from City Planning Division to the Engineering Department. This approval shall specify that the project is in compliance with any and all required environmental mitigation triggered by the proposed grading activity. (ex. burrowing owl) 137. Erosion & Sediment Control — Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for construction or demolition, the developer shall submit for review and approval by the City Engineer, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as a separate sheet of the grading plan submittal to demonstrate compliance with the City's NPDES Program and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be property covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into local drainages or waters by wind, rain, tracking, or dispersion. The plan shall also describe how the project will ensure that all BMPs will be maintained during construction of any future right of ways. 138. A copy of the plan shall be incorporated into the SWPPP as applicable, kept updated as needed to address changing circumstances of the project site, be kept at the project site Applicant's Initials: Page 16 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 and available for review upon request. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY /FINAL CLOSEOUT 139. Compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8'/2 x 11" mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Department before final inspection will be scheduled. 140. Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy or building permits for individual tenant improvements or construction permits for a tank or pipeline, uses shall be identified and, for specified uses (where the proposed improvements will store, generate or handle hazardous materials in quantities that will require permitting and inspection once operational), the developer shall propose plans and measures for chemical management (including, but not limited to, storage, emergency response, employee training, spill contingencies and disposal) to the satisfaction of the County /City Building Official(s). 141. Paper copy of plan with any redlines (record drawing) shall be submitted to the Engineering Department before final inspection will be scheduled. 142. All required public right -of -way dedications, easements, dedications and vacations and easement agreement(s) for ingress and egress through adjacent property(ies)shall be recorded with a recorded copy provided to the City prior to final project approval. 143. Developer shall As -built all Engineering Department approved project plan sets. After City approval of paper copy, developer /developer /owner is responsible for revising the original mylar plans. Once the original mylars have been approved, the developer shall provide the City with a USB flash drive of the "as built" plans in .tif format. 144. Prior to acceptance of improvements by the City, the developer shall perform half street roadway surface improvements, such as slurry seal or overlay as required by the City Engineer, and shall install any additional traffic signs, striping and pavement markings determined necessary by the City's Traffic Engineer, after inspection of the final physical improvement, to insure safe operation of all intersections and segments of streets before any building can be occupied. 145. Developer shall submit documentation pursuant to City's Security Release handout. 146. All final studies and reports shall be submitted in .tif format electronically or on a USB flash drive. Studies and reports include, Soils, Seismic, Hydrology, Hydraulics, Grading, WQMP, etc. 147. Provide on compact disc auto cad and GIS Shape files of all final maps and street and storm drain plans. *ALL DATA MUST BE IN projected Coordinate System: NAD 83 State Plane California Zone VI U.S. Fleet. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FIRE MARSHAL 148. The applicant/operator shall comply with all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department Lake Elsinore Office of the Fire Marshal. Questions should be directed to the Riverside County Fire Department, Lake Elsinore Office of the Fire Marshal at 130 S. Main St., Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. Phone: (951) 671 -3124 Ext. 225. Applicant's Initials: Page 17 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 149. The applicant or developer shall provide fire hydrants in accordance with the following: a. Prior to placing any combustibles on site, provide an approved water source for firefighting purposes. b. Prior to building permit issuance, submit plans to the water district for a water system capable of delivering fire flow as required by the California Fire Code and Fire Department standards. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance with the California Fire Code. Based on current standards, the required fire flow is estimated to be 2,000 GPM at 20 PSI for 2 -hour duration. Estimated fire flow is based on 22,080 square foot building area, Type V -B construction, and buildings having a fire sprinkler system per 2019 California Fire Code. 150. Prior to building permit issuance, install the approved water system, approved access roads, and contact the Fire Department for a verification inspection. 151. City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code requires new buildings 5,000 square feet in area and larger to have a fire sprinkler system. 152. Emergency vehicle access roads must meet fire department standards at the time of building permit application. Current standards require minimum 24 -foot wide roads. Roads must be capable of supporting at least 80,000 pounds. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Annex into the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2015 -2 (Maintenance Services 153. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit or building permit (as applicable), the applicant shall annex into the Community Facilities District No. 2015 -2 (Maintenance Services) or current Community Facilities District in place at the time of annexation to fund the on -going operation and maintenance of the public right - of -way landscaped areas and neighborhood parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right -of -way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison, including parkways, street maintenance, open space and public storm drains constructed within the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project. Alternatively, the applicant may propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project with respect to Maintenance Services. Applicant shall make a non - refundable deposit of $15,000 or at the current rate in place at the time of annexation toward the cost of annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 154. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Review No. 2020 -04; SCH # 2020100576) prepared for the Project. Applicant's Initials: Page 18 of 19 Conditions of Approval PC: December 15, 2020 PA 2019- 69 /TTM 37977/CUP 2020 -05 /CDR 2020 -02 CC: January 12, 2021 I hereby state that I acknowledge receipt of the approved Conditions of Approval for the above named project and do hereby agree to accept and abide by all Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on I also acknowledge that all Conditions shall be met as indicated. Date: Applicant's Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number: Applicant's Initials: Page 19 of 19 CITY OF LADE LS ORE DREAM EXTREME CORYDON GATEWAY PLANNING APPLICATION No. 2019-69 Tentative Tract Map No. 37977, Commercial Design Review No. 2020 -02, Conditional Use Permit No. 2020 -05 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No. 2020-04 (FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION) Prepared By: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Applicant: MARK COOPER RED Corydon, LLC 25425 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 101 Murrieta, CA 92562 Environmental Consultant: HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 December 2020 This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Section COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE Page Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND i DECLARATION AND RESPONSES ......................... ............................... ..........................RTC -1 Comment Letters Received ............................................ ............................... ..........................RTC -1 Revisions to the Draft MND .................................................................... ............................... RTC -1 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. ..............................1 A. Purpose .................................................................................................. ..............................1 B. California Environmental Quality Act ................................................. ............................... l C. Intended Uses of Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ... ............................... 2 D. Contents of Initial Study ...................................................................... ............................... 2 E. Scope of Environmental Analysis ........................................................ ............................... 3 F. Tiered Documents, Incorporation by Reference, and Technical Studies ............................ 3 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... ............................... 7 A. Project Location and Setting ................................................................ ............................... 7 B. Project Description .............................................................................. ............................... 7 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................. .............................11 A. Background .......................................................................................... .............................11 B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................ .............................12 C. Determination ...................................................................................... .............................12 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................. ............................... 22 I. Aesthetics ................................................................................ .............................22 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................... ............................... 24 III. Air Quality ............................................................................ ............................... 25 IV. Biological Resources ............................................................ ............................... 32 V. Cultural Resources ................................................................ ............................... 44 VI. Energy ..................................................................................... .............................49 VII. Geology and Soils ................................................................. ............................... 50 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................... ............................... 53 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................ ............................... 57 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................... ............................... 59 XI. Land Use and Planning ......................................................... ............................... 63 XII. Mineral Resources ................................................................ ............................... 64 XIII. Noise ....................................................................................... .............................64 XIV. Population and Housing ........................................................ ............................... 67 XV. Public Services ...................................................................... ............................... 67 XVI. Recreation ............................................................................. ............................... 70 XVII. Transportation ......................................................................... .............................70 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................... ............................... 72 Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND i XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................... ............................... 74 XX. Wildfire ................................................................................... .............................76 V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................ ............................... 78 VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED VIL REFERENCES ............................ ............................... LIST OF APPENDICES A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study B Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Analysis C Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project Review D Agencies Review of Joint Project Review E Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment F CEQA Energy Review G Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment I Water Quality Management Plan J Noise Impact Study K Traffic Impact Analysis L VMT Evaluation M Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program LIST OF FIGURES 81 No. Title Follows Page 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................. ............................... 8 2 Project Vicinity (Aerial Photograph) ................................................................ ............................... 8 3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................ ............................... 8 4a -c Conceptual Street Views ................................................................................... ............................... 8 5 Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................ ............................... 10 Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND ii Table of Contents (cont.) 14R111[)aIFR.110V No. Title Page 1 Tentative Tract Map Parcels ............................................................................. ............................... 8 2 Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds (Pounds per Day) ............................. ............................... 26 3 South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status .......................... ............................... 26 4 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (Pounds per Day) .......................... ............................... 27 5 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (Pounds per Day) ............................ ............................... 28 6 Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions (Pounds per Day) ......... ............................... 29 7 Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions (Pounds per Day) ........... ............................... 30 8 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ........................................................ ............................... 53 9 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions .......................................................... ............................... 54 Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND iii This page intentionally left blank Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND iv COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSES Comment Letters Received A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was published in the Press - Enterprise on November 2, 2020. The Draft MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and circulated for a 30 -day public review period beginning on November 2, 2020 and ending on December 1, 2020 (SCH No. 2020100576). Written comments were received from the following: A. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District B. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians C. Inland Empire Biking Alliance The comment letters received on the Draft MND have been numbered and the City of Lake Elsinore (City) has provided a written response to each numbered comment. The comment letters and responses are provided on the following pages in side -by -side format. The numbered comments are provided on the left side of the page and the City's response is provided on the right of the page opposite each comment. Revisions to the Draft MND Comments received during the public review period for the Draft MND resulted in changes to the Initial Study (IS) prepared for the proposed project. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND are provided in strike - eet/underline format to signify Miens and insertions in the Final IS /MND text. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -1 COMMENTS JASON E. LMFY 1995 MARK i' STREET General N&mger -Chief Engmeer RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.7813.9965 FAX w .mflood,org RIVERSIDE COUNTY" FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 20, 2020 City of Lake Elsinore BO South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Attention: Damaris Abraham Re: PA 2019 -69, TTM 37977, CDR 2020 -02 and CUP 2020 -05 The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood A -1 hazard reports for such cases, District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension ofa master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided The District's review is based on the above - referenced project transmittal, received November 4, 2020, The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue: ® This project would not he impacted by District Master Drainage Plan Facilities, nor are other facilities of regionalnrterest proposed. 0 This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, . The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request ofthe City. Facilities must be A-2 constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. ❑ This project proposes charnels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature andlor a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. ❑ This project is located within the limits of the District's West Elsinore Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted. If the project is proposing to create additional impervious surface area, applicable fees should be paid by cashiefs check or money order only RESPONSES A -1 This comment is introductory and indicates that the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) limits its comments and recommendations on projects to those of specific interest to the District. No response is necessary. A -2 Project construction may overlap with the District's Sedco Master Drainage Plan Line E, which is located to the east and south of the project site within Mission Trail, Corydon Street, and the adjacent drainage channel, and therefore an encroachment permit will be obtained. This permit requirement will be a condition of project approval and has been incorporated into the Final IS/MND. Revisions to the Draft IS /MND are provided in sti�ke- out/underline format to signify deletions and insertions in the Final IS/MND text. Project construction would not result in physical adverse impacts to the facilities or their ability to continue to convey flows. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -2 COMMENTS City of Lake Elsinore -2- Re PA 2019 -69, TTM 37977, CDR 2020 -02 and CUP 2020 -05 November 20, 2020 235321 to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Fees to be A -2 paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. cont. El An encroachment permit shall be obtainedfor any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, Sedco MDP Line E. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. ❑ The District's previous comments are still valid. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the A -3 State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. A -4 If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the -5 applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification maybe required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. ec: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: John Hildebrand SLJ:blm Very truly yours, DEB ORAH DE CHAMBEAU Engineering Project Manager RESPONSES A -3 The project would comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction of Land Disturbance Activities (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] Order No. 2009 - 0009 -DWQ, NPDES No. CA2000002). The information included in this comment is consistent with that provided in the Draft IS /MND. A -4 The project site is located within two types of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood Zone "X." The western portion is within a Zone "X" defined as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard, areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. The eastern portion of the site is within a Zone "X" defined as areas determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. No portion of the site is mapped within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood. As such, the project would not result in modification to a SFHA, regulatory floodway, or Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and the applicant does not need to provide studies, calculations, plans, or other information to meet FEMA requirements or obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). A -5 There are no natural watercourses on the project site and no direct impacts to an off -site watercourse would occur from project implementation. Potential indirect impacts to nearby watercourses would be avoided through implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO -3 and MM BIO -4. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -3 COMMENTS RESPONSES A -5 (cont.) As mentioned above in Response A -4, the project site is not mapped within a FEMA SFHA. As such, the applicant is not required to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements, or a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -4 COMMENTS Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians o 4� ° ° "4`9Py, a CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT e One Goverranent Center Lane I Valley Center I CA 92082 (760) 749 -1051 1 Fax, (740) 749 -8901 1 rincon- ❑stt.gov December 1. 2020 •/�" "" �'` Sent only via email to: dabraham @lake -elsinore.org City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department Damaris Abraham 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Re: PA2019 -69 Corydon Gateway Project, City efLake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Dear Ms. Abraham B -1 This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseilo Indians ( "Rincon Band" or "Band'J. a federally recogni-red Indian Tribe and sovereign government. Thank you for providing w with the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above referenced project. The identified location is within the Territory of the Luiseno people, and is also within Rincon's specific area of Historic interest. B -2 We have reviewed the provided documents and we are in agreement with the measures which include archaeological and tribal monitoring, a monitoring report, and protocols for discovery of cultural material and human remains. We do request that the Rincon Band be notified of any changes in project plans. In addition, we request a copy of the final monitoring report, when available. If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience at (760) 297 -2635. 'thank you for the opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets. Sincerely. Cheryl Madrigal Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cultural Resources Manager Bo Mazzetti TishmalI Turner Laurie E. Gonzalez Alfonso Kolb, Sr. John Constantino Chairman vice Chi, Caun[il Member Cacndlm -ba C-wil Member RESPONSES B -1 This comment notes that the letter was written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians and that the project's identified location is within the Territory of the Luiseno people and is also within Rincon's specific area of Historic Interest. No response is necessary. B -2 This comments notes that the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians has reviewed the Draft IS /MND and is in agreement with the mitigation measures that include archaeological and tribal monitoring, a monitoring report, and protocols for discovery of cultural material and human remains and that they request to be notified of any changes to the project and request a copy of the final monitoring report. The Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians will be notified of any project changes and will be provided a copy of the final monitoring report as requested. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -5 COMMENTS J"ft LAND Vr BIKING ALLIANCE 1 December 2020 Damaris Abraham City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Re: Corydon Gateway Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2020100576) Dear Damaris, I am writing on behalf ofthe Inland Empirc [liking Alliance. a local nonprofit dedicated to making sure that the Inland Empire is a safe and accessible place to bike for people from all rolls of life. ibis C -1 letter is in response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration which has been prepared for the Corydon Gateway development ( "Project ") which has been proposed there in the city. After reviewing the available documents. a few concems have conic to light ul'some currently unmitigated impacts which would be caused by the proposed Project. These concerns are detailed below. In October of 2019, the C try of lake E:Isinorc adopted its Active Translxntation Plan, the Active LE Plan L. This plan document came about due to an invok ed cotantunh y process with a number of meetings attended by community nientbers and organizations, including us here at IEBA. C -2 Collectively, we provided a considerable amount of input to advance a vision for the future for people who would get around Lake 1skinore by hike or on foot and which was incorporated into the final Active LE Plan as adopted by the Council. At no point during the development process were we informed that it was just a practice esercisc which the C it had no intention of actually making use of. However, as proposed, the Project .sure makes it seem like that is in fact what is happening. In both Figure 5-1 Planned Bicycle Network and Table 5 -1 Lake Elsinore Complete Bicycle Network of the Active LE Plan, the map and descriptions detail that tlierc is a Mufti -Use Path planned along what would be the Project frontage on Mission Trail and Corydon Road2. Yet. after reviewing the Project documents, I cannot find any evidence that this Path has been considered in the planning and C -3 that if the developer would not be responsible for constructing 4 as part ofthe improvements. that at least everything possible will be done to avoid the Project compromising the ability to complete the Path. Additionally, in Table 5 -2 Lake Elsinore Proposed Pedestrian Improvements — Intersections, there are additional pedestrian- focused improvements recommended to improve safety forthose who travel by foot and which will likely be appreciated by bicyclists too. A City of Lake Elsinore (n.d.). Active LE. Retrieved online from http: / /www. lake- elsinore.erecity- hall /cemmunity- se rvices /active- transportation -plan. 2 City of Lake Elsinore, 2019. Active LE Plan. Retrieved online from http: / /www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocume nt7 id= 25086. P.O. BOX 8636 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org 951.394.3223 RESPONSES C -1 This comment is introductory and indicates concern about what the commenter believes to be unmitigated impacts caused by the project. Please see Responses C -2 through C -9 below regarding the project's potential for associated impacts. C -2 This comment discusses the City of Lake Elsinore Active Transportation Plan (Active LE Plan), the Inland Empire Biking Alliance's relation to the Active LE Plan, and the impression that the project has not considered the Active LE Plan in its design. The City does intend to implement the Active LE Plan as adopted by the City Council. Please see Responses C -3 through C -9 below regarding the project's relation to the Active LE Plan. C -3 The commentor is correct in that the Active LE Plan shows conceptual plans for a multi -use path along Mission Trail and Corydon Road and planned pedestrian improvements at the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Road. The City has determined that although the project would not construct the multi -use path identified in the Active LE Plan, it would not conflict with the Active LE Plan. The Active LE Plan provides a conceptual framework for future improvements but currently does not provide construction -level plans for implementation by individual development projects. As such, the project would provide bicycle facilities (Class II bike lanes) in accordance with the City's General Plan, which would contribute to the overall goals of the Active LE Plan of providing active transportation improvements where none currently exist. In addition, American with Disabilities Act (ADA)- compliant ramps and sidewalks would be provided along the project frontages and the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Road will have high - visibility Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -6 COMMENTS RESPONSES Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -7 COMMENTS Aft INLAND EMPIRE Vr BIKING ALLIANCE While the subsection XV II a) of the MND does mention that the Project would build [Class IIl bike lanes along the Frontages which face Corydon and Mission Trail, as made clear by the Active LE Plan. bike lanes and Class I bicycle paths are not the same on a number of different measures, C -4 especially those related to riding accessibility and comfort. Therefore. while there is a potential for includ ing bike lanes to be an improvement over the existing conditions. they uhimately are not what are appropriate for the location which is undoubtedly why they were not originally planned for in the first place. Included in the Active LE Plan are a number of Goals and supporting Policies. Several are applicable to this situation. Policy 1.5 states that the City endeavors to "[rlequire the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities... as a condition of approval of new development projects..." (p. 43� Policy 2.4 seeks to "[i[mplement policies and facilities proposed in the Active LE Plan whenever planning new C -5 facilities... that may be related to bicycle or pedestrian improvements" (p. 45), Policy 4.3 requires that the City "[sjtandardize the incorporation of lighting in all active transportation facilities and require private developers to do the same' (p. 47). and Policy 6.2 which looks to 1clonduct before and after bicycle and pedestrian counts with the implementation of new infrastructure projects..." (p. 49). Taken together, it is evident that those Policies (and indeed, the entire Active LE Plan itself) mean that this Project is in fact in conflict with an adopted plan. We would hope that the Project would he modified accordingly to avoid this situation, Unfortunately. I was unable to locate the Appendicesto C -6 the Active LE Plan which are referenced within the document, including Appendix A - Lake Elsinore Design Guidelines. It is assumed that those Guidelines contain information for the design of all proposed facilities, including Class I multiuse paths. However, if forsome reason theydonot address them, then the standards in Chapter 1000 ofthe Caltrans Highway Design Manual should be referenced forthe design and construction ofthe path. Additionally, Policy 1.3 indicates that the City would be adopting design guides from the National Association of City Transport Officials tosupplement the Caltrans Manual ofUnifonnTraffic Control Devices. In light of that, we would like to see the guidance which they have developed for C -7 intersections to be applied to this Project, including the driveways as well as the modification of the intersection at Lemon Street. "Ibis is to ensure that path users are afforded an uninterrupted path of travel. On the other hand, failure to do so would likely mean that the inclusion of the path would introduce hazards due to design. Finally, although the V MT analysis prepared for the Project determined that it has a less -than- significant impact due to its size and type, inclusion ofthe planned path would still provide a positive contribution to that portion of the Project by making it easier for people to access the planned shops C -8 by means outside of a car. As noted in the V MT analysis, this project is presumed to be beneficial because R is local - serving and reduces the distance that people would have to travel to reach it and that also applies to bicycling and walking as those modes typically happen within a close proximity P.O. BOX 8636 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org 951.394.3223 RESPONSES C -4 The City recognizes the differences between Class I and Class II bicycle facilities. For reasons discussed in Response C -3, the project would develop Class II bike lanes, which would be in accordance with the original plans included in the City's General Plan. These would be an improvement over existing conditions and would not preclude future implementation of additional planned improvements. C -5 In accordance with goals and policies included in the Active LE Plan, the project would provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities where none currently exist, thus improving the City's active transportation network. Many of the goals and policies included in Active LE Plan are to be implemented at the City-wide level to guide the development of future improvements under the Active LE Plan, where and when determined by the City to be appropriate and feasible. C -6 The City respectfully disagrees that the project is in conflict with an adopted plan, as discussed in Responses C -3 and C -5, and project modifications are not necessary. C -7 The project's driveways and intersection improvements at Lemon Drive have been designed in accordance with applicable guidelines and have undergone review with the City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Department to ensure safe and effective use for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The project would not introduce design - related hazards. C -8 The City agrees that pedestrian and bicycle facilities can be beneficial by serving as additional access options to the project and can contribute to reducing project - generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would be provided would allow for such benefits. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -8 COMMENTS JOW INLAND EMPIRL Vr BIKING ALLIANCE C -g Cont. ofhome. The path would improve that access even furl her, pro,, id an increase in economic activity to the shops themselves in the proressl. In sunanary, the IS-101TI) which has been prepared for the Project has exposed a potentially worrying situation which is that alter all the effort that went into preparing the Active I.F. plan. the City is not bothering to follow it and ensure [hat future developments such as this Projecl adhere to it. We are C -9 lookntg to ensure that the City and developer return to the drawing board to ensure that the planned facilities are included in the Project (or at the very least, to ensure that the necessary space for their construction is dedicated from the Project and fair share dctcmtined ). Anything less amounts to an unmitigated impact which is quite significant as it would rcquirc substantial resources from the City to rectify in the fur ure while also putting bicyclists and pedestrians at risk in that interim. Ifthere are any additional questions about the conunents being provided, please do not hesitate to mach out to have them clarified. Sincerely. (KING ALLIANCE Marven E•. Norman, Executive I ' Flusche, D. (20121. Bicycling means business: The economic benefits of bicycle infrastructure. Advocacy Advance. Revievedonline from https://www,bikeleague.crg/ sites / default / files /Bicycling_and_the_Economy- Econ_lmpact_Studles_we b.pdf. P.O. BOX 8636 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org 951.394.3223 RESPONSES C -9 Please see Response C -3. The Active LE Plan provides a conceptual framework for future active transportation improvements. Construction - level plans are not currently available for the multi -use path and the project can therefore not integrate the multi -use path into its design; however, the project would not preclude the future development of a multi -use path in this area. Development of a portion of the multi -use path along the project frontage as part of the project would be piecemeal and isolated from other sections of multi -use path. By contrast, a more detailed design developed in the future would allow for a more complete, consistent, and functional active transportation network. The City has determined that the project would not result in a significant impact under CEQA as related to conflict with a transportation plan. Through providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities where none currently exist, the project would reduce risk for bicyclists and pedestrians rather than increase risk. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -9 This page intentionally left blank Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page RTC -10 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Corydon Gateway project. For purposes of this document, this application will be called the "proposed project." B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT As defined by Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur: The project has the potential to: substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. • The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. • The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. • The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration can be adopted if it can be determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted if it is determined that although the Initial Study identifies that the project may have potentially significant effects on the environment, revisions in the project plans and/or mitigation measures, which would avoid or mitigate the effects to below the level of significance, have been made or agreed to by the applicant. This Initial Study has determined that the proposed project may result in potentially significant environmental effects but that said effects can be reduced to below the level of significance through the implementation of mitigation measures and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary environmental evaluations and clearance. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page I of 84 This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.); the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA Guidelines "), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.); applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or agency with jurisdiction by law. The City of Lake Elsinore is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment. C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents which are intended to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision - makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021). The City of Lake Elsinore City Council, as Lead Agency, has determined that environmental clearance for the proposed project can be provided with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study and Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration were circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments received on the document were considered by the Lead Agency before it acted on the proposed project. D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed project. I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of Lake Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental procedures, and incorporation by reference documents. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of discretionary approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City's Environmental Checklist Form. The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those areas that would have either a potentially significant impact, a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, a less than significant impact, or no impact. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS provides the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures are also set forth, as appropriate, that would reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to levels of less than significance. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 2 of 84 V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form for the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 21083(b) of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those individuals consulted and involved in the preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document. E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. All responses will take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including: 1. No Impact: A "No Impact" response is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels of thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. 3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 4. Potentially Significant Impact: There is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have impacts that are considered potentially significant and an EIR is required. F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on the incorporation by reference of tiered documentation and technical studies that have been prepared for the proposed project which are discussed in the following section. 1. Tiered Documents As permitted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a)the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 3 of 84 Tiering is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15385 as follows: "Tiering" refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site - specific EIRs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the EIR subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of EIRs is: (a) From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIR of lesser scope or to a site - specific EIR; (b) From an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the Lead Agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which discourages repetitive analyses, as follows: "Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site - specific EIR or negative declaration." Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states: "Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which: (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions or other means." For this document, the "City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report" certified December 13, 2011 (SCH #2005121019) serves as the broader document, since it analyzes the entire City area, which includes the proposed project site. However, as discussed, site - specific impacts, which the broader document (City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report) cannot adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This document, therefore, evaluates each environmental issue alone and will rely upon the analysis contained within the Lake Elsinore General Plan Final EIR with respect to remaining issue areas. 2. Incorporation by Reference An EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 4 of 84 document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]) Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs /MND and is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly- drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as follows: 0 Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, such other document shall be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building. The EIR or Negative Declaration shall state where the incorporated documents will be available for inspection. At a minimum, the incorporated document shall be made available to the public in an office of the Lead Agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b]) • The incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]) • This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]). 3. Documents Incorporated by Reference /Technical Studies a. The following document(s) is /are incorporated by reference: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report ( "General Plan EIR ") (SCH #2005121019), certified December 13, 2011. The General Plan EIR, from which this document is tiered, addresses the entire City of Lake Elsinore and provides background and inventory information and data which apply to the project site. Incorporated information and/or data will be cited in the appropriate sections. b. Various technical reports have been prepared to assess specific issues that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. As relevant, information from these technical reports has been incorporated into the Initial Study. The following technical reports are included as appendices to this Initial Study: • Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, September 14, 2020. Appendix B: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Determination, prepared by L &L Environmental, Inc., September 2020. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 5 of 84 • Appendix C: Joint Project Review (JPR 20- 06- 09 -01) for the LEAP 2020 -02 1Corydon Gateway, prepared by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservative Authority (RCA), September 24, 2020. • Appendix D: Review of the Joint Project Review (JPR 20- 06- 09 -01) for the LEAP 2020- 02 /Corydon Gateway, provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, October 12, 2020. • Appendix E: Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by L &L Environmental, Inc., March 18, 2020. • Appendix F: CEQA Energy Review, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, January 28, 2020. • Appendix G: Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, prepared by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., June 12, 2020. • Appendix H: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., September 27, 2019. • Appendix I: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by KWC Engineers, September 2020. • Appendix J: Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, September 15, 2020. • Appendix K: Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Trames Solutions, Inc., August 12, 2020. • Appendix L: Vehicles Miles Traveled Evaluation, prepared by Trames Solutions, Inc. August 12, 2020. c. The above - listed documents and technical studies are available for review at: City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Hours: Mon- Thurs: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Friday: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. Closed Holidays Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 6 of 84 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The proposed project is located in the City of Lake Elsinore (City), in the western portion of Riverside County, California (see Figure 1, Regional Location). The approximately 6.05 -acre project site (Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 370 - 050 -026 and a portion of 370 - 050 -030]) is located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street, approximately 0.7 mile west of Interstate (1 -) 15 and 2.3 miles east of Lake Elsinore (see Figure 2, Project Vicinity [Aerial Photograph]). The project site is located within the East Lake Specific Plan area and has a land use designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation. The site is zoned Specific Plan (SP). Access to the site is provided from Corydon Street and Mission Trail. The site is currently vacant and characterized by non - native grassland that is regularly disturbed for weed abatement. Topographically, the site is generally level with the elevation ranging from 1,267 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) along the western edge of the site to 1,278 feet AMSL along the eastern edge. The predominant surface soil type is Ramona very fine sandy loam with some Waukena loamy fine sand present along the western portion of the site. Land to the north of the project site is vacant and land to the south is developed with light industrial uses. Commercial and light industrial uses, interspersed with low- density residential uses, are located to the east across Mission Trail within the City of Wildomar. The Lake Elsinore Motorsports Parkway is located to the west, separated from the project site by a chain- link/barbed wire fence and a low- relief berm. A fenced/gated drainage easement owned by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is present along the project site's southern boundary. Additional uses in the vicinity include Skylark Field and Skydive Lake Elsinore southwest of the project site along Cereal Street. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 37977), Commercial Design Review (CDR 2020 -02) Application, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2020 -05). TTM 37977 would subdivide the 6.05 -acre project site into six (6) parcels for commercial development and one lot for a detention basin. The proposed commercial uses include a 2,300- square -foot (sf) fast food restaurant with a drive -thru (Parcel 1), a 4,088 -sf 7- Eleven convenience store (with the concurrent sale of beer and wine — Type 20 ABC license) and gas station with 16 fueling stations under a 4,285 -sf fueling canopy (Parcel 2) with a maximum throughput of 1.87 million gallons of gasoline per year, a 4,333 -sf Superstar Car Wash express tunnel car wash with vacuum bays (Parcel 3), a 5,200 -sf tire store (Parcel 4), and 11 flex -tech condos (Parcels 5 and 6), including 10 1,920 -sf condos and one (1) 2,880 -sf condo. Each of the flex -tech condos would include 500 sf of office space (see Figure 3, Site Plan). The remaining area within Parcels 5 and 6 would be used for storage or warehouse space, including 1,420 sf for the 1,920 -sf condos and 2,380 sf for the 2,880 -sf condo. As the flex -tech condos would be leased, internal improvements may be conducted after initial project development to meet the layout requirements of prospective tenants. The project would also involve off - site roadway improvements, including extending Lemon Street west along the northern boundary of the project site and widening and improving the portions of Mission Trail and Corydon Street adjacent to the project site to include project access driveways, sidewalks, and bike lanes. The proposed uses would be developed over two phases. Development of the convenience store and gas station, tunnel car wash, fast food restaurant, and detention basin, as well as off -site improvements and utility infrastructure, would occur during Phase 1. Development of the flex -tech condos and tire store would occur during Phase 2. Table 1, Tentative Tract Map Parcels, details the phase, size, and use of each of the six TTM parcels and detention basin Lot A. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 7 of 84 Table 1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PARCELS Parcel Number Phase Number Approximate Parcel Size acres Approximate Building Size s Proposed Use 1 1 0.63 2,300 Fast food restaurant with drive -thru 2 1 1.09 4,088 Convenience store with gas statin 3 1 1.10 4,333 Tunnel car wash 4 2 0.86 5,200 Tire store 5 2 1.04 9,600 Flex -tech condos 6 2 1.10 12,480 Flex -tech condos Lot A 2 0.22 N/A Detention basin N/A = not applicable; sf = square feet The 7- Eleven proposes to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The Superstar Car Wash proposes to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days per week. The hours of operation of the remaining uses would be based on tenants that occupy the uses. Architectural Design The zoning of the project site restricts the maximum building height to 30 feet. Buildings would range in height from 26 feet (for the fast food restaurant and tire shop) to 30 feet (for the flex -tech condos). The maximum height of each building would not be uniform across the building. Rather, each building would incorporate varying facades and architectural elements (such as parapets) of different heights that would provide for a varying roofline. The gas station canopy would be level and would have a height at the top of the canopy of 17.5 feet and at the bottom of the canopy of 14.5 feet. Eight supporting canopy columns would be provided towards the center of the canopy to form a "T- shaped" structure. Figures 4a through 4c, Conceptual Street Views, provide a conceptual depiction of the exterior building materials proposed to be used, as seen from adjacent roadways. The buildings would be constructed of earth -tone (off - white, light brown, and gray) exterior cement plaster, brick veneer, and brown composite siding. The material type, as well as massing and height, would vary for the multiple fagades and architectural components proposed for each building. Portions of the building fronts would be anodized clear aluminum. The buildings would incorporate decorative architectural features including light fixtures, aluminum canopies, and aluminum cornices that would be either clear or anodized dark bronze, as well as galvanized sheet metal coping on the top of the exterior walls. Access, Circulation, and Parking Access to the site would be provided via an ingress /egress located just north of the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street (central access) and an additional ingress /egress to be provided farther south along Corydon Street (southern access). The project would extend Lemon Street west from Mission Trail along the northern property boundary via a proposed reciprocal access easement, which would provide northern access to the project site. The exiting traffic signal at the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street would be modified to accommodate the new roadway segment. A total of 143 parking spaces would be provided on site, including seven (7) accessible parking spaces and 11 clean air vehicle parking spaces. All clean air vehicle parking spaces would be provided with infrastructure for the addition of future electrical vehicle charging stations. Proposed parking would exceed the minimum 121 parking spaces required for the site per the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), as Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 8 of 84 HELIXEnvironmental nning Regional Location Figure 1 ® Project Site N 1:;'s I,. { OL - r,? Li i Corvdon G E„. XM 4 AA . ,.r� Ar ifs 0 500 Feet HELIXEnvironmental Planning 'J A. mow Iti 4 �I 'T'�'-.�_i�•'� '�il�.i �.. - IT, Pic tr Source: Aerial (RCIT, 2016) Project Vicinity (Aerial Photograph) Figure 2 n I I PAIR OF TRAVEL PPACEL I /PPACEL2 CIPRWA CESS r DIRECnON SIGN DRIVEWAY �i ' r b r M01 DETENTION _ -- -- --7 -------------------------- - - - - - -- - LOT A 022 AC 9,494 SFt PARCEL 6 �0 ( ) 4 AC (48,077 SF±) - �� sew ST 94 4.3 33 SF p - — 1 2a � i oa Sj EL 4 — _ Tit � m l 1 J i ROF: I E WROGRAM 66 7,472 SF ±)I L PARCELS 4i J L - -J 1.1DAC(47AWSF;t)Fdi — � 7- ELEVEN 4 088 SF , .� allE� •� PA . DIM 194 AC 45. I � sensF 1 � - PATkGF1R4Fl f /. ' 1FFA3N3 M 'O lob ' rte- 7 J -XTECH CONDOS 22,080 SF PARCEL2 1.09 AC (47,694 SII) CORNERW UMENT EXISTING STORAGE YARD ��J��J Y SIGN- l REF: SIGN NOT A PART 0. 79 SFt , OISET�R4CIG( f� EYJSTING TRAFFIC SIGN. I Wa:awnWDmrr 41 � e � rf r EXISTING INDUSTRIAL / r NOT A PART l / ML<nreuwr r �rWV:s�Pn�o�r f�l HELIX Environmental Planning Source: GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS (2020) Site Plan Figure 3 STREET VIEW FROM CORYDON ROAD- LOOKING NORTH on Source: GK Pierce Architects (2020) HELIX Conceptual Street Views Environmental Planning Figure 4a STREET VIEW FROM CORYDON/ MISSION TRAIL INTERSECTION- LOOKING NORTHWEST HELIX Environmental Planning on Source: GK Pierce Architects (2020) Conceatual Street Views Figure 4b STREET VIEW FROM MISSION TRAIL/ LEMON INTERSECTION- LOOKING SOUTHWEST on Source: GK Pierce Architects (2020) HELIX Conceptual Street Views Environmental Planning Figure 4c well as the current California Building Code and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirements for accessible and clean air vehicle parking, respectively. Landscaping, Bio- retention Basin, and Hardscape The project site would include approximately 40,826 sf of landscaping, representing 15.5 percent of the site (see Figure 5, Conceptual Landscape Plan). As shown in Figure 5, implementation of the landscape plan would include installation of trees along the western, southern, and eastern property boundaries; it is expected that trees would be installed along the northern property boundary by the future developer of the adjacent property. A continuous line of trees along the southwestern boundary of the project site would provide visual screening between the project site and the adjacent light industrial uses. Trees, as well as shrubs and 30 -inch tall screen hedges, would also be provided within the numerous parking lot islands throughout the site. The tree planting mix is proposed to consist of six types of trees of varying sizes, shapes, and styles, including crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), Brisbane box (Lophostemon confertus), Chinese flame tree (Koelreuteria bipinnata), ornamental pear (Pyrus calleryana), London plane tree (Platanus x acerifolia), and evergreen elm (Ulmus Parvifolia) (see Figure 5). A variety of shrubs is proposed to be utilized for landscape massing, accent plantings, groundcover, and screening. Examples include, but are not limited to, bougainvillea (Bougainvillea cvr.) and orchid rockrose (Cistus x purpureus) for massing, English Lavender (Lavandula augustifolia `hidcote') and New Zealand Flax (Phormium tenax) for accent planting, and dwarf myrtle (Myrtus communis `compacta') and Indian hawthome (Rhaphiolepis indica cvr.) for screening (see Figure 5 for full list). Vines or other landscape screening would be provided around all trash enclosures, and landscape screening would be provided for above - ground equipment. Landscaping would be permanently maintained by the developer. A detention basin would be located in the westernmost portion of the project site to serve as a bioretention basin for stormwater runoff. The basin would capture stormwater runoff from a proposed 24 -inch storm drain that would run from the central portion of the site, along the northern property boundary, and into the basin. The basin would include an inlet filter that would treat stormwater runoff from the project site. Water would then be diverted into the adjacent Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channel, which leads to Lake Elsinore. The basin would be enclosed by a six - foot -high chain -link fence and separated from the project site by a five- foot -wide bench that would surround the basin for stormwater retention. The basin would be regularly maintained to ensure effective operation of runoff control. Concrete in a natural gray color would be used for all interior sidewalks. A retaining wall would be provided along the project site's southwestern boundary between the project site and the adjacent Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channel. The wall would range in height from 0.5 feet at the end portions of the wall to 3 feet to 4.5 feet in the middle portion of the wall. Signage The project's sign program presents a coordinated signage theme encompassing all phases of the project. The signs would reflect the architecture proposed for the project as related to style, materials, and colors (see Figures 4a through 4c). Proposed signs include: • A small directional sign near the project's northern access. • Two multi- tenant monument signs, one at the project's northeastern corner near the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street and one at the project's southern corner along Corydon Street. • Two single- tenant monument signs, one near the proposed 7- Eleven along Mission Trail and one near the proposed drive -thru fast food restaurant along Corydon Street. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study/MND Page 9 of 84 One corner monument sign near the intersection of Mission Trail and Corydon Street. • Two fuel pricing monument signs, one at the project's southern access along Corydon Street and one at the project's central access along Mission Trail. Utilities Water would be provided to the project site via three water lines that would connect to existing off -site water lines and feed into numerous proposed lines within the project site. The first would be an 8 -inch potable water line that would connect to an existing 24 -inch line at the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street, run west along the northern boundary of the project site within the proposed Lemon Street roadway extension, and then turn south to provide connections within the northern portion of the project site. A second 8 -inch line, this one for fire service, would connect to the same existing 24 -inch line just south of the first proposed 8 -inch line and would run along the northern portion the project site. The third line would be a 12 -inch potable water line that would connect to an existing 12 -inch line within Mission Trail just north of its intersection with Corydon Street and run southwest along Corydon Street to near the project site's southern access, where it would connect to two proposed 8 -inch lines (one being a fire water line) that would run northwest to provide connections within the southern portion of the project site. An 8 -inch sewer line would be provided within the project site and would connect to an existing 18 -inch sewer line within Corydon Street near the project site's southern access. A proposed 24 -inch storm drain would run from near the center of the project site north to the proposed Lemon Street roadway extension, then west along the roadway to the proposed detention basin. Electricity would be provided to the project by Southern California Edison (SCE). Natural gas would be provided by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas). The project would connect to existing SCE electrical lines and SoCalGas natural gas lines, as well as existing telecommunications lines. Project Phasing and Construction As discussed above, the project is proposed to be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would include all off -site improvements, utility infrastructure, convenience store and gas station, tunnel car wash, fast food restaurant, and the detention basin. Phase 2 would include the flex -tech condos and tire store. Construction of Phase 1 is anticipated to start summer 2021 and conclude in early 2022. The timing of Phase 2 would be dependent on negations with future tenants of the flex -tech condos and tire store. Earthwork for the site is anticipated to require 2,809 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 5,975 cy of fill for a net import of 3,166 cy. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 10 of 84 EXISTING PARCEL LINE BUSINESS CONDOS 22,080 SF TREES ON NORTH SIDE OF DRIVE TO BE INSTALLED BY FI IT[ IRF nFVFI nPFR 950 QO O PARCEL I /PARCEL2 RECIPROCAL ACCESS 30" HIGH SCREEN r RECTIONAL S DI IGN DRIVEWAY HEDGE n� 1.10 AC (47,910 30 "HIGH —� /// \ c� SCREEN PROJECT \DGE o� 7NAGE I� I I II PLANT PALETTE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE DESCRIPTION CITY LEMON STREET MIX OF TREES SHALL INCLUDE 4 AT LEAST: 25% 15- GALLON TREES, Lagersbcemia mama ]6 %24' -BOX TREES, AND crape MYrtle 5 %36' -BOX TREES BOx 36' Box Da=la1o11 gowenng accem 17 M_O ERIC EXISTING — — IHAFFC SIGNAL 24 ^Box Ev�rgreen tall - -I A Lop/askmon contents Bbsbane Box 36" Box ve cel 38 D.cetluau oval _ _ _ Koelreuferia bipinnak CM1lnesa Flema Tree 36' Box tree ] (�//�� PYVS raneryana Ornamental Pear 24 "Box Ded.U........ 2 `-W Plaknuaxarerildia Lantlan Plane Tree 15 Gal Decitluous oval treel tree 7 • pa Nlia'TVeG en' Eve gr en Elm Box Evergreen broetl 2 dome 1JUlmus I I II - - I m PRppi JEC�11II I 100% OF SHRUBS SHALL BE INSTALLED NOT SELLSTOCK LARGER THAN ATE GALLON SIZE UNLESS I GALLON SIZE. SHRUBS SHALL Bou9alnNlka cvr. THE SHRUB'S MATURE SIZE BE PLACED ATAMAXIMUM Bou9alnNlka IS SUCH THAT OF 36' APART 5Gal NURSERIES DO ON AVERAGE. Massing 39,3 F SIGNAGF, II I Cis NS xpuroureus Orchla ROCkrosa 5Ga1 Massing i Coprosma repens'Ma21e Oueen Mrtror Plant 5 Gal Sbade massing i I Dkles'L, FoMigM1l Lily 5 Gal Accent R.O.W. DEDTCATI L.vanaula augusfiNlia'Hitlmk' E,SINh Lavender 1Ga1 Accent Lepkspermum smpanum New Zealand Tea Tree 5Ga1 Background massing " Leuc hyl.m fiutescens'COmpada' Compad Texas Ranger E Gal Screening l Massing JI Ugustrumjappnicum Texanum' Texas Privet 5Gal Screening Utlope Big Blue Lily Turt 1 Gal SM1ade PRgJECT LL muscari massing O I SITAG& I Mynas.....ls'_t­.' Dwart Myrtle 5Ga1 Saeeningl Massing _m�i Z O PM1Ormium tmex New Zealantl Flax 5 Gel A—It I III i Pilksporum kblro Mock Orange SGaI Screening) Massing I RM1apM1idepls intlica cvr. Rosa'Flower Carpet IId- Hawlborne Groundcpver ROSe 5 Gal 5Ga1 Screening l Massing Accent l Massing 36 �J I SeI1 develaMii .1w, leuwnMa'Sanfa 6elUera' Cl­­ Sege Mexican 3 -Sage 5 Gel 50.1 Accent I Messing Accent l M ... ign ll FesNCa iaaboensis'Siskiyou Blue' Si,,Nyou Blue ld.h. Fescue 1 Gel Fore .d Massing � I - DisXdus bucunakna Blood Retl Trumpet Vlne 15 Gal BUILDING SETBACK I M.cradyana Ig.1— Cars claw Vine 15 Gel MONUMENT SIGNAGEI w.TURALCw.v carvcREre. MEDIUM ....M FINISH 30" HIGH SCREEN EXISTING TRAFFIC tOJ CT HEDGE SIGNAL G AGE O Source: Pacific Landscape Studio (2020) HELIX Conceptual Landscape Plan Environmental Planning Figure 5 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Corydon Gateway 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner, (951) 674 -3124, ext. 913 4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Mission Trail and Corydon Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mark Cooper, RED Corydon, LLC, 25425 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 101, Murrieta, CA 92562 6. General Plan Designation: Specific Plan (East Lake Specific Plan — Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation) 7. Zoning: Specific Plan (SP) 8. Description of Project: See project description in Section II.B, Project Description, above. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See project location and setting in Section II.A, Project Location and Setting, above. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction of Land Disturbance Activities (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] Order No. 2009 - 0009 -DWQ, NPDES No. CA2000002), in addition to related City requirements for storm water and erosion control; South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Permit to Operate; Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project Review; Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Encroachment Permit 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc. ?: In accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City sent notification to six (6) Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area on May 1, 2020. Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians requested formal government -to- government consultation under AB 52. Consultation was concluded on June 17, 2020 with the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, on October 26, 2020 with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and on October 20, 2020 with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Mitigation measures have been added to address a concern over the potential for uncovering tribal cultural resources (TCRs) or other tribal - affiliated resources during construction of the project. Please see Section XVIII of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist for more detail. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 11 of 84 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Geology /Soils ® Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Emissions Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ® Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities /Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ® Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ,�4 Az� 10/28/2020 Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner Date Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 12 of 84 I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, Potentially Significant Less Than No but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and Significant With Significant Impact historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact Mitigation Impact c) In non - urbanized areas, substantially degrade the Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ ❑ historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non - urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are El El ❑ those that are experienced from publicly accessible ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ® ❑ views in the area? El 11 El II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the El El ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or El El ❑ a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of El 11 El forest land to non - forest uses? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 13 of 84 III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El Less Than El applicable air quality plan? Potentially Significant Less Than No b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase Significant With Significant Impact of any criteria pollutant for which the project region Impact Mitigation Impact El non - attainment under an applicable federal or Incorporated III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El El El applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase E] ® 1:1 1:1 of any criteria pollutant for which the project region El El ® El non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to ❑ ® ❑ ❑ odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status E] ® 1:1 1:1 in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through ❑ ❑ ❑ direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory ❑ ® ❑ ❑ wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community 1:1 ® 1:1 1:1 Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 14 of 84 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the Less Than significance of a historical resource pursuant to Potentially Significant Less Than No CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? Significant With Significant Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the Impact Mitigation Impact significance of an archaeological resource pursuant ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those El [A El El outside of formal cemeteries? VI. ENERGY. Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary ❑ ❑ ® ❑ consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for ❑ ❑ ® ❑ renewable energy or energy efficiency? VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ El ® El liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ El ® El topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 15 of 84 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly Less Than or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on Potentially Significant Less Than No the environment? Significant With Significant Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or Impact Mitigation Impact regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater E] ❑ 1:1 disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? El El ® El f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ feature? VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ emissions of greenhouse gases? IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset El El ® El and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, El El ® El substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ death involving wildland fires? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 16 of 84 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ Less Than ❑ discharge requirements or otherwise substantially Potentially Significant Less Than No degrade surface or ground water quality? Significant With Significant Impact b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or Impact Mitigation Impact interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, El Incorporated ® El X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements or otherwise substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ degrade surface or ground water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, El El ® El that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ off -site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ in flooding on- or offsite; iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk L1 El ® El of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ residents of the state? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 17 of 84 XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent ❑ Less Than ® ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Potentially Significant Less Than No project in excess of standards established in the local Significant With Significant Impact general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable Impact Mitigation Impact ❑ standards of other agencies? ❑ Incorporated ® ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - El 1:1 ® El important mineral resource recovery site delineated E] ❑ ® 1:1 on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project in excess of standards established in the local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or El 1:1 ® El noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a El El ® El airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ an area, either directly (for example, by proposing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ example, through extension of roads or other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other public services /facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 18 of 84 XVI. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other Potentially Significant Less Than No recreational facilities such that substantial physical Significant With Significant Impact deterioration of the facility would occur or be Impact Mitigation Impact F-1 accelerated? Incorporated XVI. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ® ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ recreational facilities such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be F-1 F-1 ® F-1 accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ require the construction or expansion of recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ F-1 facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy ❑ ® ❑ ❑ addressing the circulation system, including transit, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with F-1 F-1 ® F-1 CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric ❑ ® ❑ ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous F-1 F-1 ® F-1 intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XVIII.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 19 of 84 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of El Less Than ® ❑ new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or Potentially Significant Less Than No storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or Significant With Significant Impact facilities, the construction or Impact Mitigation Impact ❑ relocation of which could cause significant Incorporated XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of El ❑ ® ❑ new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or El El ® El facilities, the construction or El ❑ ® ❑ relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future El El ® El during normal, dry and multiple dry El El ® El years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's projected demand in addition to the El ❑ ® ❑ provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local El El ® El infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency El ❑ ® ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose El ❑ ® ❑ project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other El El ® El that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or El ❑ ® ❑ landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 20 of 84 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially Less Than degrade the quality of the environment, Potentially Significant Less Than No substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife Significant With Significant Impact species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop Impact Mitigation Impact below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a E] Incorporated 1:1 1:1 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a E] ® 1:1 1:1 or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ beings, either directly or indirectly? Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 21 of 84 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. A complete list of the reference sources applicable to the following source abbreviations is contained in Section VII, References, of this document. I. AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact The City's aesthetic setting is characterized by urbanized development of various densities occurring within varied topographical features and interspersed with undeveloped natural areas. Scenic resources within and surrounding the City include Lake Elsinore, portions of the Cleveland National Forest, rugged hillside land, distant mountains and ridgelines, rocky outcroppings, streams, vacant land with native vegetation, parkland, and buildings of historical and cultural significance. Views of these scenic resources within and surrounding the City are the prominent scenic vistas identified in the General Plan and General Plan EIR. Due to the importance of Lake Elsinore as the largest natural lake in southern California, scenic resources were addressed in the General Plan by identifying public vantage points of the lake throughout the City. Vantage points identified in Figure 4.10 of the General Plan include northbound I -15, State Route (SR -) 74 /Ortega Highway, the Lake Elsinore Recreation Area and Campground, the baseball stadium, the boat launch on the eastern edge of the lake, and the Aloha Pier lookout. There are no recognized scenic vistas on the project site or in the project vicinity. Therefore, while views of portions of the distant mountains and ridgelines to the southwest of the project site may be temporarily obstructed for passing motorists on Mission Trail from the project's buildings, this area is not a prominent public viewpoint and scenic vistas would not be substantially affected. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact) California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the legislature in 1963 to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either currently designated or eligible for designation as scenic highways. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) currently identifies both I -15 and SR -74 as eligible for listing as state scenic highways, but they not yet officially designated. The project site is located approximately 0.6 mile from I -15 and 4.5 miles from the closest portion of SR -74. The project also would not result in impacts to scenic trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Accordingly, no impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California State Scenic Highway System Map [Caltrans 2018]) c) In non - urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less Than Significant Impact) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 22 of 84 CEQA defines the term "urbanized area" to mean an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) data from 2019 indicates that the City has a population of 69,283 and the adjacent City of Wildomar has a population of 37,229 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Thus, the project site is considered to be located within an urbanized area and is evaluated relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The proposed project involves the development of a commercial retail center on an existing undeveloped lot, which would change the visual character of the site. The project site, as well as the areas to the north and west, are within the East Lake Specific Plan area and have a land use designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation. Development of the project would follow the design guidelines contained in the East Lake Specific Plan, which would provide for consistency in visual character between the project and existing and future development in the adjacent areas that are also within the East Lake Specific Plan area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts related to visual character would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: East Lake Specific Plan, U.S. Census Bureau) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less Than Significant Imnact) According to the City's General Plan, light and glare impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory are of concern to the City. Areas of light pollution impacts have been identified through a "ring analysis," where primary impacts to the Observatory are within a 30 -mile radius, and secondary impacts are within a radius of up to 45 miles. According to General Plan Figure 4.12, the project site is located within the 45 -mile secondary impacts radius. The project site is currently undeveloped, with no existing on -site sources of light or glare. Existing sources of night lighting attributed to nearby light industrial, commercial, and residential development include street lamps, accent and security lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicle headlights. Development of the project would be required to comply with Section 17.112.040, Lighting (for Nonresidential Development), of the LEMC. Section 17.112.040 requires all outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of 60 watts to be oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through the luminaire and prevent glare or illumination on adjacent properties or streets. This section of the LEMC encourages the use of low- pressure sodium vapor lighting due to the City's proximity to the Mount Palomar Observatory. Sources of glare during the day result primarily from parked cars located in large parking lots and from sunlight reflected from window glazing on buildings. The proposed project would introduce new sources of daytime glare due to the new building surfaces and vehicles at the site; however, glare created by the proposed project would be similar to the glare that is emitted by the surrounding development. Based on the above considerations, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Potential impacts associated with light or glare would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, General Plan EIR, LEMC) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 23 of 84 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? (No Impact) According to the City's General Plan EIR (City 201 lb), agricultural uses constitute approximately 0.8 percent of the City's total acreage. Some of this existing agricultural land, as well as vacant land used for purposes other than agriculture, are designated by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) as Farmland of Local Importance (554 acres within the City), Grazing Land (827 acres within the City), and Unique Farmland (25 acres within the City) (City 201 lb). Remaining land is considered Urban/Built-Up Land or Other Land, reflecting its developed uses or other characteristics making it unsuitable for agriculture. The project site is an undeveloped property that is designated by the FMMP as Farmland of Local Importance (CDC 2016). The site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In addition, the site has a land use designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation. The site is currently not used for agriculture nor is it planned to be used for agriculture. Therefore, there would be no conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non - agricultural use as a result of this project. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, CDC FMMP) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the Lake Elsinore Zoning Code does not contain agricultural zones or zones that principally allow for agriculture. Further, the City's General Plan EIR indicates that there are no Williamson Act agricultural preserves within the City boundaries. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Zoning Map, General Plan EIR) c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (No Impact) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest uses? (No Impact) Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The City's General Plan does not identify specific designations for forest land or timberland uses, nor is there a zoning designated for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production within City limits. The project site is vacant and not currently being managed or used for forest land or timberland. No impact would occur. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 24 of 84 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, Zoning Map, Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)) e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? (No Impact) There are no agricultural operations or timberland production operations within the project site; therefore, the project would not result in conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Zoning Map) III. AIR QUALITY This section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impact Study prepared for the proposed project by MD Acoustics, LLC (2020a, Appendix A). The project's construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The results and conclusions of the report and calculations relative to pollutant emissions are summarized herein. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No Impact) The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The AQMP is a series of plans adopted for the purpose of reaching short- and long -term goals for those pollutants the SCAB is designated as a `nonattainment' area because the SCAQMD does not meet federal and/or state Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). The land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP are based on the regional growth forecasts included in SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) /Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is a long -range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends over a 20 -year period to identify regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. Both the RTP /SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans. The two principal criteria for conformance to the AQMP are (1) whether a project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards; and (2) whether a project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. As described below under Item 111(b), pollutant emissions from the project would be less than the SCAQMD thresholds and would not result in a significant impact. Further, the project does not involve a change to a General Plan or zoning designation and, therefore, would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP. As such, the project would not conflict with the AQMP and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics [2020a, Appendix A]) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 25 of 84 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact) The project would result in criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operation. Construction activities that would generate emissions are anticipated to include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Operational sources of emissions would include vehicular sources, natural gas use, landscape equipment use, consumer products, and architectural coatings. Both construction and operation would result in emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROGs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5). The SCAQMD has thresholds for emissions of each of these pollutants, as identified below in Table 2, Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds. The attainment status for criteria pollutants in the SCAB is shown in Table 3, South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status. Table 2 MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS (pounds per day) Pollutant Construction Operations Reactive Organic Gases ROGs 75 55 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 Carbon Monoxide CO 550 550 Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter PMIO 150 150 Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) 55 55 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD 2019 Table 3 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN CRITERIA POLLUTANT ATTAINMENT STATUS Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone Os — 1 -hour standard o federal standard Nonattainment Ozone 03 — 8 -hour Standard Extreme Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide CO Attainment Maintenance Attainment Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter PM,o Attainment Maintenance Nonattainment Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide Oz Attainment Maintenance Attainment Sulfur Dioxide SOz Attainment Attainment Sulfates o federal standard Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) (No federal standard Attainment Source: SCAQMD 2016 If the project's criteria pollutant and precursor emissions during construction and operation are below the SCAQMD daily regional thresholds, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. To determine whether the project's emissions would result a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is in non - attainment, or contribute substantially to a projected air quality violation, the project's emissions were evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as described below and shown in Table 4, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, and Table 5, Maximum Daily Operational Emissions. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 26 of 84 Construction Emissions As discussed above, the project would result in criteria pollutant emissions during its various construction activities, including site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions." Fugitive dust emissions include PMIo and PM2.5. Average daily PMIo emissions during site grading and other disturbance average about 10 pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures (RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities. With the use of BACMs, fugitive dust emissions can be reduced to one to two pounds per day per acre disturbed. The estimated construction emissions calculated for the proposed project are presented below in Table 4. Table 4 MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Category ROG NOx CO S02 PMio PM2.5 Site Preparation <0.5 2 3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Grading 3 26 17 <0.5 4 3 Building Construction 3 24 22 <0.5 3 1 Paving 2 13 15 <0.5 1 1 Architectural Coating 20 2 3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Maximum Daily Emissions' 25 38 40 <0.5 4 2 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: MD Acoustics 2020a Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Construction emissions calculations incorporate SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (Fugitive Dust), which include standard requirements the project would incorporate. ' Maximum daily emissions would occur if /when the building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases overlap. ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District As shown in Table 4, maximum daily construction emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions and impacts would be less than significant. Operational Emissions Operational emissions associated with the proposed project, including those from area, energy, and mobile sources, are shown below in Table 5. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 27 of 84 Table 5 MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Category ROG NOx CO S02 PMio PM2.5 Area 1 0 <0.5 0 0 0 Energy <0.5 1 1 0 <0.5 <0.5 Mobile 7 44 57 <0.5 15 4 Total 8 45 58 <0.5 15 4 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: MD Acoustics 2020a Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Emissions account for VOC content in paint limits per SCAQMD Rule 1113. ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = sulfur dioxide; PMio = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District As shown in Table 5, operation emissions would be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics [2020a, Appendix A]) c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant Impact) Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called "sensitive receptors." Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio - respiratory disease). Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Schools are similarly considered to be sensitive receptors. The closest existing sensitive use to the project site is the residential property located approximately 100 feet east of the site across Mission Trail. The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level, called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that could occur, beyond which the project would cause or contribute measurably to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PMIo, and PM2.5. LSTs are developed based on the ambient pollutant concentrations for each source area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility. Potential impacts to sensitive receptors from construction- related toxic air contaminants (TACs) and operational CO hotspots and emissions associated with the proposed gas station are also assessed. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 28 of 84 Construction Localized Criteria Pollutant Emissions The construction LSTs used for this analysis are based on Source Receptor Area (SRA) 25, Lake Elsinore, a disturbance area of 2 acres per day, and a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). Construction emissions are based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. Per the LST methodology, only on -site emissions are considered. The applicable LSTs and localized construction emissions are shown in Table 6, Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions. Table 6 MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Phase NOx CO PMio PM2.5 Site Preparation 2 2 <0.5 <0.5 Grading 26 16 4 2 Building Construction 19 17 1 1 Paving 13 15 1 1 Architectural Coating 2 2 <0.5 <0.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 34 33 2 2 SCAQMD LSTs' 234 1,100 7 4 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: MD Acoustics 2020a Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Construction emissions calculations incorporate SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (Fugitive Dust), which include standard requirements the project would incorporate. 1 The LSTs used are based on Source Receptor Area (SRA) 25, Lake Elsinore, a disturbance area of 2 acres per day, and a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = Localized Significance Thresholds As indicated in Table 6, project emissions would be below the LST thresholds for construction, and LST impacts would be less than significant. Toxic Air Contaminants TACs are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Emissions during construction would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) associated with heavy equipment operations during earth - moving activities. The SCAQMD does not consider diesel - related cancer risks from construction equipment to be a significant issue due to the short-term nature of construction activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be sporadic, transitory, and short term in nature at any given location across the large project site. Further, the overall construction duration for Phase I is an anticipated to be less than one year. The construction duration for Phase 11 is not yet determined but is likely to be similar to the Phase I duration. The amount of DPM to which the receptors could be exposed, which is a function of concentration and duration of exposure, is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer -term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 29 of 84 Due to the variable and sporadic nature of construction activity and the anticipated short construction schedule in any one area, TAC emissions from the project's construction activity would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As such, project - related TAC emission impacts during construction would be less than significant. Operations Localized Criteria Pollutant Emissions The operational LSTs used for this analysis are based on SRA 25, Lake Elsinore, a disturbance area of 5 acres per day, and a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). The LST analysis only includes on -site sources; however, CaIEEMod emissions outputs do not separate on -site and off -site emissions for mobile sources. As a conservative assessment, the localized operational emissions presented herein include all on -site stationary sources and 10 percent of the project - related new mobile sources. This percentage is an estimate of the amount of project - related new vehicle traffic that would occur on site. The applicable LSTs and localized operational emissions are shown in Table 7, Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions. Table 7 MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Category NOx CO PMio PM2.5 Area 0 <0.5 0 0 Energy 1 1 <0.5 <0.5 Mobile 4 6 2 <0.5 Total 5 6 2 <0.5 SCAQMD LSTs' 371 1,965 4 2 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: MD Acoustics 2020a Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Emissions account for VOC content in paint limits per SCAQMD Rule 1113. 1 The LSTs used are based on SRA 25, Lake Elsinore, a disturbance area of 5 acres per day, and a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PMio = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = Localized Significance Thresholds As indicated in Table 7, project emissions would be below the LST thresholds for operations, and LST impacts would be less than significant. CO Hotpots A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. A quantitative screening is required in two instances: (1) if a project increases the average delay at signalized intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or F; or (2) if a project causes an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the project to operate at LOS E or F with the project. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (Trames Solutions, Inc. 2020a, Appendix K]), neither of these two scenarios would occur with implementation of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in a CO hotspot and impacts would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 30 of 84 Operational Health Risk The project proposes the development of a gas station and associated underground storage tank. Fugitive emissions associated with gasoline and/or diesel include VOCs and TACs, which can be harmful to human health. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) recommend a 50 -foot separation between gas stations and sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors, single - family residences to the east of the project site across Mission Trail, would be located approximately 150 feet from the gas station and approximately 270 feet from the underground storage tank; therefore, impacts from these facilities are not anticipated. Furthermore, the SCAQMD gasoline station HRA screening tables show that the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) at residential receptors 25 meters (the pumps are located further away at approximately 45 meters) from the fuel source would not even exceed 2.978 in a million (per 1,000,000 gallons of through put), which is a reasonable assumption given the size of the project and number of pumps. The proposed project is estimated to have approximately 1.87 million gallons of through put per year, which equates to an approximate 5.57 in a million MICR, at a distance of approximately 25 meters. The risk is below SCAQMD's 10 in a million threshold and therefore no additional mitigation is required. In addition, the fuel pump portion of the proposed development would be permitted by SCAQMD through a Permit to Operate and would be regulated by SCAQMD Rule 461. The gasoline dispensing facilities would be required to use Phase 1 /11 Enhanced Vapor Recovery systems to restrict fugitive emissions. As such, impacts related to health impacts from operation of the gas station would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics [2020a, Appendix A]; Traffic Impact Analysis, Trames Solutions, Inc. [2020a, Appendix K]) d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact) The State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 41700 and 41705 prohibit emissions from any source whatsoever in such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public health or damage to property. The project could produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from construction equipment exhaust, application of asphalt, and/or the application of architectural coatings. However, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, would disperse rapidly beyond the project site, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations (GARB 2005). The proposed project would include a commercial retail center. Therefore, the project would not result in emissions leading to odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 31 of 84 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by L &L Environmental, Inc. (2020a, Appendix B) to determine the presence /absence of biological resources within the project study area, determine the potential for sensitive species to occur, and evaluate the project's consistency with the MSHCP objectives for Criteria Cell 5 13 1. The analysis presented below is based on the findings of this report. A Joint Project Review (JPR) was completed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to determine consistency with the MSHCP and identify potential impacts to biological resources associated with the development of the proposed project (RCA 2020a; Appendix C — Joint Project Review [JPR 20- 06- 09 -01] for the LEAP 2020 -02 /Corydon Gateway, RCA, September 24, 2020). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) provided comments on the JPR as they relate to the project's consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface) (RCA 2020b; Appendix D — Review of the Joint Project Review [JPR 20- 06- 09 -01] for the LEAP 2020 -02 /Corydon Gateway, provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, October 12, 2020). a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination investigated the likelihood of project - related impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species in the vicinity of the project site. A complete list of plant and animal species observed in the project vicinity is included in the report (Appendix B). A summary of the status of sensitive species within the project site and vicinity, as well as potential impacts to these species, is presented below. Sensitive Plant Species: Sensitive plant species are those listed as federally threatened or endangered by the USFWS; state listed as threatened or endangered or considered sensitive by CDFW; included in the MSHCP as Covered Species, Non - Covered Species, Criteria Area Species, and/or Narrow Endemic Plant Species; and/or are California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) IA, 1B, or 2 species, as recognized in the CNPS' Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. A total of 39 plant species were observed and identified within the project study area site during the investigation undertaken as part of the Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination. None of the 39 observed species was a sensitive plant species. Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), which has a CRPR of 113.1 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California), has been documented approximately 700 feet north of the project site and was observed just north and outside of the project boundary. Smooth tarplant was not observed on site and impacts, if any, would be covered under the MSHCP. As such, no significant impacts to sensitive plant species would occur. Sensitive Animal Species: Sensitive animal species are those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing by the USFWS; considered sensitive animals by the CDFW; and/or included in the MSHCP as Covered Species, Non - Covered Species, and/or Criteria Area Species. The MSHCP identifies one species, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), as a species requiring a habitat assessment and/or presence /absence surveys at the project site. A total of 19 wildlife species, including 16 bird species and 3 mammal species, was observed and identified within the project study area during the Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 32 of 84 investigation undertaken as part of the Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination. Of the 19 species observed, two were special status wildlife species, including San Diego black tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennetti; CDFW Species of Special Concern) and great egret (Ardea alba; CDFW Special Animal). San Diego black tailed jackrabbit is a covered species under the MSHCP and is considered adequately conserved. Great egret is not covered under the MSHCP but was only observed flying over the project site, not utilizing it. No burrowing owl; occupied burrows; or evidence of recent burrowing owl presence, such as pellets, scat, feathers, and tracks, were observed within the study area or within a 500 -foot buffer. Potential for the presence of burrowing owl is considered low based on these observations and disturbances related to ongoing commercial activities near the site, previous clearing and possible annual disking or mowing of the site, and various other disturbances and development of adjacent areas. Impacts to burrowing owl are therefore not anticipated. The potential for impacts to occur would be further minimized through a pre - construction clearance survey for burrowing owl, as required per the MSHCP and included herein as Mitigation Measure (MM) BI0-1. Riparian Birds: Sensitive riparian bird with the potential to occur in the project vicinity include least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; state and federally listed as endangered), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; state and federally listed as endangered), and western yellow - billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis; state listed as endangered and federally listed as threatened). Least Bell's vireo has been documented by the California Native Diversity Database ( CNDDB) to occur in the vicinity of the project site at locations 1.5 miles to the west - northwest, 2.3 miles to the west, and 1.0 mile to the east - southeast. There are no CNDDB documented occurrences of southwestern willow flycatcher or western yellow - billed cuckoo within 10 miles of the project site. Each of these three species is a covered species under the MSHCP and is considered adequately conserved, but surveys are required in suitable habitat as described in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. Suitable habitat for least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow - billed cuckoo includes dense riparian vegetation. There is no riparian habitat within the project site. A small portion (approximately 0.06 acre) of scatted oaks, mule fat, and willow is present approximately 80 feet west of the site in a fenced area at the end of a constructed concrete trapezoidal tunnel. This vegetation is small, scattered, and isolated and does not provide the dense riparian habitat required by these species. In addition, this vegetation occurs within an existing motorcycle park and is subjected to high levels of noise and disturbance that create unsuitable conditions for these species. Based on these factors, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow - billed cuckoo are considered absent. Therefore, no significant impacts to these species would occur. Nesting Birds: Given the location of Lake Elsinore within the City, there are a variety of birds that migrate seasonally through the City on the Pacific Flyway, as well as certain birds that permanently reside locally. While there are no trees on site, suitable habitat for ground- nesting birds is present on site. In addition, ornamental trees 65 feet south of the site and native trees 80 feet west of the site may be utilized by nesting birds. As such, development of the proposed project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) if construction occurs during the identified breeding season (between February 1 and August 31). Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird nests are in violation of the MBTA and are, therefore, considered to be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of nesting bird pre - construction surveys included herein as MM BI0-2 would ensure that potential impacts to birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code are avoided during construction. Through implementation of MM BI0-1 and MM BI0-2, potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study/MND Page 33 of 84 Mitigation Measures MM 13I0-1: Burrowing Owl Surveys. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre - construction focused species surveys in accordance with the CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) within 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities. If burrowing owls are determined to occupy the site during pre - construction surveys and impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, the City shall consult with the CDFW and prepare and implement a project - specific Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the CDFW and implemented prior to activities that could affect burrowing owl within the project site. To avoid take, impacted individuals shall be relocated outside of the impact area by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities using passive or active methodologies approved by CDFW. The relocation shall occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl. Existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated. MM 13I0-2: Nesting Bird Pre - construction Surveys. In order to avoid violation of the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, construction activities shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31). If construction activities are to occur during the nesting season, a pre - construction nesting survey shall be conducted within three days prior to the commencement of construction (if between February 1 and August 31). A qualified biologist shall perform the nesting survey that will consist of a single visit to ascertain whether there are active raptor nests within 500 feet of the project footprint or other protected bird nests within 300 feet of the project footprint. Nests will be searched for in the trees and shrubs. This survey shall identify the species of nesting bird and to the degree feasible, nesting stage (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging). Nests shall be mapped (not by using GPS because close encroachment may cause nest abandonment). The follow -up nesting survey shall be conducted for five (5) consecutive days and no more than three (3) days prior to construction. If an active nest is observed, the nest location shall be fenced off surrounding an adequate radius buffer zone as determined by the biological monitor, to be at least 350 feet. The buffer zone shall not be disturbed until the nest is inactive. Biological monitoring shall occur during vegetation removal activities. (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Sensitive natural communities include land that supports unique vegetation communities or the habitats of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants as defined by Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination conducted for the project involved a general habitat assessment for the project site that included vegetation mapping and an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resource assessment for the two Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channels located approximately 80 feet from the project site's western boundary and adjacent to the project site's southwestern boundary. The results of the assessments determined that one vegetation community /land cover type, non - native grassland, is present within the project site. Non - native grassland is not considered a sensitive natural community. The nearby Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 34 of 84 MSHCP riparian/riverine areas are outside of the project limits and would not be impacted by the project. Further, while the farther of the two MSHCP riparian/riverine areas (the one 80 feet to the west) supports riparian habitat, the closer of the two areas (the one adjacent to the project site's southwest boundary) does not support riparian habitat. No direct impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would occur. As discussed below in Item IV(f), no on -site habitat conservation is required. In order to mitigate potential adverse effects on adjacent MSHCP Conservation Areas, MM BI0-3 would require implementation of guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. MM BI04 would require the Property Owner /Developer to comply with Construction Best Management Practices from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP. With implementation of MM BI0-3 and MM BI04, potential impacts associated with adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM BI0-3: MSHCP Guideline Implementation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall include a note on the plans that outlines the following requirements from Section 6.1.4 of the MHSCP: 1. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm downstream biological resources or ecosystems. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project will incorporate a detention basin, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices to filter runoff from the project site. 2. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area and the avoided area on site to protect species from direct night lighting. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project will direct night lighting away from the MSHCP Conservation Area and incorporate light shielding in the project designs to avoid excess ambient light from entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. 4. Proposed noise - generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area, including designated avoidance areas, shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. 5. Avoid use of invasive, non - native plant species listed in Table 6 -2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, including avoidance areas. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 35 of 84 Conservation Areas and designated avoidance areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features. According to the MSHCP consistency analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project landscape plans will avoid utilizing any species listed in Table 6 -2 in the landscaping plans. 6. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into existing and future MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. 7. Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. 8. Weed abatement and fuel modification activities are not permitted in the Conservation Area, including designated avoidance areas. MM BI0-4: MSHCP Construction Best Management Practices Implementation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall include a note on the plans that outlines the following Construction BMPs from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP shown in italics, and specific requirements in plain text: Construction Best Management Practices: A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare and implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) to train all project personnel prior to grading. The details of the training should be consistent with MSHCP Appendix C Standard BMP No. 1, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act, include a detailed discussion of how to identify the potential special - status plant and animal species that may be encountered during ground disturbance and construction activities, and necessary actions to take if the species are observed on site. 2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer shall submit to the City a project- specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to initial ground disturbance. The project - specific SWPPP shall describe BMPs that will be implemented in pre -, during -, and post - construction phases. Examples of BMPs may Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 36 of 84 include dust suppression BMPs, Low Impact Developments (LIDS) such as vegetated swales, and a spill response protocol. The SWPPP is a dynamic document that shall be amended when site conditions warrant changes to protect natural resources and prevent discharge of non - stormwater to neighboring parcels. The Qualified Stormwater Developer (QSD) shall develop and implement the SWPPP with site - specific BMPs to prevent/reduce the potential for erosion, sedimentation, and offsite discharge of non - stormwater in accordance with the Construction General Permit (CGP), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit, and a 401 Water Quality Certification Permit (if applicable). The QSD shall provide training to the contractor for performing regular site inspections, and for pre -, during -, and post -storm events to ensure that BMPs are functioning as intended. 3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre- existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City a construction management plan that demonstrates that the construction footprint will remain within the limits of the current property boundary, site ingress/ egress will be limited to the least impactful location on the Project Site. Trackout (riprap, rumble strips) shall be installed to prevent tracking of sediment to public roadways. 4. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City a construction management plan that the construction footprint will remain within the limits of the current property boundary, project site boundaries shall be clearly delineated with visible means (i.e. stakes, rope, flagging, snow fence, etc.). The contractor shall adhere to the measures and conditions in all environmental permits to protect Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. 5. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. The Habitat Assessment found that no habitat for target species was observed within the project boundaries. The project site does not contain stream channels, gravel bars, or streambanks. The coarse - grained soil onsite has insufficient clay /fines and does not allow standing water to persist in durations sufficient to support many of the target species. All project - related construction activities would occur within the property boundaries and no equipment or personnel would work outside the clearly identified project boundaries. 6. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel insensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 37 of 84 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to monitor ground disturbance activities that would occur during the nesting season. The Habitat Assessment found that no sensitive habitats were observed within the project boundaries, including riparian habitat. The Construction Contractor shall take are to ensure that construction activities do not negatively impact potentially sensitive habitats or species surrounding the project site. Construction equipment and personnel shall be made aware of MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7 as part of the WEAP training and would always remain within project site boundaries. 7. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport ofsediments offsite. Settlingponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. No water diversion activities are proposed during project activities. The Property Owner /Developer shall implement erosion and sediment control BMPs as identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) throughout the project site to reduce/ prevent sediment impacts in pre -, during- and post - construction phases. Personnel would be educated during WEAP training as to the importance of preventing impacts to the Temescal Wash from construction activities. 8. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities, including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, USFWS, CDFW, and SARWQCB, and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to an approved disposal areas. Ongoing during construction and operation, all project activities shall occur within the property boundary. Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas shall be located outside any sensitive habitats and in areas with no risk of direct drainage into riparian areas and other sensitive habitats. All fuel storage tanks shall have secondary containment to retain fuel spills. The project site - specific SWPPP shall have BMPs designed to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters or bare soil, as required by the RWQCB. All potentially hazardous materials shall be stored appropriately on site away from sensitive habitats or Waters of the United States. Concrete washouts and active /inactive materials stockpiles shall have secondary containment BMPs to prevent the accidental release of hazardous substances to bare soil. The SWPPP is required to have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) to describe necessary actions that should occur in the event of a spill or release of potentially hazardous substances. Spills or releases of toxic substances greater than five gallons shall be reported to the RWQCB, DTSC, Local Municipalities, and /or federal agencies, as appropriate. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 38 of 84 9. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. Materials stockpiles shall be located away from sensitive areas. Inactive materials stockpiles shall be covered and bermed to prevent windborne dust or accidental release. The SWPPP shall describe BMPs to prevent fugitive dust from migrating to neighboring parcels or the Temescal Wash. 10. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to monitor ground disturbance activities to ensure that all measures to protect species on and off site are being implemented during construction activities, including burrowing owl surveys (MM BIO -1), and nesting bird surveys (MM BIO -2). Additional protective measures recommended by the qualified wildlife biologist shall be implemented as necessary by the Property Owner/Developer to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. 11. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre- existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. No clearing and grubbing of native vegetation would be anticipated during the project activities as the project site is almost entirely devoid of vegetation. 12. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. No exotic species were encountered during the project Habitat Assessment and none would be utilized in any revegetation efforts. The final landscaping design may incorporate native plant species; however, regular landscape maintenance shall prevent exotic, or noxious plant species from taking root on the Project Site. 13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). The SWPPP shall contain BMPs for trash storage and removal, including containment of sanitation facilities (e.g. portable toilets), and covering waste disposal containers at the end of every business day and before rain events. Trash cans shall have a fastenable lid to prevent animals from accessing or spreading trash onsite. The Project QSD should consult the MSHCP Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices, RWQCB recommendations, and any applicable environmental permit measures and conditions when developing the project SWPPP. 14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 39 of 84 complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. In accordance with the WEAP, all project activities would occur within the clearly delineated property boundaries. Construction activities shall be confined to the project footprint, and approved routes of travel shall be established, including ingress /egress points. Exclusion fencing shall be utilized throughout the project duration. 15. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration /enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including these BMPs. The Contractor shall allow the Permittee access to the construction site. All visitors shall check in with the Project Engineer (or Site Supervisor) prior to accessing the construction site and will be escorted within project boundaries during normal business hours when construction activities are occurring. (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]; JPR, RCA 2020a [Appendix C]; Wildlife Agencies Review of the JPR, RCA 2020b [Appendix D]; MSHCP) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact) No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) occur within the project area. No cracked soils, evidence of vegetation changes, or other evidence of long -term inundation is present. The proposed project would not result in direct impacts to the nearby off -site MSHCP riparian/riverine habitat and indirect impacts would be avoided through compliance with standard construction BMPs included in Appendix C of the MSHCP (County 2003). As such, no impacts to wetlands would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]; MSHCP) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) According to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update EIR, there are numerous identified or potential wildlife movement corridors located within the City, especially where development is sparse and open space or ephemeral watercourses are available. In addition, the City provides forage and nesting sites for both locally common and rare bird species and migrating birds covered by the MBTA. The project site is characterized by non - native grassland that does not provide high - quality habitat as it is regularly cleared for weed abatement. In addition, the areas surrounding the project site are predominately developed and/or disturbed and do not contain high - quality wildlife habitat that would serve as wildlife corridors. In order to address the potential loss or disturbance of nesting habitat for burrowing owl and migratory birds, the Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 40 of 84 project would implement MM BI0-1 and BI0-2 during construction. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to follow the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP to minimize urban/wildlands interface issues in the nearby Temescal Wash and conservation areas as outlined in MM BIO -3 and Construction Best Management Practices from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP as outlined in MM BIO -4. These include measures related to indirect impacts such as water quality (drainage), use of toxics, night lighting, indirect noise, invasive plant and wildlife species, protection of habitat areas (barriers), and grading /land development adjacent to habitat areas. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO -1, MM BI0-2, MM BI0-3, and MM BIO -4 (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]; JPR, RCA 2020a [Appendix C]; Wildlife Agencies Review of the JPR, RCA 2020b [Appendix D]) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) The proposed project would be consistent with local policies and ordinances related to biological resources. The LEMC includes a City Tree Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance 1256) that protects the City's streetscape and trees. The City has also determined that certain species of palm trees in the family Palmaceae are locally significant resources through the City Significant Palm Tree Ordinance (LEMC Ordinance 1160). Implementation of the project would not result in the removal of existing trees, including palm trees, as there are no trees located within the project site. As part of implementation of the conceptual landscape plan prepared for the project, tree spacing, distance from curbs and sidewalks, and other aesthetic guidelines would be followed in accordance with LEMC Ordinance 1256. As such, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]; LEMC) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi jurisdictional effort that includes unincorporated County of Riverside lands and multiple cities in the western portion of the County, including the City. Rather than address sensitive species on an individual basis, the MSHCP focuses on the conservation of 146 species, proposing a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres and a mechanism to fund and implement the reserve system (County 2003). The MSHCP allows participating entities to issue take permits for listed species so that individual applicants need not seek their own permits from USFWS and/or CDFW. The MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003 by the County Board of Supervisors. The Incidental Take Permit was issued by both the USFWS and CDFW on June 22, 2004. Pursuant to the provisions of the MSHCP, all discretionary development projects within a Criteria Area are to be reviewed for compliance with the "Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy" (LEAP) process or equivalent process. The LEAP process "ensures that an early determination will be made of what properties are needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area, that the owners of property needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area are compensated, and that owners of land Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 41 of 84 not needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area shall receive Take Authorization of Covered Species Adequately Conserved through the Permits issues to the County and Cities pursuant to the MSHCP." A formal and complete LEAP application (LEAP 2020 -02) was submitted to the City on April 3, 2020 and a JPR (20- 06- 09 -01) was completed by the RCA on September 24, 2020. Concurrence from CDFW and USFWS (collectively, the Wildlife Agencies) was received on October 12, 2020. A small portion of the project impact footprint (approximately 1. 12 acres) occurs within Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit (Elsinore). The Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination for the project involved a general habitat assessment that included vegetation mapping; determination of potential burrowing owl habitat and the presence /absence of burrowing owl individuals; determination of potential jurisdictional waters /wetlands on site; determination of the presence /absence of riparian /riverine areas, vernal pools, associated species, and fairy shrimp identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP; and evaluation of the proposed development plans to determine if they are consistent with implementation of the MSHCP. No special status plant species were identified during the habitat assessment. Two special status wildlife species were identified on site, including San Diego black - tailed rabbit and great egret. San Diego black - tailed rabbit is a covered species under the MSHCP and is considered adequately conserved. Great egret is not covered under the MSHCP but was not observed utilizing the site and is not expected to. No burrowing owl; occupied burrows; or evidence of recent burrowing owl, such as pellets, scat, feathers, and tracks, were observed within the study area or within a 500 -foot buffer. Burrowing owl are not anticipated to occur on site based on these observations and disturbances related to ongoing commercial activities near the site, previous clearing and possible annual disking or mowing of the site, and various other disturbances and development of adjacent areas. Impacts to burrowing owl are not anticipated and the potential for impacts to occur would be further minimized through a pre - construction clearance survey for burrowing owl, as required per the MSHCP and included herein as MM BI0-1. Impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA would be avoided through implementation of MM BI0-2 which requires pre - construction surveys to be conducted if site - preparation activities are to occur during the nesting season (between February 1 and August 31). Impacts to riparian birds are not anticipated as the riparian vegetation located approximately 80 feet west of the project site is small, scattered, and isolated and does not provide suitable habitat and is exposed to noise from the adjacent motorsports track. No jurisdictional waters /wetlands or riparian/riverine features are present on site and the project would not impact the nearby off -site MSHCP riparian/riverine habitat associated with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channels located approximately 80 feet from the project site's western boundary and adjacent to the project site's southwestern boundary. The MSHCP calls for conservation of native grassland habitat within Criteria Cell 5131 of 30 to 40 percent. Approximately 119 out of 167 acres, or 71 percent, of Criteria Cell 5131 is still available for conservation and the project would only impact 1.12 acres of Criteria Cell 5131. Conservation within Criteria Cell 5131 is also focused within the southwestern portion of the Cell and the project site is located in the extreme northeastern portion of the cell. Further, these conservation requirements set forth have been replaced with the preservation of 770 acres of habitat in the Back Basin of Lake Elsinore through an agreement between USFWS, CDFW, RCA, and the City. Conservation with the 770 acres focuses on habitat that benefits shorebird or wetland/marsh associated species, vernal pool species, sensitive plant species, and/or Planning Species for Subunit 3 and Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3, as described in MSHCP. The project site is not located within or adjacent to this conservation area and is not identified as an area for conservation. Based on these factors, the project's use of 1.12 acres within Criteria Cell 5131 is consistent with the goals of the MSHCP. Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP includes guidelines that are intended to address indirect effects associated with development near MSHCP Conserved Areas. Development in proximity to MSHCP Conserved Areas may Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 42 of 84 result in "edge effects" that might adversely affect biological resources within MSHCP Conserved Area. Since at some point a portion of Criteria Cell 5131 near the project site may be conserved, the following guidelines would be implemented for the project to minimize potential "edge effects." Drainage: The proposed project would incorporate measures, including measures required through NPDES requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged from the site is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into any MSHCP Conserved Area. Stormwater systems would be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within MSHCP Conserved Area or state or federal jurisdictional areas downstream. This project proposes to construct a detention basin in the northernmost corner of the site that would capture stormwater runoff via a 24 -inch stormwater pipeline with an inlet located in the central portion of the site; however, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices are also acceptable. The detention basin would be regularly maintained to ensure effective operation of runoff control systems. Toxics: Land use in proximity to a MSHCP Conserved Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality are required to incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge into MSHCP Conserved Area or state or federal jurisdictional areas downstream. Measures such as those employed to address on -site drainage (see above) would be implemented as part of the proposed project. Lighting: Night lighting within the project development area would be directed away from MSHCP Conserved Area to protect species within the area from direct night lighting. Shielding would be incorporated in project design to ensure ambient lighting in MSHCP Conserved Area is not increased. Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting MSHCP Conserved Area are required to incorporate setbacks, berms, and/or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conserved Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within MSHCP Conserved Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The project would generate noise during construction and operations; however, there are no MSHCP Conserved Areas adjacent to the project site that would be subject to project - generated noise. Further, as discussed in Item XIII(a), long -term operational noise generated by the project would not result in perceptible increases over existing ambient noise levels and would therefore not affect potential future MSHCP Conserved Areas in proximity to the project site. Invasives: Invasive, non - native plant species included in MSHCP Table 6.2 would not be used on site. Barriers: The project development area would be surrounded by a chain link fence. Fencing would prevent access to adjacent MSHCP Conserved Area. The fencing would also minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, and/or dumping in MSHCP Conserved Area. Grading/Land Development: Grading on site would be relatively balanced, with a net import of approximately 3,166 cy; no manufactured slopes would extend into MSHCP Conserved Area. As discussed above, the project would be consistent with the MSCHP and would incorporate applicable design measures per MSHCP requirements to avoid "edge effects." The Property Owner /Developer would be required to follow the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP to minimize urban/wildlands interface issues in the nearby conservation areas as outlined in MM BI0-3 and Construction Best Management Practices from Volume 1, Appendix C of the MSHCP as outlined in MM BI04. These include measures related to indirect impacts such as water quality (drainage), use of Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 43 of 84 toxics, night lighting, indirect noise, invasive plant and wildlife species, protection of habitat areas (barriers), and grading/land development adjacent to habitat areas. Further, as a condition of project approval, the applicant would be required to pay MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees in effect at the time of payment. Therefore, with implementation of the recommendations in the Habitat Assessment, consistent with the MSHCP and LEMC, MM 13I0-1, MM 13I0-2, MM 13I0-3, and MM 13I0-4, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan and potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO -1, MM BI0-2, MM BI0-3, and MM BIO -4 (Sources: Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and MSHCP Consistency Determination, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a [Appendix B]; JPR, RCA 2020a [Appendix C]; Wildlife Agencies Review of the JPR, RCA 2020b [Appendix D]; MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021, RCA 2020c). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the proposed project by L &L Environmental, Inc (2020b, Appendix E) to evaluate the potential for cultural resources within the project study area. The assessment included a historical resources records search; historical, archaeological, and geoarchaeological background research; coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local Native American tribes, organizations, and individuals; and a pedestrian survey of the site. The results and conclusions of the report are summarized herein. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (Less than Significant Impact) The records search conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicated that eight previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within a one -mile radius of the project site. One of the resources is Lake Elsinore (33- 11009), which at its closest point is less than 0.25 mile from the project site. The seven additional resources include two historical - period built features, one historic -age isolated artifact, one prehistoric archaeological site, and two prehistoric isolated artifacts. No resources have been recorded within the project site and no historical resources were observed within the project site during the pedestrian survey conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. While no on -site resources were identified, the project site is considered to be within the sphere of influence of Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore is listed in the Historic Property Data File as an individual property eligible for local listing or designation, is presumed eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and is considered a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. Although the project site is located near past shoreline limits of Lake Elsinore and may at times have been covered by the lake, the land within the project site itself does not exhibit any characteristics of a shoreline. Furthermore, there are no know natural or cultural elements visible on the surface of the project site that may contribute to the significance of the lake. As such, the project would not have a direct impact on Lake Elsinore (33- 11009). There is also little potential for the project to cause indirect visual, audible, or vibrational impacts to Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance if a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020b [Appendix E]) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 44 of 84 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) As discussed above under Item V(b), the records search conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicated that eight previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within a one- mile radius of the project site, including Lake Elsinore, two historical -period built features, one historic - age isolated artifact, one prehistoric archaeological site, and two prehistoric isolated artifacts. No resources have been recorded within the project site and no resources were observed within the project site during the pedestrian survey conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. While no on -site resources were identified, there is moderate to high potential for encountering buried archaeological resources during project construction due to the cultural significance of Lake Elsinore associated with past human occupation and use of the area. As such, MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -5 would be implemented and would reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation Measures MM CUL -1: Unanticipated Resources. The developer /permit holder or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed: 1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic /cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the significance of the find. 2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting. 3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. 4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures. MM CUL -2: Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department that a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and certified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) that addresses the details of all activities that must be completed and procedures that must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this project. The CRMP document shall be created in coordination with the consulting tribe(s), and provided to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP provides direction as to how the project mitigation measures will be implemented. The CRMP requires that impacts on cultural resources will not occur without procedures in place, which would reduce any Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 45 of 84 impacts to less than significant. These measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Archaeological Monitor - An adequate number of qualified monitors shall be present to ensure that all earth - moving activities are observed and shall be on -site during all grading activities for areas to be monitored including off -site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor. Cultural Sensitivity Training - The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre - grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all Construction Personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the project site. A sign -in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report. Unanticipated Resources - In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. Phase IV Report - A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe. MM CUL -3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department: Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 46 of 84 Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. 2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity. Relocation shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains, as they are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. If relocation is not agreed upon by the Consulting Tribes then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources, ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. MM CUL -4: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the AB 52 and/or the SB 18 process ( "Monitoring Tribes "). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project's approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City's mitigation measures /conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. MM CUL -5: Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning Department's requirements for such reports for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 47 of 84 of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of any feature relocation or residue analysis required as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre -grade meeting. (Sources: Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020b [Appendix E]) c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incornorated) The project is not located on or adjacent to a known formal or informal cemetery. No impacts to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, are anticipated. In the unlikely event that unknown human remains are uncovered during project construction, MM CUL -6 and MM CUL -7, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, would ensure that the project's impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM CUL -6: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). MM CUL -7: Non - Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). (Sources: Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020b [Appendix E]) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 48 of 84 VI. ENERGY This section is based on the CEQA Energy Review prepared for the proposed project by MD Acoustics, LLC (2020b, Appendix F). a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less Than Significant Impact) Energy used during construction would primarily consist of fuels in the form of diesel and gasoline for the operation of construction equipment and construction worker vehicles. While construction activities would consume petroleum -based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction. Construction of the proposed commercial development would require the typical use of energy resources. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities, or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. Energy used during project operations would primarily consist of fuel in the form of gasoline for visitor and employee vehicles traveling to and from the project site and electricity and natural gas for the proposed uses. As discussed further under Item XVII(b), the project would not result in a substantial generation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as it would be a local - serving commercial retail development providing commercial options in proximity to residential uses, thus reducing vehicle travel and associated energy usage. It should also be noted that over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of vehicles is expected to increase. As such, the amount of gasoline consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation is expected to decrease over time. As for electricity and natural gas usage, development would be subject to and required to comply with, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 6) and CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11), which establish energy efficiency standards for residential and non - residential buildings constructed in California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. Based on these considerations, the project would not result in a substantial increase in demand of local or regional energy supplies, and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: CEQA Energy Review, MD Acoustics, LLC 2020b [Appendix F]) b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact) The project would be built and operated in accordance with existing applicable regulations governing energy efficiency. As noted above, future development of the proj ect site would be subject to, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11). The City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), which outlines the actions necessary to achieve the City's proportional share of state GHG emission reductions to be compliant with AB 32 and Executive Order 5 -3 -05 (City 2011 c). Appendix D of the CAP includes a project- level CAP consistency worksheet used to demonstrate consistency with the CAP, including compliance with energy efficient building standards. Future development of the project site would be required to be consistent with the CAP measures for energy efficiency. Construction equipment would be maintained to Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 49 of 84 allow for continuous energy - efficient operations. Accordingly, the project would not conflict with state or local plans related to renewable energy or energy efficiency, and potential impacts associated with obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics 2020a [Appendix A]) VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. (2020, Appendix G) to evaluate the fault hazard potential for the project site. Portions of the following analysis are based on the findings of this report. a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California, a seismically active region where several earthquake faults are known to occur. The geologic structure of the region is dominated mainly be northwest trending faults associated with the San Andreas system, including the San Andreas Fault, San Jacinto Fault, Newport- Inglewood Fault, and Whittier - Elsinore Fault. No active faults are known to occur within the project site and the site is not located within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest known active fault in the Elsinore Fault at 0.2 mile from the project site. The northeastern corner of the project site extends into the southwestern portion of the County Fault Zone established for the Glen Ivy North Fault. Based on mapping of the subject site, review of current and historical aerial imagery, lack of lineaments indicative of active faulting, and the data compiled during preparation of the Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, the potential for surface rupture to adversely impact the proposed structures is considered very low to remote. As such, impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2020 [Appendix G]) ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact) As noted in Item VII(a)(i), no active faults are known to occur within the project site. The Elsinore Fault, a known active fault located 0.2 mile from the project site, is the closest fault with the potential to cause ground shaking at the project site. A seismic event from other faults within the vicinity of the project could also cause significant ground shaking at the project site. To minimize seismic ground shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake, design and construction of development within the project site would be required to comply with all seismic - safety development requirements, including the Title 24 standards of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (CBC). Mandatory compliance with all applicable seismic - safety development requirements would minimize seismic ground shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake and ensure that the potential seismic or geologic hazard impacts would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 50 of 84 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2020 [Appendix G]) iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than Significant Impact) Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs during severe ground shaking whereby soils reduce greatly in strength and temporarily behave similarly to a fluid rather than a solid. Severe or extended liquefaction can result in significant effects to surface and subsurface facilities through the loss of support and/or foundation integrity. Liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily recently deposited sand and silt in areas with high groundwater levels. The borings conducted to a depth of 21.5 feet at the project site as part of the Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis did not encounter groundwater and groundwater depth in the area averages 150 feet below ground. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is considered negligible. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements, which would reduce risks associated with liquefaction. Therefore, potential impacts to people or structures from liquefaction shaking would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2020a [Appendix G]) iv. Landslides? (Less than Significant Impact) The General Plan EIR indicates that slopes of 30 percent or steeper are at risk of seismically induced slope failure. The project site and surrounding areas are characterized by level topography without slopes that would be risk of failure. As such, the project site is not at risk of landslides. Additionally, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner /Developer of the proposed project would be required to submit grading and foundation plans to the City for review to demonstrate compliance with the City's grading requirements. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements, which would reduce risks associated with landslides. Therefore, potential impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project has the potential to result in soil erosion during grading and construction activities where disturbed soil is exposed. Potential short-term erosion impacts from grading and construction activities would be addressed through the implementation of BMPs in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association's Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook and City's Plan Preparation and Design Manual to control erosion and protect the quality of surface water runoff. Additionally, potential sedimentation and erosion impacts would be minimized or avoided with the implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures in compliance with NPDES permit requirements. The project would be required to prepare an erosion control plan that details protective measures. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 51 of 84 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above in Items VII(a)(iii) and VII(a)(iv), the project would not be subject to landslide - related risks or liquefaction. Development of the project site would be required to incorporate measures and recommendations proposed by the UBC and the CBC to accommodate potential geologic hazards. Based on the incorporation of applicable design guidelines, potential impacts associated with a geologic unit or soil that is unstable would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis, Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2020 [Appendix G]) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less Than Significant Impact) Expansive soils are attributable to the water holding capacity of clay materials. Such behavior can adversely affect structural integrity (including underground facilities) through shifting of support materials during the shrink -swell process. If expansive soils are present/ encountered during project implementation, associated potential impacts would be addressed through conformance with regulatory /industry standards, including applicable elements of the CBC. Specifically, this may include efforts such as removal of expansive soils and replacement with engineered fill. Conformance with the described regulatory standards would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils from project implementation to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed as part of the proposed project. The project would connect to the existing sewer system for the disposal of wastewater and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant Impact) According to Figure 3.2 -3 of the General Plan EIR, the project site is located in area of low paleontological sensitivity and is therefore not anticipated to directly or indirectly destroy paleontological resources. The project site is characterized by non - native grassland and does not include known unique geologic features. The possibility of finding buried paleontological deposits on site is very low. Therefore, potential impacts to a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 52 of 84 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section is based on the Air Quality and GHG Impact Study prepared for the proposed project by MD Acoustics, LLC (2020a, Appendix A). The project's construction and operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2. The results and conclusions of the report and calculations relative to pollutant emissions are summarized herein. Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole. GHGs contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by allowing solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth's atmosphere, but preventing radiative heat from escaping. The principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, CCR Section 15364.5 defines GHGs to include CO2, CH4, N20, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off - highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -fourth of total emissions. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed "global warming," the trend of warming of the Earth's climate from anthropogenic activities. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) The project would result in GHG emissions during construction and operation. Construction activities that would generate emissions are anticipated to include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating. Operational sources of emissions would include vehicular sources, energy use, landscape equipment use, consumer products, solid waste generation, and water use. Construction Emissions Off -road construction equipment and on -road vehicles would generate GHG emissions during construction. The project's estimated construction emissions are presented in Table 8, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions. For construction emissions, SCAQMD recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over 30 years and added to operational emissions. Table 8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS Ir Activity Total Emissions (MT CO2e) Site Preparation 2 Grading 28 Building Construction 501 Paving 22 Architectural Coating 5 Total Emissions 557 Amortized Emissions) 19 Source: MD Acoustics 2020a Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 1 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years. MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 53 of 84 Operational Emissions Once the proposed project is constructed, continuous GHG emissions would result from mobile, area, and other operational sources. Area sources, including consumer products, landscaping equipment, and other sources, would result primarily in emissions of CO2. Energy utilization (i.e., electricity and natural gas) and water consumption also would result primarily in emissions of CO2. Mobile sources, including vehicle trips to and from the project site, would result primarily in emissions of CO2, with minor emissions of CH4 and N20. Disposal of solid waste would result in emissions of CH4 from the decomposition of waste at landfills, coupled with CO2 emission from the handling and transport of solid waste. These sources combine to define the long -term GHG emissions for the project. Table 9, Estimated Operational GHG Emissions, shows the project's operational emissions. Table 9 ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS Category Total Emissions MT CO2e Area 0 Energy 393 Mobile 3,645 Solid Waste 86 Water 42 Amortized Construction' 19 Total Emissions 4,185 SCA MD Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Source: MD Acoustics 2020a ' Construction emissions amortized over 30 years. MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent As shown in the table, emissions are estimated at 4,185 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per year, which would exceed the applicable SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. As such, MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -9 would be required. Table 10, Estimated Mitigated Operational GHG Emissions, shows the project's mitigated operational emissions. Table 10 ESTIMATED MITIGATED OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS Category Total Emissions (MT CO2e) Area 0 Energy 393 Mobile 2,046 Solid Waste 21 Water 32 Amortized Construction' 19 Total Emissions 2,511 SCA MD Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Source: MD Acoustics 2020a ' Construction emissions amortized over 30 years. MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 54 of 84 As shown in the table, with implementation of MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -9 emissions are estimated at 2,511 metric tons of CO2e per year, which would be below the applicable SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM GHG -1: Pedestrian Infrastructure. The applicant shall incorporate into the project site plan and design documentation sidewalks or pedestrian paths along all new streets as well as internal sidewalks that link all internal uses. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that pedestrian improvements meeting the requirements of CAP Measure T -1.2 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -2: Bike Lanes. The applicant shall incorporate into the project site plan and design documentation a bike lane along the project site boundary with Corydon Street and Mission Trail to connect to the Class Il bikeways currently located on Corydon Street and Mission Trail. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that bike lane improvements meeting the requirements of CAP Measure T -1.4 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG-3: Indoor Water Conservation. The project applicant shall demonstrate, in the project building plans or other design documentation, faucets, toilets, and showers installed within the proposed uses that utilize low -flow fixtures that would reduce indoor water demand by 30 percent per CALGreen Standards. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that low -flow fixtures meeting the requirements of CAP Measure E -4 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG -4: Landscaping. The applicant shall incorporate into the project landscape plan one 15- gallon non - deciduous umbrella form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary length. The landscape plan shall be designed to be consistent with the requirements of AB 1881. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that the landscaping meeting the requirements of CAP Measures E -1.1 and E -4.1 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG-5: Construction Waste Management Plan. The applicant shall provide a Construction Waste Management Plan which demonstrates how the project would recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Prior to issuing a demolition, grading, building, or other construction permit, the City shall verify that a Construction Waste Management Plan is in place meeting the requirements of CAP Measure 5 -1.4. MM GHG-6: Bicycle Parking. The project applicant shall incorporate into the project site plan and design documentation, a permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitor entrance and readily visible to passers -by for at least five percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity. Prior to final site plan approval, the City shall verify that bicycle parking improvements meeting the requirements of CAP measure T -1.5 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG-7: Parkingfor Fuel - Efficient Vehicles. The applicant shall designate, through signage and/or pavement marking, at a minimum, 10 percent of the total project employee and visitor parking spaces for Clean Air Vehicles. Parking spaces for Clean Air Vehicles may be any combination of low- emitting, fuel - efficient, and carpool/vanpool vehicles. Prior to issuing Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 55 of 84 an occupancy permit, the City shall verify that a minimum of 10 percent of parking spaces are designated for Clean Air Vehicles (e.g., through signage and/or pavement marking), meeting the requirements of CAP Measure T -2.1. MM GHG -8: Cool Roof Requirements. The applicant shall specify in the building plans or design documentation, roofing materials that have a thermal emittance or Solar Reflectance Index 3 per CALGreen Tier 1 values. Prior to final building plan approval, the City shall verify that cool roof improvements meeting the requirements of CAP Measure E -1.2 are incorporated into the project site plan and design documentation. MM GHG-9: Solid Waste Reduction. The applicant shall require recycling programs that reduce the project's operational waste to landfill be a minimum of 75 percent, per AB 341. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics 2020a [Appendix A]) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The City has adopted a CAP that outlines the actions for City to undertake to achieve its proportional share of state GHG emission reductions to be compliant with AB 32 and Executive Order 5 -3 -05 (City 2011c). Appendix D of the CAP includes a project -level consistency worksheet used to help demonstrate consistency with the General Plan growth potential and CAP. If the project is consistent with the land use designation, population and employment projections, and incorporates applicable CAP measures in the project design, then the project would be deemed consistent with the General Plan and CAP. The worksheet considers the following three questions to determine if a project is consistent with the General Plan growth potential and CAP (City 2011c): 1. Is the project consistent with the General Plan land use designation? 2. Is the project consistent with the General Plan population and employment projections for the site, upon which the CAP modeling is based? 3. Does the project incorporate the following CAP measures as binding and enforceable components of the project? Until these measures have been formally adopted by the City and incorporated in to applicable codes, the requirements must be incorporated as mitigation measures applicable to the project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5(b)(2)). The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan (East Lake Specific Plan — Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use designation). As discussed in further detail in Item IX(b), the project, as a commercial development, would be consistent with the applicable underlying land use designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation, and would therefore be consistent with the General Plan land use designation. Because the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation, it would also be consistent with the General Plan population and employment projections for the site, which have anticipated the site to be developed with commercial uses. The project would be required to implement the applicable measures from the CAP worksheet, presented above at MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -9, as well as CAP Measure E -1.3, which involves compliance with the mandatory California Energy Code. Implementation of these project- specific mitigation measures and compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 56 of 84 Mitigation Measures: MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -9. (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study, MD Acoustics 2020a [Appendix A]; CAP) IKl�1, EVA.1 ; 117.1 n1orrw:3;91z11110uIFNIW IVR A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed project by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. (2019, Appendix H) to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) within the project site and vicinity. The ESA included a review of the hydrogeologic setting; a review of historical records to assess historical land use and indications of potential contamination or sources of contamination within the project site; an environmental database search to identify documented "hazardous waste" facilities within proximity to the project site; and site reconnaissance. The results and conclusions of the ESA are summarized herein. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less Than Significant Impact) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) As a commercial development, the proposed project would not conflict with hazardous materials regulations or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through potential accident conditions during operation. The transport of fuel and tank filling operations associated with the gas station would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Other potentially hazardous materials associated with the gas station, car wash, and tire shop would be used and stored at the project site in accordance with regulatory requirements. During construction, the proposed project would involve the use and/or generation of materials including fuels (gasoline and diesel), equipment fluids (oils and antifreeze), concrete, cleaning solutions, solvents, and adhesives. While the potential exists for indirect impacts to human health and the environment from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials, the proposed project would follow existing federal and state standards that regulate the handling, storage, and transport of these materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less Than Significant Impact) One school, Jean Hayman Elementary School, is located approximately 0.25 mile east of the project site. As discussed above in Items IX(a -b), as a commercial development the project would not involve a high usage of hazardous materials. Future development within the project site would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous wastes during construction and operations. As such, impacts related to handling or emissions of hazardous materials near a school would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 57 of 84 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Less Than Significant) According to the evaluation conducted for the project's Phase I ESA, no listed sites or RECs that would result in significant hazard to the public or the environment are located within the project site or vicinity. No evidence was observed that the project site has been adversely impacted by contamination and no evidence of recognized environmental conditions exist on the project site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would be less than significant Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Phase I ESA, Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2019 [Appendix H]) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Less Than Significant Impact) According to Figure 2.7 of the General Plan, the project site is within the Influence Area of Skylark Airport, which is approximately 0.3 mile southwest of the project site. The project would comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding encroachment into the airport's navigable airspace in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. Compliance with FAA regulations would ensure that the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan; General Plan EIR) f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) for fire protection and emergency management services. Project construction would involve off -site improvements within Mission Trail and Corydon Street that could temporarily affect access for emergency vehicles; however, construction would not result in the full closure of the roadways and emergency access would be maintained. Compliance with the County of Riverside's Emergency Operations Plan would be required during construction to ensure adequate emergency access. Following construction, the project would not interfere with emergency access to surrounding areas. Fire lanes with appropriate fire truck turning radii would be provided on site to allow for adequate emergency access to the project's proposed uses. As such, implementation of the project would not impair an emergency response or evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, County of Riverside's Emergency Operations Plan) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 58 of 84 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less Than Significant Impact) According to Figure 3.10 -2 of the General Plan EIR, which is based on CalFire's fire hazard severity zone mapping, the project site is not located in an area mapped as a moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zone. As such, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The proposed project would be subject to the plan check process and would undergo a fire, life, and safety review by the Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance with Fire Department requirements. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildland fires would be less than significant.. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the San Jacinto River Basin Sub - Watershed of the Santa Ana Watershed region of Riverside County. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) sets water quality standards for all ground and surface waters within this region. Water quality standards are defined under the Clean Water Act to include both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of water quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses (water quality objectives). Construction of the proposed project would include site clearing, grading, excavation, installation of subsurface infrastructure, and other earthmoving activities that would have the potential to cause erosion that could degrade surface or ground water quality and/or violate water quality standards. The use of heavy construction equipment could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials (e.g., oils, fuels, and other water quality pollutants) that also could potentially affect surface and/or ground water quality. As required by the Clean Water Act, the project would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) NPDES Permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit Program, which is administered in the project area by Riverside County and is issued by the SARWQCB, regulates storm water and urban runoff discharges from developments to natural and constructed storm drain systems in the City. Since the proposed project would disturb one or more acres of soil, construction activities would be subject to the CGP ( NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements, Order No. 2009 - 0009 -DWQ, adopted September 2, 2009 and effective as of July 2, 20 10) issued by SWRCB. The CGP requires implementation of a SWPPP for site clearing, grading, and disturbances such as excavation. The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, storm water collection and discharge points, general pre- and post - construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. Development of the currently vacant project site would result in an increase in impervious surfaces associated with roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, and other hardscape features. This increase in on -site impervious surfaces would allow less water to percolate into the ground and would therefore generate more surface water during rainfall events. Impervious surfaces would collect dust, soil, and other impurities that would then be assimilated into surface runoff. The project proposes an on -site bio- retention basin that would capture runoff generated by the impervious surfaces within the project site. The site has been designed such that stormwater not captured within on -site landscaped areas would enter a storm drain inlet located in the approximate center of the site and be transmitted via a 24 -inch storm drain to the Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 59 of 84 proposed bio- retention basin. The bio- retention basin would serve as a stormwater BMP to collect and treat stormwater captured on site. Treatment would occur via an inlet filter that would be installed in the bio - retention basin and would capture fine to coarse sediments, floatable trash, debris, total suspended solids, nutrients, metals, and hydrocarbons conveyed in the stormwater. The treated stormwater would then be diverted into the adjacent Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channel that eventually leads into Lake Elsinore. With the proposed bio- retention basin and landscaped areas, stormwater would be captured and treated on site such that polluted sources of runoff would not be released off site. The project's various uses that have the potential to result in additional discharges would also incorporate source control BMPs to restrict certain discharges from being transported into the proposed storm drain system and bio- retention basin. Specifically, the carwash wastewater would be collected into a sanitary sewer drain, instead of the storm drain, for disposal. The gas station would include quick- shutoff fuel dispensing nozzles and would use the floor around the fuel dispensing area as a containment system. Implementation of these BMPs, along with regulatory compliance, would preclude violations of applicable standards and discharge regulations. The project would not otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: WQMP, KWC Engineers 2020 [Appendix 1]) b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ). Since the City has a large amount of vacant land, substantial changes to recharge systems could occur from development of the vacant parcels. Soil testing performed for the project's Preliminary WQMP indicated that natural infiltration on the site is poor. The increase in impervious surfaces that would occur for the project, as discussed above in Item X(a), would result in further decreased on -site percolation capabilities. The project proposes pervious surfaces including on -site landscaping and a bio- retention basin that would collect stormwater runoff from the project site. Water collected in the bio- retention basin would be treated and then diverted into the adjacent Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District channel for output into Lake Elsinore, where infiltration and groundwater recharge occur. This would be consistent with the City's requirement that treated stormwater be directed to Lake Elsinore and not infiltrated on site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: WQMP, KWC Engineers 2020 [Appendix 1]) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Less Than Significant Impact) The existing on -site drainage pattern is generally from east to west across the site. While the project would maintain this same general drainage direction, impervious surfaces would be constructed on currently vacant land, which would increase the amount and change the drainage pattern of on -site runoff. The project Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 60 of 84 would incorporate on -site drainage infrastructure, such as curbs, gutters, and storm drains, which would collect on -site runoff and convey it to the proposed on -site bio- retention basin in the western corner of the site. With these features, storm water runoff generated during project operation would be adequately captured on site and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. There is a potential for erosion and siltation to occur during project construction, specifically during site clearing, grading, and other earthmoving activities. Grading activities would be conducted in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Grading Ordinance Nos. 636, 801, and 882, and the standards outlined in the City's Plan Preparation and Design Manual (City 2005). Implementation of the NPDES permit requirements and an erosion control plan would reduce potential erosion, siltation, and water quality impacts to receiving water bodies and adjacent property. Therefore, potential impacts associated with erosion or siltation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: WQMP, KWC Engineers 2020 [Appendix I]; Plan Preparation; and Design Manual Site Plan) ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above in Item X(c)(i), implementation of the project would alter the drainage pattern of the site through an increase in impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in surface runoff; however, proposed drainage infrastructure and the on -site bio- retention basin would be designed to adequately accommodate runoff. Therefore, the project would not result in on- or off -site flooding and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Site Plan) iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or; (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above in Item X(c)(i), implementation of the project would alter the drainage pattern of the site through an increase in impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in surface runoff; however, proposed drainage infrastructure and the on -site bio- retention basin would be designed to adequately accommodate runoff. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Site Plan) iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within two types of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood Zone "X." The western portion is within a Zone "X" defined as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard, areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. The eastern portion of the site is within a Zone "X" defined as areas determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. No portion of the site is mapped within a special Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 61 of 84 flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood. As such, the risk of flooding at the site is low and the project is not anticipated to substantially impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: FEMA Flood Map Service Center) d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Less Than Significant Impact) Based on distance to the Pacific Ocean (approximately 24 miles) and to Lake Elsinore (approximately 2.4 miles), there is no potential for a tsunami or seiche to inundate the project site. As discussed above in Item X(c)(iv), the project site is not within a special flood hazard area and the risk of inundation by flood at the project site is low. During construction, the project would implement a SWPPP to minimize the release of sediments and other pollutants off site. Following construction, the project site would not include vacant land with exposed soils that could result in erosion and sedimentation in the instance of a flood event. In addition, other potential pollutant sources that may be present on site, such as fuels at the proposed gas station, would be stored in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the Santa Ana River watershed, which is regulated by the SARWQCB. The SARWQCB has developed a "Water Quality Control Plan" for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the SARWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The SARWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region's ground and surface water. Permits are issued under several programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. The SARWQCB ensures compliance with the Basin Plan through its issuance of NPDES Permits, issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and Water Quality Certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In conformance with these requirements, the project applicant has prepared a WQMP, which demonstrates that the proposed project's drainage plan would meet all applicable requirements of the Basin Plan, including requirements and conditions of approval associated with NPDES permits, issuance of WDRs, and Water Quality Certifications. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Basin Plan, and potential impacts associated with implementation of a water quality control plan would be less than significant. As discussed above in Item X(a), the project site is located within the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone GMZ. Since the City has a large amount of vacant land, substantial changes to recharge systems could occur from development of the vacant parcels. In order to reduce pollutants, the City has implemented policies to minimize pollutants in the local and regional waterways, which includes water that percolates into the groundwater through Water Resources Policies 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Water Resources Policies 4.1 and 4.2 require development projects to acquire a NPDES permit and implement BMPs to reduce pollutants. Water Resources Policy 4.3 requires the City to review future development project's beneficial uses during the environmental review stage. As described in Items X(a) and X(b), above, the project would not Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 62 of 84 substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or result in adverse impacts associated with release of pollutants into groundwater. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable sustainable groundwater management plans, and potential impacts associated with implementation of a groundwater management plan would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: WQMP, KWC Engineers 2020 [Appendix I] and General Plan EIR) XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) A significant impact would occur if the proposed project were sufficiently large or configured in such a way that it would create a physical barrier within an established community. The proposed project is surrounded by vacant land to the north, light industrial uses to the south, commercial and residential uses to the east across Mission Trail, and the Lake Elsinore Motorsports Parkway to the west. The project site is not currently used for access between existing uses and implementation of the project would not create a physical barrier that would divide an established community. Moreover, project implementation would not provide for infrastructure systems such as new roadways that would divide or disrupt existing neighborhoods or other established community elements in a previously developed and urbanized area. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is zoned Specific Plan (SP) and has a General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan (East Lake Specific Plan — Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use designation). The proposed drive- through restaurant, convenience store, and flex - condos are permitted uses in the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use designation. The proposed gas station, car wash, and tire shop are permitted uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the site's land use designation under the East Lake Specific Plan. Further, the proposed project has been designed to meet the development standards as identified in the East Lake Specific Plan and LEMC, including but not limited to setbacks, building heights, parking spaces, drive aisles, and floor area ratio, and to be consistent with the applicable land use policies and regulations of the East Lake Specific Plan and General Plan. As discussed in Item IV(f), above, the project would not conflict with the MSHCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. Land -use related impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: East Lake Specific Plan, MSHCP) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 63 of 84 XIL MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Less than Significant Impact) Substantial mineral resources have been identified within the City and are noted within the City's General Plan, in particular aggregate type mineral resources. These resource areas are primarily designated within Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ -2) pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram based on available geological information. The designation of MRZ -2 indicates the area is underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data shows that significant measured or indicated resources are present. According to Figure 3.12 -1 of the General Plan EIR, the project site is located within the Mineral Resource Zone 3 Area (MRZ -3), or areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The project site is not located within an area that has been classified or designated as a mineral resource area by the State Board of Mining and Geology, nor has mineral extraction been documented to occur on site. The project site has a land use designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation and is not planned for mineral extraction use. Further, given the location of the site in relation to surrounding development, it is highly unlikely that surface mining or mineral recovery operations could occur on site Therefore, potential impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed in Item XII(a), the project is located in an area designated as MRZ -3, considered to have moderate potential for the discovery of economic mineral deposits; however, because the project site is not located within one of the designated locally- important mineral resource areas within the City. Therefore, potential impacts associated with loss of a mineral resource recovery site would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: (List mitigation measures. No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) XIII. NOISE A Noise Impact Study was prepared for the proposed project by MD Acoustics, LLC (2020c, Appendix J) to assess the project's potential noise - related impacts. Portions of the following analysis incorporate information from the study. a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction Noise LEMC Section 17.176.080 prohibits the generation construction noise between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, on weekends, and on holidays. Section 17.176.080 also provides construction Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 64 of 84 noise level limits at affected properties, "where technically and economically feasible" to achieve. Properties to the east and southeast of the project site are within the city of Wildomar; the proposed project is not subject to the regulations of the City of Wildomar and these properties are therefore not considered for the project's noise impact analysis. These properties are also separated from the project site by Mission Trail and Corydon Street, which would provide distance between the project's construction activities and potential noise receptors located at the properties. Properties to the north (vacant) and west (motor sports track) do not include sensitive receptors and are also not considered for the project's noise impact analysis. The property to the southwest includes an industrial use. While this use is not considered a sensitive receptor, LEMC Section 17.176.080 indicates a construction noise level limit of 85 A- weighed decibels (dBA) for mobile equipment at business properties. The project would result in temporary increases in noise levels during its various construction phases, primarily from the use of heavy off -road construction equipment. The use of equipment would be transitory and sporadic across the relatively large project site. The highest noise levels would likely occur during the project's grading phase, which is conservatively assumed to include the simultaneous use of one grader, one dozer, two excavators, two scrapers, and two backhoes. When considered to operate simultaneously at a single location, these pieces of equipment would together generate a noise level of 90 dBA noise equivalent level (LEQ) at 50 feet. Due their individual size and nature of activity, however, these pieces of equipment would not all operate at the same location at the same time but would rather be dispersed across the project site. Therefore, noise levels generated by the project's construction activities are not anticipated to exceed 85 dBA at the nearby industrial property. Project construction would also occur within the permissible construction hours. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Operational Stationary Source Noise LEMC Section 17.176.060 establishes daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) exterior noise level limits for properties receiving noise generated by operation of a project. Although the project's proposed 7- Eleven use would operate 24 hours a day, it would not generate substantial noise. The project's primary noise - generating uses (the car wash and tire shop) would operate during daytime hours. As such, noise generated by the proposed project's operations would be considered significant if it exceeds to 70 dBA (anytime) light industrial noise level limit at the property to the southwest or the 65 dBA (daytime) commercial noise level at all other adjacent properties. Stationary noise sources associated with operation of the project include dryers/blowers (with silencers) and vacuums at the proposed car wash use, tire store activities, drive -thru speakers at the proposed fast food restaurant, delivery trucks loading and unloading, and on -site vehicles. To provide a conservative estimate of the project's operational noise generation, all noise sources were assumed to operate simultaneously, when in reality noise source activities would be intermittent and sporadic. In the noise model, receivers were placed at property lines adjacent to the project site. Noise levels were modeled to range from 35.6 dBA (at the adjacent property line to the west) to 52.4 dBA (at the adjacent property line to the north). Project generated noise levels would be below the applicable 65 dBA and 70 dBA noise level limits, and impacts would be less than significant. To further evaluate the project's potential to result in operational noise impacts, the project's modeled operational noise levels were combined with existing ambient noise levels to estimate the project- caused increase in noise levels. Ambient noise levels were determined through noise measurements conducted as part of the project's Noise Impact Study (MD Acoustics, LLC 2020c) and were found to range between 57.7 dBA LEQ in the western portion of the site to 72.7 dBA LEQ in the eastern portion of the site. When combined with existing ambient noise levels, it was calculated that the project would not result in an increase in noise levels over ambient levels and would therefore be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 65 of 84 Operational Traffic Noise For operational traffic- related noise, impacts are considered significant in areas where noise levels are above the limits for what the City General Plan Noise Element considers "clearly compatible," and if implementation of the project would result in an increase of the ambient noise level by 3 CNEL or more (where the CNEL is the Community Noise Equivalent Level, a 24 -hour average where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have a 5 dBA weighting and during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dBA weighting). A 3 CNEL increase is considered a perceptible increase in noise levels. Project generated traffic is estimated to result in a 0.3 -CNEL increase along Corydon Street and a 0.4 CNEL increase along Mission Trail. As such, the project's operational traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Noise Impact Study, MD Acoustics 2020c [Appendix J]) b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant Impact) Groundborne vibration can result in a range of impacts, from minor annoyances to people to major shaking that damages buildings. The most prominent vibration - generating construction activities are typically pile driving and rock blasting; the proposed project would not include either of these activities. The primary source of vibration during construction would likely be a bulldozer. A large bulldozer could generate a vibration level of 0.042 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 50 feet, which might be slightly perceptible at the nearest occupied property to the southwest of the project site; however, this would not exceed the 0.1 in/sec PPV vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors or the 0.5 in/sec PPV potential criteria for architectural damage to normal dwelling structures. Further, a bulldozer would not continuously operate adjacent to the nearest off -site use but would be mobile across the project site. Therefore, construction- related vibration impacts would be less than significant. As a commercial development, the proposed project would not generate substantial vibration during operations and no impacts associated with groundborne vibration or noise levels would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Noise Impact Study, MD Acoustics 2020c [Appendix J]) c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact) The closest public use airport to the project site it the Perris Valley Airport, located approximately 9.5 miles to the northeast. The closest private airstrip to the project site is the Skylark Airport, located approximately 0.3 mile to the southwest. Skylark Airport provides glider and skydiving opportunities, but due to its private use restrictions and gravel /sand runway surface, it generally does not provide optimal conditions for frequent and convenient airport operations (City 201 lb). Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from airport operations and impacts would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 66 of 84 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less Than Significant Impact) Population growth is a complex interaction between immigration, emigration, birth, deaths, and economic factors. The U.S. Census Bureau indicated that the City had a population of 28,930 in 2000 and 51,821 as of 2010, which would represent an approximately 79 percent increase. The SCAG RTP /SCS estimated a 2008 population for Lake Elsinore of 50,200 and projected an estimated population of 70,500 and 93,800 by 2020 and 2035, respectively. SCAG released an updated RTP /SCS Growth Forecast in 2016, which estimated the population of Lake Elsinore to be 54,100 in 2012 and projected an estimated population of 63,000 and 103,200 by 2020 and 2035, respectively (SCAG 2016). It should be noted that while this is the most recent population growth forecast released by SCAG, it was released several years prior to the most recent Profile Report for Lake Elsinore, which estimated that between the years 2000 and 2018, the City's population increased from 28,930 to 63,365; an increase of 34,435 people, or 119 percent (SCAG 2019). The project entails the development of a commercial center expected to serve the existing population. No residential uses or other land uses associated with directly impacting population growth are included with the project. Although the project would result in an increase in temporary construction jobs and permanent commercial jobs, these jobs are expected to be filled by members of the existing population of the area. Additionally, the extension of Lemon Street would allow access to the project site but would not result in indirect population growth through the extension of infrastructure. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial direct or indirect population growth and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, SCAG RTP /SCS, LEMC) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The proposed project site is currently vacant. No existing people or housing would be displaced upon implementation of the project. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 67 of 84 a) Fire protection? (Less Than Significant Impact The City Fire Department is comprised of contracted fire services with RCFD and CalFire. The RCFD operates 93 fire stations in 17 battalions, providing fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services throughout Riverside County. Equipment used by RCFD has the ability to respond to both urban and wildland emergency conditions. Specifically, Battalion 2 in the Southwest Division of RCFD services the City. The nearest fire station is Station No. 11, located approximately three miles west of the project site. Future development of the project site would be subject to the City's policies and ordinances for hazard mitigation and fire prevention. The project would be required to comply with all applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the site and as such, will be reviewed by the City Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance with these requirements. Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the benefit of the citizens whereby as a condition to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy by the City, the property owner or land developer is required to pay development impact fees or provide other consideration to the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which will benefit such new development. Section 16.74.049 includes a "fire facilities fee" to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for City fire facilities. Since the proposed project does not propose new housing, potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate development impact fees. As such, the project would not require new or altered fire facilities and would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to fire protection. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, LEMC) b) Police protection? (Less Than Significant Impact) As a contract service to the City provided by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department, the Lake Elsinore Police Department is responsible for police protection within the City, including enforcement of local, state, and federal statutes; public safety; traffic enforcement; and maintaining public order. The California Highway Patrol provides traffic enforcement to the County with additional support from the local County Sheriff's Department. The Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff's Station is located at 333 Limited Avenue, approximately 3.2 miles northwest of the project site. Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which would benefit such new development. The proposed project would participate in this development impact fee program to mitigate potential impacts to police protection resources. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with applicable law enforcement requirements and standards to ensure adequate law enforcement protection is available to serve the project site. Potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the development impact fee and compliance with regulatory requirements. As such, the project would not require new or altered police facilities and would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to police protection. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, LEMC) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 68 of 84 c) Schools? (No Impact) The Lake Elsinore Unified School District ( LEUSD) covers a 144 - square mile area within the City of Lake Elsinore, City of Canyon Lake, City of Wildomar, and a portion of the unincorporated County of Riverside. LEUSD is composed of 25 schools including 13 elementary schools, 2 K -8 schools, 4 middle schools, 3 comprehensive high schools, a continuation school, and 2 alternative education centers. The proposed project would not generate new housing and the additional jobs provided by the project are anticipated to be filled by the local workforce. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in population growth or require expanded school facilities, and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC, LEUSD Website) d) Parks? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City includes 19 parks with hundreds of acres of active and passive recreation opportunities. The proposed project does not include residential uses; thus, while there may be minimal use of parks by the project's commercial employees, a direct increase in park uses is not expected as a result of project implementation. Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) for the LEMC requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner or developer must pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section. Paragraph D of Section 16.34.060 describes the City's Park Capital Improvement Fund and describes that the City Council has the option to request dedication for park purposes or, in lieu thereof, request that the property owner or developer pay a fee for the purpose of purchasing the land and developing and maintaining the City park system. The project would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining park land within the City. Since the proposed project does not propose new housing, potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical effects related to parks, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC) e) Other public services /facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City is part of the Riverside County Library System. The closest library to the project site is the Wildomar Branch Library at 34303 Mission Trail, approximately 0.6 mile south of the project site. Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) of the LEMC requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner or developer must pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section. Paragraph B of Section 16.34.060 describes the City's Library Mitigation Fee and states that an in -lieu fee for future construction of library improvements shall be paid to the City to assure the necessary library facilities are provided the community. Since the proposed project does not propose new housing, potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate library mitigation fees. Therefore, potential impacts associated with libraries would be less than significant. Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which would benefit such new Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 69 of 84 development. Section 16.74.048 includes an "Animal shelter facilities fee" to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for animal facilities. In addition, the property owner would be required to pay City Hall & Public Works fees, Community Center Fees, and Marina Facilities Fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, potential impacts associated with other public services and facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC) XVL RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008 — 2030 (adopted July 14, 2009) establishes a goal of providing five acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The proposed project does not propose residential or other uses that would result in substantial increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Indirect impacts to park facilities from the proposed project would be limited to the occasional use of a park by the project's commercial employees. As described in Item XV(d), the project applicant would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining parkland within the City. Since the proposed project does not propose new housing, potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, potential impacts associated with parks or recreational facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, LEMC) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment ? (No Impact) The proposed project does not include recreational facilities, nor, as discussed in Item XVI(a), would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. XVII. TRANSPORTATION A Traffic Impact Analysis and a VMT Evaluation were prepared for the proposed project by Trames Solutions, Inc. (2020a, Appendix K, and 2020b, Appendix L) to assess the project's potential to affect the circulation system and to generate VMT. Portions of the following analysis are based on the findings of these reports. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 70 of 84 a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project consists of a convenience store and gas station, tunnel car wash, fast food restaurant, flex -tech condos, and tire store, which would generate vehicle trips to and from the currently vacant site and would increase vehicular traffic volumes on nearby roadways compared to existing conditions. The increased traffic volumes could generate impacts to the existing roadways and intersections, that could potentially result in conflicts with an adopted plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project ( Trames Solutions, Inc. 2020a) assessed the project's potential to affect the circulation system and provided recommendations for improvements to the roadway system. The project would incorporate these recommendations, which include widening the portions of Mission Trail and Corydon Street adjacent to the project site, modifying the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street to accommodate the proposed Lemon Street extension and project's northern access, and providing stop sign controls at the project's central and southern access points. The project would also provide sidewalks and bicycle lanes along Mission Trail and Corydon Street where none currently exist, thus improving the pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems. As such, the project would not conflict with an adopted plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system with implementation of proposed design features, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Traffic Impact Analysis, Trames Solutions, Inc. 2020a [Appendix K]) b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less Than Significant Impact) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) sets forth specific criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts as related to VMT. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) and Senate Bill (SB) 743, the City recently updated their Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide to include VMT analysis methodology. Land use projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population (compared to the City's baseline threshold) are evaluated for potential impacts. Per the City's VMT analysis methodology, if a project can demonstrate consistency with one of the following three screening process steps, a project -level assessment is not required, and the project would be considered to result in a less- than - significant impact related to VMT. The three screening steps include: • Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening • Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening • Step 3: Project Type Screening The project would be consistent with screening process Step 3. Step 3 (Project Type Screening) indicates that local - serving retail projects less than 50,000 sf may be presumed to have a less- than - significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local- serving retail generally involves the convenience of shopping use close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel. The proposed project would have a building area of 38,395 sf, which falls below the 50,000 -sf threshold. Further, the types of uses proposed for the project are not anticipated to draw customers from outside the area but rather provide convenience to the local community. Therefore, the project's impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 71 of 84 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: VMT evaluation, Trames Solutions, Inc. 2020b [Appendix L]) c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses and would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. The project does not propose a dangerous design feature, nor would the proposed access driveways connect to existing roadways in such a way that would pose a danger to increased traffic. Sight distance and project access would be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that project circulation and access has been designed per City regulations. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous geometric design features would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less Than Significant Impact) Refer to Item IX(f). Potential impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, County of Riverside's Emergency Operations Plan, Site Plan) XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) As discussed in Item V, the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicated that eight previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within a one -mile radius of the project site, including Lake Elsinore, two historical -period built features, one historic -age isolated artifact, one prehistoric archaeological site, and two prehistoric isolated artifacts. Some of these resources may be considered TCRs. No resources have been recorded within the project site and no resources were observed within the project site during the pedestrian survey conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. A search of the NAHC Sacred Lands Files indicated that no sacred Native American sites have been recorded within the immediate project area; however, NAHC noted that the absence of specific site information does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in a project area and that other resources should be consulted to obtain information regarding known and previously recorded sites. An information scoping process was then untaken as part of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment in which 24 tribes and individuals named by the NAHC were contacted. Five responses were provided from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI), the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the Pala Band of Mission Indians. Only one response, from the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, identified potential concern regarding resources of Native American cultural value. The response Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 72 of 84 indicated that the project area lies within the territory of the Luiseno people and is of historic interest to the Rincon Band. Specifically, the response identified the City of Lake Elsinore as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and Traditional Cultural Landscape (TCL) of the Rincon Band that is associated with the Luiseno Creation Story and traditional practices. The Rincon Band knows of several Luiseno named places within the city; however, none are in the project area. AB 52, signed into law in 2014, amended CEQA and established new requirements for tribal notification and consultation. AB 52 applies to all projects for which a notice of preparation or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is issued after July 1, 2015. AB 52 also broadly defines a new resource category of tribal cultural resources and establishes a more robust process for meaningful consultation that includes: • Prescribed notification and response timelines; Consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact evaluation, and mitigation measures; and • Documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings. A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or (2) a parry, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. AB 52 also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c). On May 1, 2020, the City provided written notification of the project in accordance with AB 52 to six (6) Native American tribes that requested to receive such notification from the City. Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians requested formal government -to- government consultation under AB 52. As a result, the following consultations occurred: Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians: The City held a consultation meeting with the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians on June 17, 2020. As part of the consultation, the Rincon and of Luiseno Indians did not identify potential TCRs within the project's potential impact limits. However, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians did indicate a concern over the potential for uncovering TCRs or other tribal - affiliated resources during construction of the project. In response, City Planning staff provided the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians with recommended mitigation measures for review to address the potential for subsurface TCRs on the project site. The mitigation measures agreed to by the various tribes that were consulted are provided in MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 in Item V. The Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians indicated that they were in agreement with the identified mitigation measures, and the AB 52 consultation process was concluded on June 17, 2020. 0 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians: The City held a consultation meeting with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians on June 25, 2020. As part of the consultation, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians did not identify potential TCRs within the project's potential impact limits. However, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians did indicate a concern over the potential for uncovering TCRs or other Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 73 of 84 tribal - affiliated resources during construction of the project. In response, City Planning staff provided the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians with recommended mitigation measures for review to address the potential for subsurface TCRs on the project site. The mitigation measures agreed to by the various tribes that were consulted are provided in MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 in Item V. The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians indicated that they were in agreement with the identified mitigation measures, and the AB 52 consultation process was concluded on October 20, 2020. Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians: The City held an initial consultation meeting with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on July 9, 2020. As part of the consultation, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians did not identify potential TCRs within the project's potential impact limits. However, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians did indicate a concern over the potential for uncovering TCRs or other tribal affiliated resources during construction of the project. In response, City Planning staff provided the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians with recommended mitigation measures for review to address the potential for subsurface TCRs on the project site. The mitigation measures agreed to by the various tribes that were consulted are provided in MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 in Item V. The AB 52 consultation process was concluded on October 26, 2020. Based on the absence of recorded resources within or adjacent to the project site, no adverse changes in the significance of TCRs are anticipated; however, it is possible that unknown TCRs may be discovered during grading and other ground - disturbing activities. Therefore, MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 identified in Items V(b) and V(c), above, would be implemented to ensure that potential impacts to TCRs pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 (Sources: Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment, L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020b [Appendix E]) XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project would require the installation of new utility infrastructure. The project would install new water and wastewater lines that would connect to existing Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) water and wastewater lines located within Mission Trail and Corydon Street. Although these connections would occur off site, the impacts associated with the connections are considered together with the overall project impacts and are analyzed throughout this IS. Additional off -site water or wastewater facility improvements, such as new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities, would not be required for the project. Off -site stormwater infrastructure improvements would not be required for the project as the project would include on -site infrastructure that would convey stormwater to an on -site detention basin. The project would connect to existing SCE electrical lines and SoCalGas natural gas lines, as well as existing telecommunications lines, and would not require the construction or expansion of new off -site facilities. Based on these considerations, potential impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility infrastructure would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 74 of 84 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (Less Than Significant Impact) Domestic water is provided to the project site by EVMWD. EVMWD obtains its potable water supplies from imported water from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, local surface water from Canyon Lake, and local groundwater from the Elsinore Basin. According to EVMWD's Urban Water Management Plan, EVMWD has determined that its current and anticipated future supplies are sufficient to meet the projected dry -year and multiple dry -year demand for its service area. Thus, there are sufficient water supplies as well as water shortage contingency plans to protect existing and future water needs within the EVMWD service area. The project would result in an incremental increase in demand for water during construction (e.g., minimal use of water for dust control during grading activities) and operation (e.g., potable water use for proposed commercial uses). The proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designation for the property, and thus, anticipated water use has been considered in the water supply planning for future water supplies in the EVMWD service area. The anticipated demand would be an amount that the existing entitlements under EVMWD would be able to supply. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: EVMWD Urban Water Management Plan) c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Less Than Significant Impact) EVMWD would provide wastewater service to the proposed project site. Wastewater generated by the proposed commercial uses would be typical of commercial sources and would not result in a significant demand for wastewater treatment beyond that provided by existing facilities. Wastewater flows from the project site would be collected and conveyed to the existing sewer line via an 8 -inch sewer line and connect to an existing 18 -inch sewer line within Corydon Street near the project site's southern access. Construction of new lines or expansion of existing lines is not proposed, as there is sufficient capacity to convey wastewater from the proposed project. The Regional Reclamation Facility operated by EVMWD has sufficient capacity to treat wastewater generated at the proposed project site. Additionally, the project would be required to pay utility rates and development impact fees for wastewater service. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less Than Significant Impact) Riverside County Waste Management facilitates solid waste disposal services for Riverside County, and the City contracts with CR &R, Inc. Environmental Services for trash pickup. Lake Elsinore is served three landfills, including El Sobrante Landfill, Badlands Landfill, and Lamb Canyon Landfill. El Sobrante Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2045. Badlands Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2024 and Lamb Canyon Landfill by 2021. Both Badlands and Lamb Canyon Landfills have the potential to expand their facilities and capacity. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 75 of 84 Solid waste disposal is managed at the regional level; therefore, generation of solid waste within the City, including by the proposed project, is one part of a regional issue. The project would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations, including Section 40050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code, to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC requires that project construction divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris. The project is anticipated to meet or exceed this requirement during construction. The amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project is anticipated to be accommodated by the existing landfills, and recycling and green waste collection would reduce the overall solid waste generated. Therefore, potential impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC) e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less Than Significant Impact) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989 as amended [IWMA]) under the Public Resource Code requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000, and 50 percent diversion each year following. This is achieved at the city -wide level. Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC requires that project applicants divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris; the project would meet or exceed this requirement. The project would also comply with AB 341 which establishes mandatory commercial recycling and requires businesses that generate four or more cy of trash per week to arrange recycling services. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC, Public Resources Code) XX. WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact) Refer to Item IX(f). Potential impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, County of Riverside's Emergency Operations Plan) b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Less Than Significant Impact) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 76 of 84 c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Less Than Significant Impact) According to Figure 3.10 -2 (City of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility) of the General Plan EIR, which is based on CalFire's fire hazard severity zone mapping, the project site and surroundings areas are not located in areas mapped as a moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, including through the installation of the proposed Lemon Street extension. In addition, due the level topography of the project site and surrounding areas, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR) Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 77 of 84 V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Potentially significant impacts to the environment resulting from the proposed project have been identified for biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions, and TCRs. All potentially significant impacts to biological resources related to adjacent MSHCP Conservation Areas, burrowing owl, and nesting birds would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with implementation of MM 13I0-1 through MM BI0-4. The project is not expected to impact resources related to major period of California history or prehistory. Based on the cultural sensitivity of the area, however, the project would have the potential to impact unknown subsurface cultural resources or TCRs. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less -than- significant level with implementation of MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7. Implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG -9 would reduce potential impacts associated with GHG emissions to a less- than - significant level. Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Mitigation Measures: MM 13I0-1 through MM 13I0-4, MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7, MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -9. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual project effects that, when considered together or in concert with other projects, combine to result in a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the proposed project would result in potentially significant project - specific impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions, and TCRs; however, project - related effects either would be avoided by incorporation of project design measures or mitigated to levels below significance. As described in Item IV, project construction could result in potentially significant direct and/or indirect impacts to burrowing owl, nesting birds and raptors, and migratory birds and their habitat, as well as nearby MSHCP Conservation Areas. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant through compliance with applicable permits (pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, MBTA, federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act) and implementation of MM BI0-1 through MM 13I0-4. Other development in the project area also would be required to comply with applicable environmental laws and mitigation requirements. The Western Riverside County MSHCP, which has been adopted by local jurisdictions and approved by the wildlife agencies, is largely designed to Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 78 of 84 address potential cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from development in the western portion of the County through assembly of a comprehensive reserve system. Based on the project - specific mitigation measures that would be implemented and on the existence of an approved region -wide conservation plan, the proposed project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative biological resources impact. As discussed in Items V and XVIII, the proposed project would not adversely affect known cultural resources. Potentially significant impacts could occur if archaeological resources, TCRs, and/or human remains are disturbed during ground - disturbing activities associated with project construction. While it is possible that unknown cultural resources or TCRs may be encountered during construction, mitigation measures MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7 have been included that would reduce impacts to these resources to below a level of significance. Accordingly, the proposed project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative cultural resources impact. The Air Quality and GHG Impact Study and Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project considered cumulative impacts in their respective analyses. The project would be consistent with local and regional plans, and the project's air quality emissions would not exceed established thresholds of significance; therefore, no cumulatively considerable impacts related to air quality would occur. Implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG -9 would ensure that the project would be consistent with the CAP, and thus, would not result in cumulatively considerable environmental impacts relative to GHG emissions. Fourteen cumulative projects were identified in the traffic analysis prepared for the project: 1. TAG Property — 50,000 -sf automotive sales development 2. LE Sport Complex — 525,000 -sf soccer complex 3. Diamond Specific Plan — 114 -unit multi - family housing development, 150 -room hotel, 425,000 -sf office development, and 472,000 -sf shopping center 4. Artisan Alley — 95 -unit multi - family residential development 5. The Colony /TAG Property/John Laing Homes — variety of residential developments 6. Triangle (The Point Commercial) — 3,524 -sf car wash and shopping center 7. Store America Self Storage — 588 -unit self - storage 8. Wildomar Shooting Academy — shooting Range 9. Subway — 10,500 -sf fast food restaurant 10. Bundy Canyon Plaza — 36,990 -sf shopping center 11. Retail Building — 194,000 -sf shopping center 12. Village at Monte Vista — 80 -unit single - family residential development and 136,000 -sf business park 13. KB /Summerhill — 70 -unit single - family residential development 14. Darling /Bundy Canyon — 140 -unit multi - family residential development Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 79 of 84 These 14 projects, in combination with the proposed project, would generate vehicular traffic on Mission Trail and Corydon Street. As discussed in Item XVII(a), the project would incorporate recommendations provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis to ensure adequate circulation to accommodate long -term traffic volumes. Associated impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project is consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan — Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation land use designation and with the existing underlying zoning. Therefore, incremental increases in impacts to the environment would be within the thresholds set by the General Plan, East Lake Specific Plan, and supporting planning and regulatory documents. When considering all potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, including impacts identified as less than significant in the Initial Study, together with the impacts of other present, past, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, there would not be a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO -1 through MM BIO -4, MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -7, MM GHG-1 through MM GHG -9 (Sources: Air Quality and GHG Impact Study and Traffic Impact Analysis) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction and operation of the project would not cause environmental effects that would significantly directly or indirectly impact human beings. The proposed project would adhere to regulatory codes, ordinances, regulations, standards, and guidelines applicable to each of the environmental issue areas analyzed herein. For project - related construction activities that have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings (sound, traffic, dust), the project is required to meet all LEMC grading and construction requirements and BMPs, which would be implemented during project construction to reduce these effects to below a level of significance. As evidenced by the Initial Study, no other substantial adverse effects on human beings, either indirectly or directly, would occur as a result of project implementation. Impacts would be less than significant. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 80 of 84 VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines. HELIX Environmental Planniniz Hunter Stapp, Project Manager Vanessa Toscano, Senior Project Manager Daniel Young, GIS Specialist City of Lake Elsinore Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Associate, Planning Manager Nick Lowe, PERMS, Consultant Traffic Engineer Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 81 of 84 VII. REFERENCES The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document. Except as noted, they are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674 -3124. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. April. California Department of Conservation (CDC) 2016 California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https: / /maps. conservation. ca. gov/DLRP /CIFF /. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2018 California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at: https:// www. arcgis. com/ apps/ webgppviewer /index.html ?id= 2e921695c43643b 1 aaf7000d fcc19983. City of Lake Elsinore (City) 2020 Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LakeElsinore/. 2017 East Lake Specific Plan. Adopted November 28, 2018, updated September 7, 2018. 2014 City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map. September 23, as amended. 2011 a City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. December 13. 201 lb City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report. December 13. 2011c City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan. December 13. 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008 — 2030. July 14. 2005 Plan Preparation and Design Manual County of Riverside 2003 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Available at: https: / /rctlma.org/ Portals /0 /mshcp /volumel /index.html. Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 2020 Preliminary Fault Hazard Analysis. June 12. 2019 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. September 27. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 82 of 84 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2020 FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address. Available at: https: / /msc. fema. goy/portal/ search? AddressQuery = lake %20elsinore #searchresultsanchor. KWC Engineers 2020 Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan. September. L &L Environmental, Inc. 2020a Habitat Assessment, Burrowing Owl Survey, and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Determination. September. 2020b Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. March 18. Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) 2020 Our District, About Us. Accessed September 15. Available at: hllps://www.leusd.kl2.ca.us/gpps/paizes/index.jsp?uREC ID=324467&1ype=d&pREC I D= 732453. MD Acoustics, LLC. 2020a Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study. September 14. 2020b CEQA Energy Review. January 28. 2020c Noise Impact Study. September 15. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2019 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. April. Available at: http: / /www.agmd. gov /docs/ default - source /ceq a/handbook/scagmd- air- quality- significance- thresholds.pdf. 2016 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. February. Available at: http: / /www.agmd.gov /docs /default- source /clean - air -plans /air - quality -mana eg ment- plans /naa fis- caaqs- feb20l6.pdf. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2019 Local Profiles Report for the City of Lake Elsinore. Available at: h!Ltps://www.scaiz.ca.jzov/Documents/LakeElsinore.pd f. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Final Growth Forecast. Available at: http: / /www.scag ca. gov /DataAndTools /Pages /GrowthForecasting.aspx. Trames Solutions, Inc. 2020a Traffic Impact Analysis. August 12. 2020b Vehicles Miles Traveled Evaluation. August 12. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 83 of 84 U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) 2020 QuickFacts, Lake Elsinore city, California; Wildomar city, California. Available at: hllps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lakeelsinorecitycalifomia,wildomarciiycalif omia /PST045219. 2012 Households and Families: 2010. April. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). 2020a. Joint Project Review (JPR 20- 06- 09 -01) for the LEAP 2020 -02 /Corydon Gateway. September 24. 2020b Review of Joint Project Review (JPR 20- 06- 09 -01) for the LEAP 2020 -02 /Corydon Gateway, provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. October 12. 2020c Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021. Available at: https://www.wrc-rca.ora/wp- content/uploads /2020 /07/FY2021- MSHCP -FEE- SCHEDULE -.pdf. Corydon Gateway Project - Initial Study /MND Page 84 of 84 Planning Application No. 2019 -69 APN: 370 - 050 -026 and portion of 370 - 050 -030 VICINITY MAP CITY OF L-. LADE LSIIYORE DREAM EXTREME `TM V1 FORIAN -L -N IAN- L-EW/S ST PROJECT SITE LEMON ST i z 0 WAI FE ST O G N CITY OF L-. LADE LSIIYORE DREAM EXTREME `TM Planning Application No. 2019-69 APN: 370-050-026 and portion of 370-050-030 AERIAL MAP 4 �w PUAr VW"14- CITY OF Ir,� L: EF, W tT� /S 1-s- w 1, 1 I , I PROJECT SITE I I I LE 0 T j j i A# A "W* 41 U"I" M NS ------------ j L-.- LAKE LSTHORE DREAM EXTREME V. . r% A r\ - r- 1 /1 I- / 1 h! I h- 1 !< I I I I 1 %' L- L- \I TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37977 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE � I I I r% A r\ /\ r- I �� rl rN r- rN rN i, r7 .. i / / I i I Z_ SCALE: 1"=50' 0 25 50 100 150 200 SCALE: 1 INCH = 50 FEET LOT SUMMARY LIST LOT 1 - DRIVE -THRU RESTAURANT LOT 2 - CONVENIENCE STORE / GAS STA71ON LOT 3 - CAR WASH LOT 4 - 71RE STORE LOT 5 - FLEXTECH CONDOS LOT 6 - FELXTECH CONDOS LOT A - DETENTION BASIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 4 -A AS SHOWN ON AMENDED MAP OF A PORTION OF SEDCO TRACT NO. 28, IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19 PAGE(S) 37 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH THAT POR71ON OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT OF WAY PER DEED RECORDED APRIL 8, 1921 IN BOOK 543 PAGE 259 OF DEEDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.• COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORYDON STREET 60.00 FEET WIDE AND THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CEREAL STREET, 60.00 FEET WIDE AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY IN BOOK 19, PAGE 25, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORYDON STREET NORTH 36 DEGREES 35 MINUTES EAST 1110.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORYDON STREET NORTH 36 DEGREES 35 MINUTES EAST 395.91 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORYDON STREET AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MISSION TRAIL, 60.00 FEET WIDE AS SHOWN BY RECORDED OF SURVEY IN BOOK 19, PAGE 25, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MISSION TRAIL NORTH 02 DEGREES 27 MINUTES WEST 200.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 33 MINUTES WEST 802.72 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 11 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST 50.08 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PASSING THROUGH THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 53 DEGREES 25 MINUTES WEST, THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 53 DEGREES 25 MINUTES EAST 727.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT POR77ON DESCRIBED IN FINAL ORDER RECORDED SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 07- 0562726. SAID LAND IS ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 73, PAGE 44 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL B. THAT POR71ON OF LOTS 1 AND 4 -A AS SHOWN ON AMENDED MAP OF A POR71ON OF SEDCO TRACT NO. 28, N THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19 PAGE(S) 37 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH THAT POR71ON OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT OF WAY PER DEED RECORDED APRIL 8, 1921 IN BOOK 543 PAGE 259 OF DEEDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORYDON STREET 60.00 FEET WIDE AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MISSION TRAIL 60.00 FEET WIDE AS SHOWN ON RECORD OFSURVEY IN BOOK 19, PAGE 25, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,• THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MISSION TRAIL NORTH 02 DEGREES 27 MINUTES WEST 200.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 02 DEGREES 27 MINUTES WEST 410.00 FEET, • THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 23 MINUTES WEST 704.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST 421.67 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PASSING THROUGH THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 87 DEGREES 33 MINUTES EAST; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 87 DEGREES 33 MINUTES EAST 802.72 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN FINAL ORDER RECORDED SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 07- 0562726. SAID LAND IS ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL 5 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 73, PAGE 44 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT POR71ON CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY GRANT DEED RECORDED JUNE 20, 2012 AS INSTRUMENT NO. NO. 2012 - 0284733 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS APN : 370 - 050 -026 -3 (AFFECTS : PARCEL A) AND APN : 370 - 050 -030 -6 (AFFECTS : PARCEL B) EASEMENTS: Ol AN EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 24, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 85- 239660 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (AFFECTS PARCEL A) [AFFECTS THE EASTERLY 20 FEET OF PARCEL A] 2 THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT EN717LED 'ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE WATERS' RECORDED MAY 13, 1986 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 86- 109491 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 3 DOCUMENT(S) DECLARING MODIFICATIONS THEREOF RECORDED MAY 15, 1986 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 86- 112387 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS [AFFECTS PARCELS A AND B] 4 AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 07, 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 00- 263480 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (AFFECTS PARCEL B) [NOT PLOTTED; SAID EASEMENT LIES WHIN THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF MISSION TRAIL] OAN EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED APRIL 13, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01- 155718 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (AFFECTS PARCEL B) [THE ELY 20 FEET OF SAID EASEMENT LIES WITHIN THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF MISSION TRAIL] © THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT EN717LED 'JOINT USE AGREEMENT' RECORDED MAY 08, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 01- 200748 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS [AFFECTS PARCEL B AND EXCEPTION ITEM NO. 15] UTILI TY PROVIDERS: ELECTRICITY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (800) 655 -4555 WATER: ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 31315 CHANEY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531 (951) 674 -3146 SEWER. ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 31315 CHANEY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531 (951) 674 -3146 TELEPHONE. VERIZON TELEPHONE (800) 483 -5000 CABLE.• 77ME WARNER CABLE (888) 211 -1546 GAS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. (800) 427 -2200 LEGEND: BOUNDARY LINE CENTER LINE - - - - PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EASEMENT LINE EASEMENT CENTERLINE -- - - - - - - - - ORIGINAL LOT LINE 105 5' CONTOUR E i 1' CONTOUR CONCRETE -- - - - - - - - - CURB GUTTER SIDEWALK -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AC BERM ® VALVE Y ICV ICV VALVE (i MANHOLE I SIGN ® 7S TRAFFIC SIGNAL 1S TRAFFIC SIGNAL W /ARM i FH FIRE HYDRANT S - SOUTH N - NORTH W - WEST E - EAST S'LY - SOUTHERLY NIL - NORTHERLY WILY - WESTERLY El - EASTERLY CL - CENTERLINE PL - PROPERTY LINE TIP - TYPICAL APN - ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER P7R - PER PRELIMINARY 717LE REPORT WT - WATER ELEC - ELECTRIC SCE - SO -CAL EDISON SD - STORM DRAIN 7S - TRAFFIC SIGNAL HH - HANDHOLE PP - POWER POLE PED - PEDESTAL SL - STREET LIGHT DIA - DIAMETER ICV - IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE FH - FIRE HYDRANY VSP - VEN71LLA71ON SERVICE PIPE „ �� VICINTY MAP NOT TO SCALE GENERAL NOTES: 1. 774E LAND AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PARCEL A (P7R) 4.62 ACRES AND PARCEL B (P7R) 6.81 ACRES 2 7771E SEARCH - THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A 7771E SEARCH BY SUMMIT WEST CONSULTANTS, INC. OR THE SURVEYOR TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY OR TO VERIFY THE DESCRIP71ONS PROVIDED. THE COMPA77BILITY OF THESE DESCRIP71ONS WITH THAT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES; NOR EASEMENTS, RIGHTS -OF -WAY OR 7171E OF RECORD. SUMMIT WEST CONSULTANTS, INC. RELIED UPON FIRST AMENDED PRELIMINARY 7171E REPORT FIRST AMERICAN TITLE, (909) 510 -6233, DATED MAY 10, 2019. DATE PREPARED: JANUARY 2020 APPLICANT RED CORYDON, LLC 38122 STONE MEADOW DRIVE MURRIETA, CA 92562 OWNER: RED CORYDON, LLC 38122 STONE MEADOW DRIVE MURRIETA, CA 92562 ENGINEER: SUMMIT WEST CONSULTANTS, INC. P.O. BOX 71151 RIVERSIDE, CA 62513 PHONE. 626- 512 -4934 PROJECT MANAGER: CARLOS URERA PROPERTY A CREA GE: TOTAL 6.05 ACRES ZONING: SPA - SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN) A.P.N.: 370 - 050 -026 -3 370 - 050 -030 -6 BENCHMARK: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BENCHMARK. 'E- 10 -70' LOCATION. 37.0 FEET NORTHWEST OF THE 'T' INTERSECTION OF LAKEWEW TERRACE AND OLIVE STREET, 330 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE CENTER OF LAKE VIEW TERRACE, 4.0 FEET NORTHWEST OF POWER POLE /11730, 1.0 FEET SOUTHEAST OF A MARKER POST, A BRASS DISK SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE POST AND MARKED E- 10 -70. ELEVATION = 1330.771 FEET (DATUM. THE NATIONAL GEODE77C VER71CAL DATUM OF 1929) BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING OF NORTH 3635'00' EAST, BEING THE CENTERLINE OF CORYDON ST., AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 73, PAGE 44, RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP. TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE: ELEVATIONS DEPICTED IN THIS MAP ARE BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED ON AUGUST 2019, AND IS A ONE FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL TOPOGRAPHY. FL OOD ZONE: POR71ONS OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SURVEY LIES WITHIN 2 VERSIONS OF ZONE X' OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP IDEN71FIED AS MAP NO. 06065C2043G, BEARING AN EFFEC71VE DATE OF AUGUST 28, 2008. 1. ZONE 'X' IS DEFINED AS AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. 2. ZONE 'X' IS DEFINED AS AREAS OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1% CHANCE ANNUAL FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE, AND AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD. 0 CL LIQv Q Q w 0 0 0 0 0 U N O O 0 w 0 0 U z Q 0 W 0 0 z 0 U MISSION TRAIL N II \� II \� SITE I LEMON ST. CEREAL ST. IL_____ ii WAERE ST. \\ BUNDY CYN. RD. c�;�\ ���• II �� VICINTY MAP NOT TO SCALE GENERAL NOTES: 1. 774E LAND AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PARCEL A (P7R) 4.62 ACRES AND PARCEL B (P7R) 6.81 ACRES 2 7771E SEARCH - THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A 7771E SEARCH BY SUMMIT WEST CONSULTANTS, INC. OR THE SURVEYOR TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY OR TO VERIFY THE DESCRIP71ONS PROVIDED. THE COMPA77BILITY OF THESE DESCRIP71ONS WITH THAT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES; NOR EASEMENTS, RIGHTS -OF -WAY OR 7171E OF RECORD. SUMMIT WEST CONSULTANTS, INC. RELIED UPON FIRST AMENDED PRELIMINARY 7171E REPORT FIRST AMERICAN TITLE, (909) 510 -6233, DATED MAY 10, 2019. DATE PREPARED: JANUARY 2020 APPLICANT RED CORYDON, LLC 38122 STONE MEADOW DRIVE MURRIETA, CA 92562 OWNER: RED CORYDON, LLC 38122 STONE MEADOW DRIVE MURRIETA, CA 92562 ENGINEER: SUMMIT WEST CONSULTANTS, INC. P.O. BOX 71151 RIVERSIDE, CA 62513 PHONE. 626- 512 -4934 PROJECT MANAGER: CARLOS URERA PROPERTY A CREA GE: TOTAL 6.05 ACRES ZONING: SPA - SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN) A.P.N.: 370 - 050 -026 -3 370 - 050 -030 -6 BENCHMARK: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BENCHMARK. 'E- 10 -70' LOCATION. 37.0 FEET NORTHWEST OF THE 'T' INTERSECTION OF LAKEWEW TERRACE AND OLIVE STREET, 330 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE CENTER OF LAKE VIEW TERRACE, 4.0 FEET NORTHWEST OF POWER POLE /11730, 1.0 FEET SOUTHEAST OF A MARKER POST, A BRASS DISK SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE POST AND MARKED E- 10 -70. ELEVATION = 1330.771 FEET (DATUM. THE NATIONAL GEODE77C VER71CAL DATUM OF 1929) BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING OF NORTH 3635'00' EAST, BEING THE CENTERLINE OF CORYDON ST., AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 73, PAGE 44, RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP. TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE: ELEVATIONS DEPICTED IN THIS MAP ARE BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED ON AUGUST 2019, AND IS A ONE FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL TOPOGRAPHY. FL OOD ZONE: POR71ONS OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SURVEY LIES WITHIN 2 VERSIONS OF ZONE X' OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP IDEN71FIED AS MAP NO. 06065C2043G, BEARING AN EFFEC71VE DATE OF AUGUST 28, 2008. 1. ZONE 'X' IS DEFINED AS AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. 2. ZONE 'X' IS DEFINED AS AREAS OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1% CHANCE ANNUAL FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE, AND AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD. 0 CL LIQv Q Q w 0 0 0 0 0 U N O O 0 w 0 0 U z Q 0 W 0 0 z 0 U EXISTING PARCEL LINE i DETENTION LOT A 0.22 AC (9,494 SF ±) 0 20' 40' 80' SCALE: 1" = 40.00' - - - - - -- �- -- - U / w w w s L 1[ 110( jPARCEL 6 PATH OF TRAVEL ---- ------ Y- - - -- z -- j2 it li �1�11 �1�11 �Ff,P,t t IPA 11111101 All 2 EXISTI"'^ CNT ^n A f-% 1177 \/A 1711 TRUE NORTH re PROJECT NORTH PARCEL 1/ PARCEL 2 RECIPROCAL ACC DIRECTIONAL SIGN DRIVEWAY 16 2 1\ - •� 11 I • `o. AM m—Sk Now 8 8 >I� WHO C:":3 � I to, -o 6( J. 000 oDo oLlo 000 1 � I ® e e 4 I 0 0 16 PUMP o o I W FUEL ISLAND -oDo - - - - -- odo - - - - -- oCo - - - - -- 000 0 PARCEL 2 O a 1.09 AC (47,694 SF ±) 5 / / E 1 MULTI - TENANT MONUMENT SIGN - REF: SIGN PROGRAM i J / / SNGLE- TENANT / /MONUMENT SI N- / REF: SIGN P GRAM / / O �O � O1R.- i CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA MONUMENT SIGN - REF: SIGN PROGRAM � I SINGLE-TENANT MONUMEN SIGN- REF: SIGN (PROGRAM J R.O.W. DEDIC Id J Q H Z 'O / I i — CORNER MO UMENT SIGN - REF: SIGN PROGRAM — BUILDING SETBACK I _ EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARKING EMC SEC. 17.148.030 REQUIRED PARKING: PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS (U.N.O.): 9'X 18' MINIMUM AISLE WIDTH (90° PARKING): 26' RETAIL (1/250): 17 STALLS DRIVE -THRU RESTAURANT: 3 1/ 45 SF CUSTOMER AREA 4 (650 SF/ 45): 15 STALLS 1/ 200 SF NONCUSTOMER AREA 6 (1,650 SF/ 200): 9 STALLS TIRE STORE: 8 750 SF/ 250 OFFICE/ SALES: 3 STALLS 3/ SERVICE BAY: 18 STALLS FLEX -TECH CONDOS: 20 PLUS 1/100 OVER 1,000 5,500 SF/ 250 OFFICE: 22 STALLS 16,580 SF/ 500 STORAGE: 34 STALLS EXPRESS CARWASH (1/ EMPLOYEE) 3 STALLS PARKING REQUIRED: 121 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 143 STALLS ACCESSIBLE PARKING OVER 100 2019 CBC TABLE 11 B -208.2 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES 1-25 1 26- 50 2 51-75 3 76-100 4 101-150 :IFE 151-200 6 201-300 7 301-400 8 401-500 9 501- 1,000 2 PERCENT OF TOTAL 1,001 AND OVER 20 PLUS 1/100 OVER 1,000 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 143 STALLS TOTAL ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED: 5 STALLS VAN ACCESSIBLE REQ'D (SEC. 11 B- 208.2.4) 1 OF TOTAL REQ'D ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED: STANDARD STALL: 1 STALLS VAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS: 6 STALLS TOTAL ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED: 7 STALLS CLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING 2019 CAL GREEN TABLE 5.106.5.2 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES 0-9 0 10-25 1 26-50 3 51-75 6 76-100 8 101-150 15' 151-200 16 201 AND OVER 8 PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 143 STALLS TOTAL CAV PARKING REQUIRED: 11 STALLS TOTAL CAV PARKING PROVIDED: * *11 STALLS * *(CALGREEN 5.106.5.3.5: FUTURE EVCS SPACES QUALIFY AS DESIGNATED PARKING FOR CLEAN AIR VEHICLES) FUTURE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS 2019 CAL GREEN TABLE 5.106.5.3.3 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TOTAL NUMBER OF EVCS SPACES 0-9 0 10-25 1 26- 50 2 51-75 4 76-100 5 JL 101-150 15' 10 151-200 201 AND OVER 6 PERCENT OF TOTAL 2019 CBC TABLE 11 B- 228.3.2.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF VAN STANDARD AMBULATORY EVCS AT A FACILITY ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE 1 STALL 1 -4 1 0 0 FUTURE EVCS SPACES PROVIDED: 15' 1 0 26-50 1 1 1 51-75 1 2 2 76-100 1 3 3 101 AND OVER 1 + 1/300 3+ 1/60 1 + 1/50 ieman S� OVER 100 OVER 100 OVER 100 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 143 STALLS FUTURE EVCS SPACES REQUIRED: 7 STALLS FUTURE ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQ'D (OF TOTAL): ACTION SPORTS, TOURISM, COMMERCIAL & RECREATION VAN ACCESSIBLE: 1 STALL STANDARD ACCESSIBLE: 1 STALLS AMBULATORY: 0 STALLS FUTURE EVCS SPACES PROVIDED: 15' FUTURE STANDARD EVCS SPACES: 7 STALLS FUTURE VAN ACCESSIBLE EVCS PROVIDED: 2 STALL FUTURE STANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCS PROVIDED: 1 STALL FUTURE AMBULATORY EVCS PROVIDED: 0 STALLS TOTAL FUTURE EVCS SPACES PROVIDED: 11 STALLS FUTURE EVCS NOTES: 1. ALL CLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE ADDITION OF FUTURE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS. 2. FUTURE ACCESSIBLE EVCS STALLS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS ALONG ACCESSIBLE ROUTES OR, HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE MODIFIED WITHOUT AFFECTING REQUIRED PARKING SPACE QUANTITIES. RED 1 N� 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 41 M U R R I ETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 41 VICINITY �o ZONING GENERAL PLAN: S ZONING: EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN 4,088 SF Vine sx ACTION SPORTS, TOURISM, COMMERCIAL & RECREATION TIRE STORE: MIXED US OVERLAY BUILDING SETBACKS: 750 SF FRONT: 15' SIDE(ADJ TO PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY): 15' SIDE(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' o 0' PARKING SETBACKS: 4,007 SF wrnar.•E A. 25' AVG/ 20' MIN r Mme sr 15' SIDE(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): lcnn rrmymnn �d�ncr 0' f�emrr�rory Sr nu rr . ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS: L.M., Sr ieman S� MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 15% _ Ya14y 1 ni I� wn�r• sr � wna• sc v Bundy Canyvn Rd Bundy [anyan Rr ZONING GENERAL PLAN: SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING: EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN 4,088 SF PLANNING AREA 2 ACTION SPORTS, TOURISM, COMMERCIAL & RECREATION TIRE STORE: MIXED US OVERLAY BUILDING SETBACKS: 750 SF FRONT: 15' SIDE(ADJ TO PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY): 15' SIDE(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' REAR(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' PARKING SETBACKS: 4,007 SF FRONT: 25' AVG/ 20' MIN SIDE(ADJ TO PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY): 15' SIDE(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' REAR(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 45' ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS: 65' MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE: MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 15% PROJECT SUMMARY LAND AREA: 6.05 AC (263,663 SF ±) RETAIL: 4,088 SF DRIVE -THRU RESTAURANT: 2,300 SF TIRE STORE: SALES: 750 SF SERVICE: 4,450 SF (6 SERVICE BAYS) FLEX -TECH: OFFICE: 5,500 SF STORAGE: 16,580 SF EXPRESS CARWASH: 4,007 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 38,395 SF FUELING CANOPY: 4,285 SF CARWASH PAY CANOPY: BUILDING COVERAGE (F.A.R.): 16.2% MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 30' ONSITE LANDSCAPE AREA: 40,826 SF (15.5 %) LEGEND & SYMBOLS VAN VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE CAV CLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING SPACE EVCS FUTURE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING PARKING SPACE DDC DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE- REF: CIVIL DRAWINGS FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION- REF: CIVIL DRAWINGS FH FIRE HYDRANT- REF: CIVIL DRAWINGS PROVIDE BLUE REFLECTOR @ CL DRIVEWAY PER FIRE DEPT REQUIREMENTS GM GAS METER LOCATION- REF: PLUMBING & GAS UTILITY DRAWINGS PIV POST INDICATOR VALVE- REF: CIVIL DRAWINGS R RECYCLE DUMPSTER T TRASH DUMPSTER TR TRANSFORMER- REF ELECTRICAL UTILITY DRAWINGS WM WATER METER- REF: CIVIL DRAWINGS SS STOP SIGN- REF: DET. 9/ SD2.0 AP ACCESSIBLE PATH SIGN- REF DET. 8/ SD2.0 SE SITE ENTRANCE SIGN- REF DET. 7/ SD2.0 jFIRE LANE FIRE TRUCK TURNING RADIUS >0[WI BUILDING AREAS AND LAND COVERAGE ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT. ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT OR OTHER AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. ALL DIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. PRELIMINARY SI PLAN SCHEME Kv6 CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 24 JUNE 2020 PIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 T 949.344.2710 F 949.344.2720 ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 EXISTING PARCEL LINE 1 y If DETENTION LOT A 0.22 AC (9,494 SF ±) PATH OF TRAVEL PARCEL 1/ PARCEL 2 RECIPROCAL ACC DIRECTIONAL SIGN DRIVEWAY � ' o o - 11111I- 0o AAS p 7 - co z „ , --- - - - - -- - -- - - -1 - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- / _ / -- - - - - -7 \ / z > > > 6 i 2 -- - / PARCEL IS / 3O <\ 1.10 AC (48,077 SF ±) ST O .�� I L5,200 3 \ SF PARCEL 4 \ SUITE 1 0.86 AC (37,472 S F _- ) \ 2,880 SF .\ _ - \ `\ 3 SUITE 2 ` \ 1,920 SF \ SUITE 3 `\ \ G 1,920 SF SUITE 4 1,920 SF \ 55 SUITE 5 `� P) 1,920 SF �\�\ 1.04 AC SUITE 6 \\ 1,920 SF SUITE 7 1,920 SF SUITE 8 \� ` 1,920 SF SUITE 9 1,920 SF ONDOS ` ,(� ' T�/ _ SUITE 10 SF xz�o 1,920 SF =XTECH C 22,080 �I WON 17 \ - PARCEL 3 1.10 AC (47,889 SF ±) \ EVCS s \ \I 7 t nil 18' -011 261- I I 7- ELEVEN R.O.W. 4 EVCS • 4,088 SF 26' -0" - " 0' -0° DEDICATIO 511 II EVCS: 20' 011 e 60 -0 1 J Q z O W C) G C\/IC%TIAI!'% C+T!'ll"]Af -%C \ /AMM YO SUITE 11 1,920 SF ` Cl o0 O °o V 4 �< �u LEMON STREET MODIFY EXISTING \ TRAFFIC SIGNAL +MULTI -TEN NT MONUMENT SIGN - REF: SIGN PROGRAM i SINGLE-TENANT MONUMENT SIGN- REF: SIGN PROGRAM L VCS a S L K 9'X 18' MINIMUM AISLE WIDTH (90° PARKING): L -- - - -� I - -- -- -- 1/ 45 SF CUSTOMER AREA 0 ° z - 1 U 1/ 200 SF NONCUSTOMER AREA Q (1,650 SF/ 200): 9 STALLS TIRE STORE: o \\ \\ 3 STALLS 3/ SERVICE BAY: 18 STALLS E ® 5,500 SF/ 250 OFFICE: s 16,580 SF/ 500 STORAGE: 34 STALLS EXPRESS CARWASH (1/ EMPLOYEE) 3 STALLS PARKING REQUIRED: 121 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 143 STALLS ACCESSIBLE PARKING ONSI IRRI A TABLE 11 B -208.2 40 I� FUEL PRICING CO OLLE DS - A 0 E Bundy Canyvn Rd Bundy [anyan Rr ° MONUMENT SIGN REF: SIGN�ROGR�AM D WGS ® -------------------- ----- - - - - -- S TE E T C ° I 000 ono 0110 000 E UI N - ® ® °e I -4- I J 4 F 120/C O V W ° 0 16 PUMP o o / � � FUEL ISLAND ® s I 000 000 oEo 000 1 / SfNGLE- TENANT /MONUMENT SI N / REF: SIGN P GRAM i V 0 20' 40' 80' SCALE: 1" = 40.00' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA FUEL-PRE ING MONUMENT SIGN - REF: SIGN PROGRAM CORNER MONUMENT SIGN REF: SIGN PR GRAM BUILDING SETBACK I PARKING EMC SEC. 17.148.030 REQUIRED PARKING: PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS (U.N.O.): 9'X 18' MINIMUM AISLE WIDTH (90° PARKING): 26' RETAIL (1/250): 17 STALLS DRIVE -THRU RESTAURANT: 3 1/ 45 SF CUSTOMER AREA 4 (650 SF/ 45): 15 STALLS 1/ 200 SF NONCUSTOMER AREA 6 (1,650 SF/ 200): 9 STALLS TIRE STORE: 8 750 SF/ 250 OFFICE/ SALES: 3 STALLS 3/ SERVICE BAY: 18 STALLS FLEX -TECH CONDOS: 20 PLUS 1/100 OVER 1,000 5,500 SF/ 250 OFFICE: 22 STALLS 16,580 SF/ 500 STORAGE: 34 STALLS EXPRESS CARWASH (1/ EMPLOYEE) 3 STALLS PARKING REQUIRED: 121 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 143 STALLS ACCESSIBLE PARKING OVER 100 2019 CBC TABLE 11 B -208.2 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES 1-25 1 26-50 2 51-75 3 76-100 4 101-150 5 151-200 6 201-300 7 301-400 8 401-500 9 501-1,000 2 PERCENT OF TOTAL 1,001 AND OVER 20 PLUS 1/100 OVER 1,000 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 143 STALLS TOTAL ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED: 5 STALLS VAN ACCESSIBLE REQ'D (SEC. 11 B- 208.2.4) 1 OF TOTAL REQ'D ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED: STANinARfl CTAI 1 1 .TAI 1. TOTAL ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED: 7 STALLS - CLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING 2019 CAL GREEN TABLE 5.106.5.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL m y TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES 0-9 0 10-25 1 26-50 3 51-75 6 76-100 8 101-150 15' 151-200 16 201 AND OVER 8 PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 143 STALLS TOTAL CAV PARKING REQUIRED: 11 STALLS TOTAL CAV PARKING PROVIDED: * *11 STALLS * *(CALGREEN 5.106.5.3.5: FUTURE EVCS SPACES QUALIFY AS DESIGNATED PARKING FOR CLEAN AIR VEHICLES) FUTURE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS 2019 CAL GREEN TABLE 5.106.5.3.3 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TOTAL NUMBER OF EVCS SPACES 0-9 0 10- 25 1 26-50 2 51-75 4 76-100 5 101-150 15' 10 151-200 201 AND OVER 6 PERCENT OF TOTAL 2019 CBC TABLE 11 B- 228.3.2.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF VAN STANDARD AMBULATORY EVCS AT A FACILITY ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE 1 STALL 1 -4 1 0 0 FUTURE EVCS SPACES PROVIDED: 15' 1 0 26-50 1 1 1 51- 75 1 2 2 76-100 1 3 3 101 AND OVER 1 + 1/300 3+ 1/60 1 + 1/50 iem.n S� OVER 100 OVER 100 OVER 100 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 143 STALLS FUTURE EVCS SPACES REQUIRED: 7 STALLS FUTURE ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQ'D (OF TOTAL): ACTION SPORTS, TOURISM, COMMERCIAL & RECREATION VAN ACCESSIBLE: 1 STALL STANDARD ACCESSIBLE: 1 STALLS AMBULATORY: 0 STALLS FUTURE EVCS SPACES PROVIDED: 15' FUTURE STANDARD EVCS SPACES: 7 STALLS FUTURE VAN ACCESSIBLE EVCS PROVIDED: 2 STALL FUTURE STANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCS PROVIDED: 1 STALL FUTURE AMBULATORY EVCS PROVIDED: 0 STALLS TOTAL FUTURE EVCS SPACES PROVIDED: 11 STALLS FUTURE EVCS NOTES: 1. ALL CLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE ADDITION OF FUTURE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS. 2. FUTURE ACCESSIBLE EVCS STALLS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS ALONG ACCESSIBLE ROUTES OR, HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE MODIFIED WITHOUT AFFECTING REQUIRED PARKING SPACE QUANTITIES. RED N LLC 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 M U R R I ETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 VICINITY �o ZONING GENERAL PLAN: S ZONING: EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN 4,088 SF Vine sx ACTION SPORTS, TOURISM, COMMERCIAL & RECREATION TIRE STORE: MIXED US OVERLAY BUILDING SETBACKS: 750 SF FRONT: 15' SIDE(ADJ TO PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY): 15' SIDE(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' o 0' PARKING SETBACKS: 4,007 SF wrnar.eE A. 251 AVG/ 20' MIN I Mme sr 15' SIDE(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): lcnn rrmymnn Lr 0' fie..... ry Srnurr . ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS: L.M. Sr iem.n S� MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 15% _ Ya14y 1 ni I� Wnirc Sr Wn4c Sc v Bundy Canyvn Rd Bundy [anyan Rr ZONING GENERAL PLAN: SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING: EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN 4,088 SF PLANNING AREA 2 ACTION SPORTS, TOURISM, COMMERCIAL & RECREATION TIRE STORE: MIXED US OVERLAY BUILDING SETBACKS: 750 SF FRONT: 15' SIDE(ADJ TO PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY): 15' SIDE(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' REAR(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' PARKING SETBACKS: 4,007 SF FRONT: 251 AVG/ 20' MIN SIDE(ADJ TO PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY): 15' SIDE(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' REAR(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 45' ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS: 65' MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE: MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 15% PROJECT SUMMARY LAND AREA: 6.05 AC (263,663 SF ±) RETAIL: 4,088 SF DRIVE -THRU RESTAURANT: 2,300 SF TIRE STORE: SALES: 750 SF SERVICE: 4,450 SF (6 SERVICE BAYS) FLEX -TECH: OFFICE: 5,500 SF STORAGE: 16,580 SF EXPRESS CARWASH: 4,007 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 38,395 SF FUELING CANOPY: 4,285 SF CARWASH PAY CANOPY: BUILDING COVERAGE (F.A.R.): 16.2% MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 30' ONSITE LANDSCAPE AREA: 40,826 SF (15.5 %) LEGEND & SYMBOLS VAN VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE CAV CLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING SPACE EVCS FUTURE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING PARKING SPACE DDC DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE- REF: CIVIL DRAWINGS FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION- REF: CIVIL DRAWINGS FH FIRE HYDRANT- REF: CIVIL DRAWINGS PROVIDE BLUE REFLECTOR @ CL DRIVEWAY PER FIRE DEPT REQUIREMENTS GM GAS METER LOCATION- REF: PLUMBING & GAS UTILITY DRAWINGS PIV POST INDICATOR VALVE- REF: CIVIL DRAWINGS R RECYCLE DUMPSTER T TRASH DUMPSTER TR TRANSFORMER- REF ELECTRICAL UTILITY DRAWINGS WM WATER METER- REF: CIVIL DRAWINGS SS STOP SIGN- REF: DET. 9/ SD2.0 AP ACCESSIBLE PATH SIGN- REF DET. 8/ SD2.0 SE SITE ENTRANCE SIGN- REF DET. 7/ SD2.0 jFIRE LANE FIRE TRUCK TURNING RADIUS VJ NOTE: BUILDING AREAS AND LAND COVERAGE ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT. ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT OR OTHER AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. ALL DIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. E IMINARY PLAN SCHEME Kv6 CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 24 JUNE 2020 PIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 T 949.344.2710 F 949.344.2720 ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 E P. 0 20' 40' 80' SCALE: 1" = 40.00' TRUE NORTH (i PROJECT NORTH i CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA LEMON STREET MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL JT SIGN - IOGRAM \NT SIGN - IOGRAM J_ Q z O G 1MENT SRAM EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL PHASE 1 PARKING EMC SEC. 17.148.030 PHASING REQUIRED PARKING: 26-50 5161-75 76- 100 THE PROJECT IS INTENDED TO BE PHASED BASED ON MARKET PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS: 9'X 18' INTEREST. MINIMUM AISLE WIDTH (90° PARKING): 26' PHASE 1- RETAIL (1/250): 17 STALLS PHASE 1 WILL CONSIST OF BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS DRIVE -THRU RESTAURANT: 501-1,000 FOR PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AND LOT A (DETENTION BASIN), ALL 1/ 45 SF CUSTOMER AREA 15 STALLS DRIVEWAYS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR CUSTOMERS 1/ 200 SF ONCUSTOMER AREA 2 AND EMERGENCY APPARATUS, AND ALL OFF -SITE WORK (1,650 SF/ 200): 9 STALLS INCLUDING STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND PARKWAY EXPRESS CARWASH (1/ EMPLOYEE) 3 STALLS LANDSCAPE ALONG TRAIL & CORYDON ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AOLONG CORYDON WILL SBE TR EET. PARKING REQUIRED: 44 STALLS CONSTRUCTED TO THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE. OVER 100 OVER 100 PARKING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET, AT A MINIMUM TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 72 STALLS THE NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS REQUIRED BY CODE. ACCESSIBLE PARKING 2019 CBC TABLE 11 B -208.2 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES 1-25 1 26-50 5161-75 76- 100 2 4 101- 150 5 151-200 6 201-300 7 301-400 8 401-500 9 501-1,000 2 PERCENT OF TOTAL 1,001 AND OVER 20 PLUS 1/100 OVER 1,000 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 72 STALLS TOTAL ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED: 3 STALLS VAN ACCESSIBLE REQ'D (SEC. 11 B- 208.2.4) 1 OF TOTAL REQ'D ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED: STANDARD STALL: VAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS: 1 STALLS 3 STALLS TOTAL ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED: 4 STALLS CLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING 2019 CAL GREEN TABLE 5.106.5.2 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES 0-9 0 10-25 1 26-50 51-75 76-100 3 8 101-150 11 151-200 16 201 AND OVER 8 PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: TOTAL CAV PARKING REQUIRED: TOTAL CAV PARKING PROVIDED: 72 STALLS 6 STALLS * *6 STALLS * *(CALGREEN 5.106.5.3.5: FUTURE EVCS SPACES QUALIFY AS DESIGNATED PARKING FOR CLEAN AIR VEHICLES) FUTURE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS 2019 CAL GREEN TABLE 5.106.5.3.3 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TOTAL NUMBER OF EVCS SPACES 0-9 0 10-25 1 26-50 7 761- 75 - 100 2 5 101- 150 7 151-200 10 201 AND OVER 6 PERCENT OF TOTAL 2019 CBC TABLE 11 B- 228.3.2.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF VAN STANDARD A EVCS AT A FACILITY ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE 1 STALL 1 -4 0 STALLS AMBULATORY: 0 STALLS 5 -25 1 1 0 26-50 1 1 1 51-75 1 2 2 76-100 1 3 3 101 ANDOVER 1 + 1/300 3+ 1/60 1 + 1/50 OVER 100 OVER 100 OVER 100 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 72 STALLS FUTURE EVCS SPACES REQUIRED: 4 STALLS FUTURE ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQ'D (OF TOTAL): VAN ACCESSIBLE: 1 STALL STANDARD ACCESSIBLE: 0 STALLS AMBULATORY: 0 STALLS FUTURE EVCS SPACES PROVIDED: FUTURE STANDARD EVCS SPACES: 4 STALLS FUTURE VAN ACCESSIBLE EVCS PROVIDED: 1 STALL FUTURE STANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCS PROVIDED: 1 STALL FUTURE AMBULATORY EVCS PROVIDED: 0 STALLS TOTAL FUTURE EVCS SPACES PROVIDED: 6 STALLS FUTURE EVCS NOTES: 1. ALL CLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE ADDITION OF FUTURE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS. 2. FUTURE ACCESSIBLE EVCS STALLS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS ALONG ACCESSIBLE ROUTES OR, HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE MODIFIED WITHOUT AFFECTING REQUIRED PARKING SPACE QUANTITIES. RED C L 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 MURRIETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 PHASE 2- PHASE TWO WILL BE ROUGH GRADED AND UTILITIES STUBBED FOR FUTURE DISTRIBUTION. CONSTRUCTION OF PARCELS WITHIN PHASE 2 WILL TAKE PLACE BASED ON MARKET INTEREST WITH BUILDING PADS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPED AS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN REQUIRED PARKING, EASE OF VEHICULAR CIRCULATION AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS. NOTE: PHASE 1 COMPLETION PHASE 2 UNIMPROVED PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD REPAIR FIRE LANE FIRE TRUCK TURNING RADIUS BUILDING AREAS AND LAND COVERAGE ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT. ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT OR OTHER AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. ALL DIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. PHASING PLAN SCHEME Kv6 CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 24 JUNE 2020 i I ii PIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3 OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 T 949.344.2710 F 949.344.2720 ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 ao 0 0 0 0 O o O PROJECT BNDY 18.0' PROP. IMPROVEMENT_` 12.0' E L 2.09 MIN. —0- 2.09 MIN. EX. GRO& "1 i 6.0' FENCE I EX. GROUND 2 ;1 �� _--- - - - - -- — -- - - - - -- - - - -- ROP. .SEC T/O n / 5 5 OUND 40' 0 40' 30' 120' �V I SCALE 1 ' 10' SCALE IN FEET MARK REVISIONS APPR. DATE THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE PREPARED BY: CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AND /OR CITY AND STATE LAWS AND HAVE BEEN FOUND ACCEPTABLE E/VG //VEERS REMON HABIB, RCE No. 83156 CITY ENGINEER CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DATE 1880 COMPTON AVENUE, SUITE 100 CORONA, CA. 92881 -3370 951 -734 -2130 MATTHEW L. LANINOV /CH, P.E. 2118120 DATE M /N. / QROFESS /p 4Q do F� C/) G < <' m LLJ C 85721 = rri SCALE: s�ql CIVIC ��\P F�F C DATE: CEL If .o. TS 6.0' BIKE LANE NE STREET VICTORIA LANE W� LWISST. — o Q S /T- = Qw EX /STING CONTOUR ELEVAT /ON ELEV. � o � O FO = FINISH GRADE FL _, ur FS LEMON STREE�j � W = WIDTH MIN. w PL = PROPERTY L /NE R/W = RIGHT OF WAY cl� ORANGE STREET o TOE OF SLOPE TOP OF SLOPE o cn BUNDY CANYON ROAE VICINITY MAP 0 NVER /DEl/EL OPER.° RED CORYDON, LLC 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, #101 MURR /ETA, CA 92562 (951) 643 -4711 ENGINE L4--/51. KWC ENGINEERS 1880 COMPTON AVENUE CORONA, CA. 92881 -3370 (951) 734 -2130 CONTACT- MA ITTHZ-W L, LAN /NOV /CH, P.E. EARTHWORK QIUA/VT /T /ES.• CUT- 2, 809 CY F /LL: 5,975 CY NET- 3, 166 CY (F) THE QUANTITY SHOWN ABOVE /S FOR DISCUSS /ON PURPOSES ONL Y L EGEVD.° PROPOSED WATER PROPOSED SEWER — PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EX /STING WATER EX /STING SEWER — 1200 —= EX /STING CONTOUR ELEVAT /ON ELEV. = ELEVAT /ON FO = FINISH GRADE FL = FL OWL /NE FS = F/N /SHED SURFACE L = LENGTH W = WIDTH MIN. = MINIMUM PL = PROPERTY L /NE R/W = RIGHT OF WAY GB = GRADE BREAK TC = TOP OF CURB TOE OF SLOPE TOP OF SLOPE 60.0' RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AREA 21.5' ( CONCRETE CUL VERT PROJECT BNDY i -- PROP. 6.0' FENCE 199 PROP. - — GROUND EX. GROUND �14j SECT /ON A -A SCALE I ' 10' 42' - 38' EX /STING STREET -------- - - - - -- - Ili/ /SS /ON T15A SCALE I ' 10' BENCH MARK: DATE IDENTIFIER DATE OF LATEST CHANGE TO THIS MAP 5/12/20 BY: AC DATE OF THIS PLOT 5/12/20 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CORYDON GA TE-WA Y PREL /M /NARY GRADING PLAN SHEET 7 OF 2 SHEETS EIRE No. .. 0 N N a 0 z 0 Q 0 i C� z 0 Q i J i i o= N 0 N z 0o PAR( 0 �o �o cy -9� /-)A O1—'f--/ /A //1r--V A //A /-) .xw-rlw �oK.lm MARK I REVISIONS � G O� AP1V 370 -030 -012 APPR. DATE THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AND /OR CITY AND STATE LAWS AND HAVE BEEN FOUND ACCEPTABLE REMON HABIB, RCE No. 83156 CITY ENGINEER CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PREPARED BY: 40' 0 40' 80' 120' SCALE IN FEET rit --1 •�arnr�rc 1880 COMPTON AVENUE, SUITE 100 CORONA, CA. 92881 -3370 951 -734 -2130 DATE MATTHEW L. LAAV /AVOI/ /CH, P.E. 2118120 DATE / Q?\OFELA\ CD LLJ m C 85721 = � s� cm \�F OF CA \F'3 SCALE: DATE: DATE IDENTIFIER DATE OF LATEST CHANGE TO THIS MAP / 5/12/20 BY: AC DATE OF THIS PLOT 5/12/20 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SHEET 2 CORYDON GA TEWA Y OF 2 BENCH MARK: PREL IM /NARY UTILITY PLAN SHEETS EIRE NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 cry r EXTERIOR MATERIALS &FINISHES , � 2 Cl) W o O O O PARAPET BEYOND © O EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- A FINISH: FINE SAND TOP PLATE COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" at TOP PLATE K TOP PLATE TOP PLATE MFR: FIBERON HORIZON °� � U FINISH: 60 %IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN O � U W .0 U 13 O ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM- o CU c COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE N A O �oo_� OALUMINUM CANOPY- m MFR: MAPES, INC COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE - - SECURITY CAMERA (TYP) o O METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED N COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE 1 a _T -ate. ,j �._ O " Fi DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE N - - _ - - MFR: ECLIPSE i GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD w N J i. _ _ 7'vI lam_ -- 7_ . J_ N 1 •__ __ _ _ _ _ FINISH: ANODIZED BARK BRONZE REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION U C r.. U �.�_ . ..ate -_ , _ _� i . - OWALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION Lom_ - -,�, J- .,�, I _ _J= -. T � � - REF: STRUCTURAL FOR ALLOWABLE CORING OF BEAMS - - - -- - K - /© K GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE .r _.� J- �T a.; © ALUMINUM CORNICE- a J COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE ° > 1 " �- .i .l�J_ J_ FIN FLR EL. 0.00'_ FIN FLR EL. 0.00' O SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT - REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM p GC TO COORDINATE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE W/ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER Z o0 © O © O SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 O LO "AESTHETIC WHITE" Ln O N J N EAST MISSION TRAILI 1/4" = 1' -0" > O E ( EXTERIOR ELEVATION 0 4' LL] Z Z U J W 0L Ld W � _no A B O � z SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 W L "ANTLER VELVET" O U) � w PARAPET BEYOND O O TOP PLATE Z X Y � W � TOWER BEYOND W > Q J 1 _ _ F �� -�_�i _ � ,�TJ K X W - - TOP PLATE W MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER TOP PLATE r _ r_ TOP PLATES -_ _ _ MFR: CORONADO STONE rJ J PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - O- - - "COUNTRY" A (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) CU ,�f � _ — SECURITY CAMERA (TYP) -� W ® z � W `Q0 W > ° G o o J U W N COMPOSITE SIDING LU ° .E- o MFR: FIBERON HORIZON M _-���' 3 - -�' ' J o _ FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN ' ` "� ih DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY CORESTATES, INC., N INCLUDING THIS DOCUMENT, ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SPECIFIC N V N USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED. ANY EXTENSION OF USE TO ANY OTHER PROJECTS, BY OWNER OR BY ANY OTHER PARTY, WITHOUT - - - - THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF T�i r 3 z CORESTATES, INC. IS DONE UNLAWFULLY AND _ _ • _ _. . -_ _. � AT THE USERS OWN RISK. IF USED IN A WAY �- �O USER WILL HOLD HCORESTATES, INC. HARMLESS �'.u- t `_. r _ A FROM ALL CLAIMS AND LOSSES. H _ _ PI ERIE 0 I ANODIZED DARK BRONZE A R C H I T E C T S Or , J X11_ .3-' -� l- - J�.. i�..r- •�.-..� J 3� FIN FLR EL. 0.00 =� -�- ��• r_ FIN FLR EL. 0.00' T 949.344.2710 - - - F 949.344.2720 gkparchitecture.com GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 JOB #: 19131.10 ALTERNATE LOCATION FOR DATE: 04.22.2020 EM SHUT -OFF. FUEL SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" EXTERIOR OUTLET MTD @ 24" AFF O O O O DRAWN BY: AdC BESIDE REDBOX UNIT. REF E1.0 CHECKED BY: GKP SHEET NO. SOUTH (CORYDON ROAD) 1/4" =1' -011 2 A300 EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1 0 4' User: GPIERCE Plot Date /Time: Apr. 22, 20 - 11:11:58 Drawing: P: \2019 Projects \19131 7 Eleven Corydon- Elsinore \08 Drawings \08.2 Construction Documents \19131 7356 A3.0 Ext Elevs.dwg ;A3.0 S &E EE © EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 "ANTLER VELVET" � � w■ ti iti LL-- � wrr�r.w. rww•rr. wry rw rr�w. wwr?�w .�r�'i ■ �e.se �wwv� � MFR: CORONADO STONE E O PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" TOP PLATE MFR: FIBERON HORIZON °� � U FINISH: 60 %IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN O � U W .0 U 13 O ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM- o CU c COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE N A O �oo_� OALUMINUM CANOPY- m MFR: MAPES, INC COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE - - SECURITY CAMERA (TYP) o O METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED N COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE 1 a _T -ate. ,j �._ O " Fi DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE N - - _ - - MFR: ECLIPSE i GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD w N J i. _ _ 7'vI lam_ -- 7_ . J_ N 1 •__ __ _ _ _ _ FINISH: ANODIZED BARK BRONZE REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION U C r.. U �.�_ . ..ate -_ , _ _� i . - OWALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION Lom_ - -,�, J- .,�, I _ _J= -. T � � - REF: STRUCTURAL FOR ALLOWABLE CORING OF BEAMS - - - -- - K - /© K GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE .r _.� J- �T a.; © ALUMINUM CORNICE- a J COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE ° > 1 " �- .i .l�J_ J_ FIN FLR EL. 0.00'_ FIN FLR EL. 0.00' O SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT - REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM p GC TO COORDINATE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE W/ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER Z o0 © O © O SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 O LO "AESTHETIC WHITE" Ln O N J N EAST MISSION TRAILI 1/4" = 1' -0" > O E ( EXTERIOR ELEVATION 0 4' LL] Z Z U J W 0L Ld W � _no A B O � z SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 W L "ANTLER VELVET" O U) � w PARAPET BEYOND O O TOP PLATE Z X Y � W � TOWER BEYOND W > Q J 1 _ _ F �� -�_�i _ � ,�TJ K X W - - TOP PLATE W MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER TOP PLATE r _ r_ TOP PLATES -_ _ _ MFR: CORONADO STONE rJ J PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - O- - - "COUNTRY" A (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) CU ,�f � _ — SECURITY CAMERA (TYP) -� W ® z � W `Q0 W > ° G o o J U W N COMPOSITE SIDING LU ° .E- o MFR: FIBERON HORIZON M _-���' 3 - -�' ' J o _ FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN ' ` "� ih DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY CORESTATES, INC., N INCLUDING THIS DOCUMENT, ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SPECIFIC N V N USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED. ANY EXTENSION OF USE TO ANY OTHER PROJECTS, BY OWNER OR BY ANY OTHER PARTY, WITHOUT - - - - THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF T�i r 3 z CORESTATES, INC. IS DONE UNLAWFULLY AND _ _ • _ _. . -_ _. � AT THE USERS OWN RISK. IF USED IN A WAY �- �O USER WILL HOLD HCORESTATES, INC. HARMLESS �'.u- t `_. r _ A FROM ALL CLAIMS AND LOSSES. H _ _ PI ERIE 0 I ANODIZED DARK BRONZE A R C H I T E C T S Or , J X11_ .3-' -� l- - J�.. i�..r- •�.-..� J 3� FIN FLR EL. 0.00 =� -�- ��• r_ FIN FLR EL. 0.00' T 949.344.2710 - - - F 949.344.2720 gkparchitecture.com GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 JOB #: 19131.10 ALTERNATE LOCATION FOR DATE: 04.22.2020 EM SHUT -OFF. FUEL SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" EXTERIOR OUTLET MTD @ 24" AFF O O O O DRAWN BY: AdC BESIDE REDBOX UNIT. REF E1.0 CHECKED BY: GKP SHEET NO. SOUTH (CORYDON ROAD) 1/4" =1' -011 2 A300 EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1 0 4' User: GPIERCE Plot Date /Time: Apr. 22, 20 - 11:11:58 Drawing: P: \2019 Projects \19131 7 Eleven Corydon- Elsinore \08 Drawings \08.2 Construction Documents \19131 7356 A3.0 Ext Elevs.dwg ;A3.0 S &E EE © EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 "ANTLER VELVET" v �© © MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER a� MFR: CORONADO STONE E O PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" a OK (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) OCOMPOSITE SIDING � a) C:) (n � rn is co�°pin M 2-- TOP PLATE MFR: FIBERON HORIZON °� � U FINISH: 60 %IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN O � U W .0 U 13 O ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM- o CU c COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE N A O �oo_� OALUMINUM CANOPY- m MFR: MAPES, INC COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE - - SECURITY CAMERA (TYP) o O METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED N COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE 1 a _T -ate. ,j �._ O " Fi DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE N - - _ - - MFR: ECLIPSE i GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD w N J i. _ _ 7'vI lam_ -- 7_ . J_ N 1 •__ __ _ _ _ _ FINISH: ANODIZED BARK BRONZE REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION U C r.. U �.�_ . ..ate -_ , _ _� i . - OWALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION Lom_ - -,�, J- .,�, I _ _J= -. T � � - REF: STRUCTURAL FOR ALLOWABLE CORING OF BEAMS - - - -- - K - /© K GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE .r _.� J- �T a.; © ALUMINUM CORNICE- a J COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE ° > 1 " �- .i .l�J_ J_ FIN FLR EL. 0.00'_ FIN FLR EL. 0.00' O SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT - REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM p GC TO COORDINATE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE W/ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER Z o0 © O © O SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 O LO "AESTHETIC WHITE" Ln O N J N EAST MISSION TRAILI 1/4" = 1' -0" > O E ( EXTERIOR ELEVATION 0 4' LL] Z Z U J W 0L Ld W � _no A B O � z SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 W L "ANTLER VELVET" O U) � w PARAPET BEYOND O O TOP PLATE Z X Y � W � TOWER BEYOND W > Q J 1 _ _ F �� -�_�i _ � ,�TJ K X W - - TOP PLATE W MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER TOP PLATE r _ r_ TOP PLATES -_ _ _ MFR: CORONADO STONE rJ J PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - O- - - "COUNTRY" A (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) CU ,�f � _ — SECURITY CAMERA (TYP) -� W ® z � W `Q0 W > ° G o o J U W N COMPOSITE SIDING LU ° .E- o MFR: FIBERON HORIZON M _-���' 3 - -�' ' J o _ FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN ' ` "� ih DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY CORESTATES, INC., N INCLUDING THIS DOCUMENT, ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SPECIFIC N V N USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED. ANY EXTENSION OF USE TO ANY OTHER PROJECTS, BY OWNER OR BY ANY OTHER PARTY, WITHOUT - - - - THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF T�i r 3 z CORESTATES, INC. IS DONE UNLAWFULLY AND _ _ • _ _. . -_ _. � AT THE USERS OWN RISK. IF USED IN A WAY �- �O USER WILL HOLD HCORESTATES, INC. HARMLESS �'.u- t `_. r _ A FROM ALL CLAIMS AND LOSSES. H _ _ PI ERIE 0 I ANODIZED DARK BRONZE A R C H I T E C T S Or , J X11_ .3-' -� l- - J�.. i�..r- •�.-..� J 3� FIN FLR EL. 0.00 =� -�- ��• r_ FIN FLR EL. 0.00' T 949.344.2710 - - - F 949.344.2720 gkparchitecture.com GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 JOB #: 19131.10 ALTERNATE LOCATION FOR DATE: 04.22.2020 EM SHUT -OFF. FUEL SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" EXTERIOR OUTLET MTD @ 24" AFF O O O O DRAWN BY: AdC BESIDE REDBOX UNIT. REF E1.0 CHECKED BY: GKP SHEET NO. SOUTH (CORYDON ROAD) 1/4" =1' -011 2 A300 EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1 0 4' User: GPIERCE Plot Date /Time: Apr. 22, 20 - 11:11:58 Drawing: P: \2019 Projects \19131 7 Eleven Corydon- Elsinore \08 Drawings \08.2 Construction Documents \19131 7356 A3.0 Ext Elevs.dwg ;A3.0 S &E EE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 cry r EXTERIOR MATERIALS &FINISHES , � Cl) 2 W o ad O O PARAPET BEYOND O O EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- A FINISH: FINE SAND TOP PLATE COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" TOWER BEYOND TOP PLATE TOP PLATE TOP PLATE MFR: FIBERON HORIZON 0 °-) 0 � U ir LU FINISH: 60 %IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN O � U 13 O ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM- CD CU c COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE � N � � O OALUMINUM CANOPY- m MFR: MAPES, INC COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE d Q O METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED O N COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE - 3 D. 7` L -j. --j DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE `4 - — - MFR: ECLIPSE �-A - __� .1�. j GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD Ji C ® .,T� z� FINISH: ANODIZED BARK BRONZE REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION o J....._'_'- O WALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE- REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION -t-� -- - 3- IJ. .l - 3�I --t- - -- ,., `' �_.�.. - , 1� t - REF: STRUCTURAL FOR ALLOWABLE CORING OF BEAMS K GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING - 71 © O PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE - _ - -1 L �J� LJ. "1� © a ALUMINUM CORNICE- COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE > T _.T ` i . L�F r �_ e i L_ is FIN FLR EL. 0.00' _: =? =� FIN FLR EL. 0.00' O SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT - REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM p GC TO COORDINATE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE W/ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER z o0 F O 7035 LO AESTHETIC WHITE O N J N Q � d7 WEST 1/4" = 1' -0" > O Q EXTERIOR ELEVATION 0 4' W z z U E O J W _ L W � no B A O�z L PARAPET BEYOND SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 ���^^ J O O "ANTLER VELVET" O V J X W A TOP PLATE Z X W TOWER BEYOND © EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- , .. 1 ' �. 1 .-1 r- FINISH: FINE SAND — < ,.. COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 "ANTLER VELVET" 1� - -dam -- r 3 LL TOP PLATE MFR: FIBERON HORIZON 0 °-) 0 � U ir LU FINISH: 60 %IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN O � U 13 O ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM- CD CU c COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE � N � � O OALUMINUM CANOPY- m MFR: MAPES, INC COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE d Q O METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED O N COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE - 3 D. 7` L -j. --j DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE `4 - — - MFR: ECLIPSE �-A - __� .1�. j GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD Ji C ® .,T� z� FINISH: ANODIZED BARK BRONZE REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION o J....._'_'- O WALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE- REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION -t-� -- - 3- IJ. .l - 3�I --t- - -- ,., `' �_.�.. - , 1� t - REF: STRUCTURAL FOR ALLOWABLE CORING OF BEAMS K GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING - 71 © O PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE - _ - -1 L �J� LJ. "1� © a ALUMINUM CORNICE- COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE > T _.T ` i . L�F r �_ e i L_ is FIN FLR EL. 0.00' _: =? =� FIN FLR EL. 0.00' O SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT - REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM p GC TO COORDINATE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE W/ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER z o0 F O 7035 LO AESTHETIC WHITE O N J N Q � d7 WEST 1/4" = 1' -0" > O Q EXTERIOR ELEVATION 0 4' W z z U E O J W _ L W � no B A O�z L PARAPET BEYOND SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 ���^^ J O O "ANTLER VELVET" O V J X W A TOP PLATE Z X W TOWER BEYOND © EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- ><< > FINISH: FINE SAND — O COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 "ANTLER VELVET" v — X W © TOP PLATE All, © MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER N - - MFR: CORONADO STONE E 0 O PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) OCOMPOSITE SIDING _ 0 is TOP PLATE MFR: FIBERON HORIZON 0 °-) 0 � U ir LU FINISH: 60 %IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN O � U 13 O ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM- CD CU c COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE � N � � O OALUMINUM CANOPY- m MFR: MAPES, INC COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE d Q O METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED O N COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE - 3 D. 7` L -j. --j DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE `4 - — - MFR: ECLIPSE �-A - __� .1�. j GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD Ji C ® .,T� z� FINISH: ANODIZED BARK BRONZE REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION o J....._'_'- O WALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE- REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION -t-� -- - 3- IJ. .l - 3�I --t- - -- ,., `' �_.�.. - , 1� t - REF: STRUCTURAL FOR ALLOWABLE CORING OF BEAMS K GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING - 71 © O PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE - _ - -1 L �J� LJ. "1� © a ALUMINUM CORNICE- COLOR: ANODIZED DARK BRONZE > T _.T ` i . L�F r �_ e i L_ is FIN FLR EL. 0.00' _: =? =� FIN FLR EL. 0.00' O SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT - REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM p GC TO COORDINATE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE W/ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER z o0 F O 7035 LO AESTHETIC WHITE O N J N Q � d7 WEST 1/4" = 1' -0" > O Q EXTERIOR ELEVATION 0 4' W z z U E O J W _ L W � no B A O�z L PARAPET BEYOND SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 ���^^ J O O "ANTLER VELVET" O V J X W A TOP PLATE Z X W yr r�r i TOP PLATE MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE ' PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - A O� - - -T "COUNTRY" T LL CU O = 0 Uj W i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 EXTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES r 1 INTERCOM CALL BOX - Uj O OMECHANICALLY FASTENED TO COLUMN. , MOUNT AT 48" MAX ABOVE SLAB TO BUTTON A QO FIRE EXTINGUISHER N OILLUMINATED LOGO SIGN- UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT "= cn E 0 U OTATEYAMA IMAGE STRIPE (NON- ILLUMINATED) W oT a) O o0' T.O. CANOPY Q� � m 0-) 0 O OVERFLOW PROTECTION AS REQUIRED- U EL. 17.50' o REF: CANOPY DRAWINGS & SPECIFICATIONS O cti3 0-) IELEVFn o CU B B.O. CANOPY © N � � EL. 14.50' WASH BUCKET/ PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER- O 0_ 1-- MOUNT AT 48" MAX DEOM SLAB TO PAPER TOWEL OPENING T.O. CMU m EL. 13.33' STREET 10 STORE O GAS DISPENSER SIDE O SIDE ® CANOPY COLUMN (PAINTED) COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" 7_0 CUE Ill -.7. O O O ACM CANOPY FASCIA (PAINTED) z Ji COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW9111 "ANTLER VELVET" C © ° U O D 10 MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE ® oo> y ® oos OD COLOR/ PATTERN: DURANGO MOUNTAIN LEDGE (DRYSTACK) PIPE GUARD (PAINTED T.O. FINISH SLAB -� COLOR: SAFETY YELLOW W Q 0 O W IY D U) Z ti O o0 LO Q O N LO > J N = W 0 FUELING CANOPY 1/4" 1 ' 0" SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 J z Z (, E EXTERIOR ELEVATION 0 4' "AESTHETIC WHITE" W w O W � O�z O x J x W Z zxY Q wxQ U > SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 W "ANTLER VELVET" J J F w W T.O. CANOPY LL EL 17.50' _ ELEVM U B.O. CANOPY MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER EL. 14.50' - -- MFR: CORONADO STONE 0 ._ Z T_ W 8 PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - r) Tµ71 �_ i• r 3 "COUNTRY" W L o G CU y (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) W W Y r� . W J = STREET - W _ o SIDE �_� ..��_� � ��. I` M DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY CORESTATES, INC., INCLUDING THIS DOCUMENT, ARE TO BE USED �O ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC SPECIFIC USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED. ANY T.O. BRICK CAP EXTENSION OF USE TO ANY OTHER PROJECTS, EL. 6.00' �- 1 O BY OWNER HE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CO E TITOF - CORESTATES, INC. IS DONE UNLAWFULLY AND O r•, –� _. : AT THE USERS OWN RISK. IF USED IN A WAY -- ,.. -- OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFICALLY INTENDED, - . USER WILL HOLD CORESTATES, INC. HARMLESS FROM ALL CLAIMS AND LOSSES. 11 H f =� =_ PIERCE T.O. FINISH SLAB' EL. 0.00' - A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 T 949.344.2710 F 949.344.2720 gkparchitecture.com GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 JOB #: 19131.10 DATE: 4 MAY 2020 SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" DRAWN BY: AdC CHECKED BY: GKP SHEET NO. FUELING CANOPY 1/4" =1' -011 2 • EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1 0 4' User: GPIERCE Plot Date /Time: Apr. 28, 20 - 09:21:43 Drawing: P: \2019 Projects \19131 7 Eleven Corydon- Elsinore \08 Drawings \08.2 Construction Documents \19131 A1.4 Fuel Canopy Elevs.dwg ;A1.4 1 1 1 -�T11► PM DESIGN Arc h it a ci u r u Solutions Group �I I MATERIAL LEGEND: SW 7035 ,NTLER VELVET SW 9111 MANUFACTURED BRICKVENEER "POMEGRANATE" PATTERN: "USED BRICK - COUNTRY" DE 5090 CORONOADO STONE (1/2 "SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINTS) COMPOSITE SIDING "TUDOR BROWN" FIBERON HORIZON 60% IPE, 40% TUDOR BROWN "DARK BRONZE" ANODIZED METAL 'TUSCAN SUN DE 5341 Lvn...ns s=!+i 1 1 1 -�T11► PM DESIGN Arc h it a ci u r u Solutions Group �I I MATERIAL LEGEND: SW 7035 ,NTLER VELVET SW 9111 MANUFACTURED BRICKVENEER "POMEGRANATE" PATTERN: "USED BRICK - COUNTRY" DE 5090 CORONOADO STONE (1/2 "SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINTS) COMPOSITE SIDING "TUDOR BROWN" FIBERON HORIZON 60% IPE, 40% TUDOR BROWN "DARK BRONZE" ANODIZED METAL 'TUSCAN SUN DE 5341 PM DESIGN Arc h it a ci u r u Solutions Group �I I MATERIAL LEGEND: SW 7035 ,NTLER VELVET SW 9111 MANUFACTURED BRICKVENEER "POMEGRANATE" PATTERN: "USED BRICK - COUNTRY" DE 5090 CORONOADO STONE (1/2 "SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINTS) COMPOSITE SIDING "TUDOR BROWN" FIBERON HORIZON 60% IPE, 40% TUDOR BROWN "DARK BRONZE" ANODIZED METAL 'TUSCAN SUN DE 5341 24' -0 "A. T.O. RAF 16' -0" A. T.O. RAF 1441 A. T.O. RAF � T.O. A F T.O. W/ 0' -0" FIN. FLR SOUTH ELEVATION 28' -0" A.F.F. T.O. WALL 12' -0-- A.F.F. IP T.O. OPENING 3'-4" A.F.F._ T.O. WAINSCOT 0' -0° FIN. FLR. ACTH ELEVATION rm I V6" E.24 ELEVATION 28' -0" A.F.F. T.O. WALL 10' -0"_A. F. F. B.O. AWNING _ 3'-4" A.F.F. jk T.O. WAINSCOT FIN. FLR. X81 4 I EAST ELEVATION 28' -0"_A.F, T.O. WALT 24' -0" A. T.O. PAF jk 14' -0" A. T.O. PAR dh 10' -0" A. B.O. AVG jk 7'-4" A. F T.O. STC jk 3'-4" A. F T.O. WA 0' -0" FIN. FLR ?8'70 A.F.F. T.O. WALL ?' -0" A.F.F. D. OPENING 3'-0" A. F. F. .O WINDOW FIN. FLR. 24' -0" A.F.F. .O. PARAPET ?2' -0" A_F.F. ,O. PARAPET 14'-8" A.F.F. 3'-4" A.F.F. D. WAINSCOT 0' -0" FIN. FLR. B NOT USED PE -2 DUNN EDWARDS COLOR: DE5090 a POMEGRANATE C EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER FINISH : PE -3 DUNN EDWARDS FINE SAND COLOR: DE5341 TUSCAN SUN D COMPOSITE SIDING PE-4 NOT USED MFR : 'FIBERON HORIZON' �® E ALUMINUM WINDOW PE -5 NOT USED F HOLLOW METAL DOOR & FRAME PE-6 SHERWIN WILLIAMS REV DATE COLOR:SW7035 Q 01/31/20 A05/01/20 I ST PLANNING SUBMrrTAL 1 ST PLANNING SUBMrTTAL AESTHETIC WHITE G METALAWNING PE -7 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COLOR:SW91 1 1 ANTLER VELVET H NOT USED PE-8 NOT USED J BRICK VENEER PE -9 60 % IPE CORONADO STONE 40% TUDOR BROWN K WAINSCOT SILL PE -10 SPECIAL USED BRICK CORONADO STONE "COUNTRY " " SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINTS L ALUMINUM PE -1 1 NOT USED STOREFRONT M SPANDREL GLAZING PE -12 NOT USED N FOAM CORNICE PE -13 COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL BELOW EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES 0 KEYNOTE DESCRIPTION 1. SIGNAGE, BY OTHERS. 2. OUTLINE OF BLDG. ELEMENT BEYOND. 3. METALAWNING. 4. TIE ROD AT CANOPY, PAINT TO MATCH CANOPY. 5. DOWNLIGHT WALL PACK. 6. LED SCONCE/WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE. 7. ROLL -UP DOOR. 8. HOLLOW METAL DOOR. 9. PLASTER JOINT PAIA DESIGN Architectural Solutions Group 38 EXECUTNE PARK SUITE 310 IRVINE, CA 92614 PROJECT CONTACT: JEFF UEDERMAN PHONE: 19491430 -7051 EM,NLjliederman@pmdginc.com JEFF LIEDERMAN, ARCHITECT SEAL: CONSULTANT: x w u, L") CO CO o00 � N J w� Oa w C)r U ji O O L O N v A3.0 RA. IR.K. a a o z �® UU ��- 0 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Q 01/31/20 A05/01/20 I ST PLANNING SUBMrrTAL 1 ST PLANNING SUBMrTTAL A3.0 RA. IR.K. 0 8 16 I I SCALE: 1 / 16 " =1 ' -0" SITE PLAN SITE SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN: SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING: EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 2 ACTION SPORTS, TOURISM, COMMERCIAL & RECREATION MIXED US OVERLAY BUILDING SETBACKS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 45' ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS: 65' MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE: MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 15% FROJJ ECT SUMMARY LAND AREA: 6.05 AC (263,663 SF ±) RETAIL: 4,088 SF DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT: 5,298 SF FLEX-TECH: 22,080 SF EXPRESS CARWASH: 4,033 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 35,499 SF FUELING CANOPY: 4,284 SF BUILDING COVERAGE (F.A.R.): 15.1% PARKI NG EMC SEC. 17.148.030 I REQUIRED PARKING: PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS: 9'X 18' MINIMUM AISLE WIDTH (900 PARKING): 26' FRONT: 15' 16 STALLS SIDE(ADJ TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY): 15' DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT 1: SIDE(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' REAR(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' PARKING SETBACKS: (648 SF/ 45): FRONT: 25` AVG/ 20' MIN SIDE(ADJ TO PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY): 15° SIDE(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' (10650 SF/ 200): REAR(ADJ TO INTERIOR LOT LINES): 0' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 45' ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS: 65' MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE: MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 15% FROJJ ECT SUMMARY LAND AREA: 6.05 AC (263,663 SF ±) RETAIL: 4,088 SF DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT: 5,298 SF FLEX-TECH: 22,080 SF EXPRESS CARWASH: 4,033 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 35,499 SF FUELING CANOPY: 4,284 SF BUILDING COVERAGE (F.A.R.): 15.1% PARKI NG EMC SEC. 17.148.030 I REQUIRED PARKING: PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS: 9'X 18' MINIMUM AISLE WIDTH (900 PARKING): 26' NOTE: R.O.W. BUILDING AREAS AND LAND COVERAGE ARE PRELIMINARY AND DEDICATION SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT. ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT OR OTHER AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. ALL DIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. t� NORTH 312 48 64 1/ 16 "= 1 ' -0.. 1 SITE PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE - > - - > - - > - - > — ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL: • 48" MIN. CLEAR WIDTH PATH OF TRAVEL • 5% MAX. SLOPE • 2% MAX CROSS SLOPE wACCESSIBLE PARKING CONCRETE AT SIDEWALK PAIA DESIGN Architectural Solutions Group 38 EXECUTIVE PARK SUITE 310 IRVINE, CA 92614 PROJECT- CONTACT: JEFF LIEDERMAN PHONE: (949) 430 -7051 EMAIL: jliederman @pmdginc.com JEFF LIEDERMAN, ARCHITECT SEAL: CONSULTANT: O O M REV I DATE I DESCRIPTION 01/31/20 I I Sr PAWNING SUBMITTAL 05/01 RO 2ND PAWNING SUBMITTAL w �R wLo N M LO � N J < w� o¢ } o U �O �O LO N R1 DRAWN BY: R.A. CHECKED BY: R.K. ARCH. PROJECT NO.: SSW20001.0 SHEET NAME: SHEET NUMBER: i A01olD i f RETAIL (1 /250): 16 STALLS DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT 1: 1/ 45 SF CUSTOMER AREA (648 SF/ 45): 14 STALLS 1/ 200 SF NONCUSTOMER AREA (10650 SF/ 200): 8 STALLS TIRE STORE: 1,500 SF/ 250 OFFICE / SALES: 6 STALLS 3/ SERVICE BAY: 18 STALLS J FLEX-TECH CONDOS: Q 12,000 SF/ 250 OFFICE: 48 STALLS EXPRESS CARWASH (1 / EMPLOYEE) 3 STALLS Z Q PARKING REQUIRED: 133 SIALLS W SHARED USE REDUCTION (10 %): <13 STALLS> Cn TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 120 STALLS 121 STALLS NOTE: R.O.W. BUILDING AREAS AND LAND COVERAGE ARE PRELIMINARY AND DEDICATION SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT. ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT OR OTHER AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. ALL DIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. t� NORTH 312 48 64 1/ 16 "= 1 ' -0.. 1 SITE PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE - > - - > - - > - - > — ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL: • 48" MIN. CLEAR WIDTH PATH OF TRAVEL • 5% MAX. SLOPE • 2% MAX CROSS SLOPE wACCESSIBLE PARKING CONCRETE AT SIDEWALK PAIA DESIGN Architectural Solutions Group 38 EXECUTIVE PARK SUITE 310 IRVINE, CA 92614 PROJECT- CONTACT: JEFF LIEDERMAN PHONE: (949) 430 -7051 EMAIL: jliederman @pmdginc.com JEFF LIEDERMAN, ARCHITECT SEAL: CONSULTANT: O O M REV I DATE I DESCRIPTION 01/31/20 I I Sr PAWNING SUBMITTAL 05/01 RO 2ND PAWNING SUBMITTAL w �R wLo N M LO � N J < w� o¢ } o U �O �O LO N R1 DRAWN BY: R.A. CHECKED BY: R.K. ARCH. PROJECT NO.: SSW20001.0 SHEET NAME: SHEET NUMBER: i A01olD i f W .1 �I FUCTUREs 'SC' FAA N°�i WST LED !Number DESIGN Architectural Wall Sconce Notes Architectural - r W 2 0 rypR M' Solutions Group 38 EXECUTIVE PARK SUITE 310 SM+ Capable Luminaire IRVINE, CA 92614 This item is an A- capable luminaire, which has been Specifications PROJECT CONTACT: JEFF LEDERMAN PHONE: 19491430 -7051 EMNL:jliederman@pmdginc.com designed and tested to provide consistent color Luminaire appearance and system -level interoperability- Height: S "1/2.. All configurations of this Luminaire meet the Acuity JEFF LIEDERMAN, ARCHITECT SEAL: 1zl•sv. Brands' specification for chromatic consistency Width: 17" ■ This luminaire is A+ Certified when ordered with 10 -3116" DTLIl controls marked by a shaded background. DTL Depth: Qs.ymi; DILL equipped luminaires meet the A+ specification Weight: 20lbs for luminaire to photocontrol interoperabilityl ■ This luminaire is part of an A+ Certified solution for ROAM"' or XPointT"^ Wireless control networks, providing out -of -the -box control compatibility with simple commissioning, when ordered with drivers and control options marked by a shaded background- - � To learn more about A+•, Optional Back Box (PBBWJ Visit www- acuitybrands_com /aplus, Weight: 8-49" 2.r.-56 , -m1 See ordering tree for details. -, - Width: 17.01" A- Certified Solutions for ROAM require the order of ',13.21 cmj — one ROAM node per luminaire. Sold Separately: Link _ I Depth: ,70.' to Roam; Link to DTL DLL CONSULTANT: ;i ,Ile P • +- '0R319'NPr D 57PE -EN1FY ,ll T Ij 3.0 .r 1 FOR ' MOUNTING BOLTS Optional Back Box (BBW) y Height: j i1o,a cri; 5 .. Width: -1/2" (14,0 [mj - - - - Depth; 1 -112 • - W For 314" N D side -entry conduit _ H _ o a CO f LO C0 N A LITh►L7N/A One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800- 219.8041 YVS6Lw� f i_1,GHTIAf, ® 2011.2015 Acuity Brands Ughpng, Inc All rights reserved- Rev. 06/21/18 I J W 3 Q Oo LU r U VACLJM ,N P' " RENDERING N.T.S. 1 OUTDOOR LIGHT FIMM N.T.S. ji p CV BASIC -1 TUNNEL WASH & GATE CONFIGURATION by G.C. �� -- -_ — ' 22' 09.01.06 5' 12' 32 6' sutcfeardgc9.feyel; - �. _ - Notem (oru.e.l} 1- Curb should be 8• in height I' E- Curb have KX a _ — should bollards (*B" MB" A.F .) 31" a both ends to 5'_g" 6 protect harwars. 14'- 2" COLUMN & BRACE, AND ASSOCIATED - -- _ l ';� a- Lees between I Q- curbs should be 35 ° 8' -8" f81 J�LJ \ EQUIPMENT PAINTED SHERWIN WILUAMS SW7035 AESTHETIC WHITE" HANDICAP VACUUM TOOL SHALL BE NO HIGHER _ 4- Lees Provided by GC, hwt Nation a fFL THAN 48" ABOVE FINISHED GR4D3E FOR by G.C. 5" OVERHEAD ALUMINUM VACUUM TUBE I 11'- 16' ADJUSTABLE CROSSBAR CANTILEVERED BEAM PAINTED HANDICAP VACUUM SPACES pp �� pp ELLJC V/AM SHERWIN WILLIAMS SMI 1 1 ANTLER VELVET -- — -- _ 0 `� 8 - =� — — DUAL USER PALM ARCH PHOTO. _ _ � 34" 9" 1 LU 4' + °m `mil roe uullll 1' -10" 8' LED LIGHT �J CANTOLEVERED BEAM PAINTED SHERWON WOLLDAMS SW91 1 1 SIGNAGE BY OTHERS, TYP. " 18" h I a -- FABRIC AWNING (PROVIDED BY OTHERS) COLOR: RED ANTLER VEL\/ET° 11 p - - - - -- - - - - -, - - - -- V I - - - --- —AIR 0 AIR TOOL HANGER NOZZLE &HOSE 30 GALLON WASTE RECEPTACLE ., • ,, _ y I 8' -6" u REV DATE DESCRIPTION - -- HAND CAP TOOL MOUNT BRACKET I I I 01/31/20 1ST PLANNING SUBMIITSL -- cn CREVICE VACUUM TOOL I I 05/01/20 2ND PLANNING SUBMITTAL -- zn -- _- CLAW VACUUM TOOL TOWEL BIN - 1.1/2"x15' VACUUM HOSE COLUMN, TYP. PAINTED SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7035 'AESTHETIC WHITE' i pc I 4, i '8 -0 30 GALLON RECYCLE BIN/ RECEPTACLE + I m � I A r .. � � 2. _ 2" � I I 1 `Y) I v J CANOPY 30" 0 COLUMN, TYP. ---- - - - - -- 8' -6" _t6 o p x � Q — — — — — — — - — — — F.G. S -V - -, -- - - - - -� - ----------- ------ - - - - -- � CURB. - - f 4 DRAWN BY: RA CHECKED BY: R.K. ry I ARCH. PROJECT NO.: SS 20001 r , SHEET NAME: 0 M �� WE ®ETA LS 8'-6' 4f -0" 8f-6" 4'-0" 8f- i" PLPN 33f -6" NORTH RLM NORTH SHEET NUMBER: VA LJ I CAAOPY " ''LEVA71 N 1/2 " =1' -0" 9 PLAN & ELEVATIONS T PAY STAkVION3 N.T.S. � ALI W .1 �I I>i i w!1 F. ROOF PLAN KEYNOTES C KEYNOTE DESCRIPTION 1. TPO SINGLE -PLY ROOFING. 2. TENSIONED FABRIC POLYFAB SAILS ATTACHED TO CMU. 3. OPEN TO BELOW, 4. METAL COPING AT PARAPET 5. ROOF AND OVERFLOW DRAINS 6. ROOF ACCESS HATCH /LADDER. 7. TAPERED INSULATION 8. METAL CANOPY BELOW 9. TIE ROD AT CANOPY BELOW 10. MINI -SPLIT SYSTEM AC 11. ROOF INTAKE VENT 12. ROOF EXHAUST FAN NORTH G�, 1,0 F ?�AN FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES C) KEYNOTE DESCRIPTION 2 1. STOREFRONT SYSTEM. V2. H.M. DOOR. 3. ROLL -UP DOOR. 131' -0" 4. LINE OF METALAWNING ABOVE. 5. OUTDOOR DOWNLIGHT WALL PACK. 8 "-6" 4' -0" 8' -0" 4' -0" 13'-4" 4' -0" 8' -0" 4' -0" 8' -0" 4' -0" 8' -0" 4' -0" 8' -0" 4' -0" 8' -0" 4' -0" 8' -0" 4' -0" 17' -2" 6. OUTDOOR LED SCONCE/WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE. in 0 0 1 m I I I m I I - a a I�I�I OR PLAN TUNNEL EXIT VACUUM > VENDING 0 4 ROOM 10S _ — J 106 EQUIPMENT o A3.0 102 ROOM F �� �� 104 L- JL -=L - -j L-L�M-1 3 II 11 11 II I 2 TYP. LPL== IL— JI — =-LJ 4 14'-8" 6'4" 8'4" 3'-4" 6'-8" 16' -0" 6'-8" 6'-4" 5' -0" 6' -0" 5'4" 6' -0" 5'4" 6' -0" 130' -0" 152' -0" 1 A3.o 19 4" Q TUNNEL ENTRANCE al OFFICE 105 1 � 18" -0" 4' -0" 22' -0" fV e 3 Q A3.o 0 1 10 PAIA DESIGN Architectural Solutions Group 38 EXECUTIVE PARK SUITE 310 IRVINE, CA 92614 PROJECT- CONTACT: JEFF LIEDERMAN PHONE: (949) 430 -7051 EMAIL: jliederman @pmdginc.com JEFF LIEDERMAN, ARCHITECT SEAL- CONSULTANT: r: w u) F- o` N M 0 W � N J Q W 0¢ } o U ji 0 3: .o L0 (V X: 128' -8" 1 I �j II I I I II I I I I II I I I o N I I - a a 1 J WASH BAY TUNNEL 101 o L - VACUUM > VENDING 0 4 ROOM 10S _ — J 106 EQUIPMENT o A3.0 102 ROOM F �� �� 104 L- JL -=L - -j L-L�M-1 3 II 11 11 II I 2 TYP. LPL== IL— JI — =-LJ 4 14'-8" 6'4" 8'4" 3'-4" 6'-8" 16' -0" 6'-8" 6'-4" 5' -0" 6' -0" 5'4" 6' -0" 5'4" 6' -0" 130' -0" 152' -0" 1 A3.o 19 4" Q TUNNEL ENTRANCE al OFFICE 105 1 � 18" -0" 4' -0" 22' -0" fV e 3 Q A3.o 0 1 10 PAIA DESIGN Architectural Solutions Group 38 EXECUTIVE PARK SUITE 310 IRVINE, CA 92614 PROJECT- CONTACT: JEFF LIEDERMAN PHONE: (949) 430 -7051 EMAIL: jliederman @pmdginc.com JEFF LIEDERMAN, ARCHITECT SEAL- CONSULTANT: r: w u) F- o` N M 0 W � N J Q W 0¢ } o U ji 0 3: .o L0 (V X: DRAWN BY: R.A. CHECKED BY: R.K. ARCH. PROJECT NO.: SSW2000 1.0 SHEET NAME: FLOOR & ROOF PLMS SHEET NUMBER: A2m0 a a o a 0 LU 0:S REV DATE DESCRIPTION Q 01/31/20 I Sr RMNING wI3M1TTAL 05/01/20 2NDR/WNINGSUBMf1TAL DRAWN BY: R.A. CHECKED BY: R.K. ARCH. PROJECT NO.: SSW2000 1.0 SHEET NAME: FLOOR & ROOF PLMS SHEET NUMBER: A2m0 24' -0" A. T.O. PAF 16-0"_A, T.O. PAN 14' -0" A. T.O. PAF rik 3'-4" A. F T.O. WP 0' -0" FIN. FLR 28' -0" A.F.F. T.O. WALL 12' -0" A.F.F. T.O. OPENING rik 3'-4" A.F.F._ T.O. WAINSCOT 0' -0" FIN. FLR. I [40RT H ELEVATION Emm I rWY gE2'T a TI N 28' -0" A.F.F. T.O. WALL 10' -0" A.F.F. B.O. AWNING 3'4" A.F.F. jk T.O. WAINSCOT _0' -0� FIN. FLR. 4 I EAST ELEVATION 28' -0" A. F. T.O. WALL 24' -0" A. T.O. PAF rqlK� J:• A•/ 7'-4" A. F. T.O. STC 3'-4" A. F. IV T.O. WA 0' -0" FIN. FLR ?8' -0"A. F. F. T.O. WALL ?' -0" A. F. F. jk D. OPENING 3' -0" A.F.F. F WINDOW FIN. FLR. VWINNEII 24' -0" A.F.F. .O. PARAPET ?2' -0" A.F.F. O. PARAPET 14' -8" A. F. F. T.O WINDOW 3'-4" A.F.F. D. WAINSCOT 0, -0" FIN. FLR. f 1 �� EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE FAA DESIGN A r c h i t e c t u r a l FERAL COLOR o HNSH A METAL COPING PE -1 NOT USED o Solutions Group 38 EXECUTIVE PARK B NOT USED PE -2 DUNN EDWARDS COLOR: DE5090 SUITE 310 0!�] POMEGRANATE IRVINE, CA 92614 PROJECF CONTACT: JEFF LIEDERMAN C EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER FINISH: PE -3 DUNN EDWARDS FINE SAND COLOR: DE5341 PHONE: (949) 430 -7051 REV DATE DESCRIPTION EMAIL: jliederman@pmdginc.com I Sf RANNING SUBM MAL TUSCAN SUN JEFF LIEDERMAN, ARCHITECT D COMPOSITE SIDING PE-4 NOT USED MFR : 'FIBERON HORIZON' SEAL - E ALUMINUM WINDOW PE -5 NOT USED F HOLLOW METAL DOOR & FRAME PE-6 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COLOR:SW7035 AESTHETIC WHITE G MEfALAWNING PE -7 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COLOR:SW91 1 1 ANTLER VELVET H NOT USED PE-8 NOT USED J BRICK VENEER PE -9 60 % IPE CORONADO STONE 40% TUDOR BROWN CONSULTANT: K WAINSCOT SILL PE -10 SPECIAL USED BRICK CORONADO STONE "COUNTRY " (Yz' SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINTS) L ALUMINUM PE -1 1 NOT USED STOREFRONT M SPANDREL GLAZING PE -12 NOT USED N FOAM CORNICE PE -13 COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL BELOW EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES ® KEYNOTE DESCRIPTION 1. SIGNAGE, BY OTHERS. 2. OUTLINE OF BLDG. ELEMENT BEYOND. 3. METALAWNING. 4. TIE ROD AT CANOPY, PAINT TO MATCH CANOPY. 5. DOWNIJGHT WALL PACK. 6. LED SCONCE/WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE. 7. ROLL -UP DOOR. 8. HOLLOW METAL DOOR. 9. PLASTER JOINT w I w u) F- o` N M 0 W � N J Q w 0¢ w or U ji 0 .0 � 0 N 1 DRAWN BY: R.A. CHECKED BY: R.K. ARCH. PROJECT NO.: SSW2000 1.0 SHEET NAME: ppE ERUR ELSE VATO CIS SHEET NUMBER: A3omO a a o a 0!�] �® 0 U 0:S REV DATE DESCRIPTION Q 01/31/20 I Sf RANNING SUBM MAL 05/01/20 2ND RANNING SUBMITTAL DRAWN BY: R.A. CHECKED BY: R.K. ARCH. PROJECT NO.: SSW2000 1.0 SHEET NAME: ppE ERUR ELSE VATO CIS SHEET NUMBER: A3omO 0 20' 40' 80' SCALE: 1" = 40.00' TRUE NORTH (i PROJECT NORTH 40' -0" FLOOR PLAN PLAN NORTH 0 N 0 Qc N N 0 N EAST (CORYDON STREET) ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA O \ - ©0/ CMU SCREEN WALL SOUTH ELEVATION I. TOP OF SLAB EL. 0.00' 0 O N co CV N N EXTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES OA EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" © EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7025 "BACKDROP" © MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) OD COMPOSITE SIDING MFR: FIBERON HORIZON FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN OE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUMINUM CANOPY - OF COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED OG COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE OH MFR: ECLIPSE GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD FINISH: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION WALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE- REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION REF: STRUCTURAL FOR ALLOWABLE CORING OF BEAMS GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING - OK PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE RED CORYDON, L 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 M U R R I ETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 ALUMINUM CORNICE- COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT- REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM PAD 1 FLOOR PLAN/ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 5 MAY 2020 KPIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 949.344.2710 gkparchitecture.com ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 0 20' 40' 80' SCALE: 1" = 40.00' TRUE NORTH (i PROJECT NORTH 40' -0" FLOOR PLAN PLAN NORTH c cv C? CV c EAST (CORYDON STREET) ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA SOUTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES OA EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" © EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7025 'BACKDROP' © MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) OD COMPOSITE SIDING MFR: FIBERON HORIZON FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN OE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUMINUM CANOPY - OF COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED GO COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE OH MFR: ECLIPSE GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD FINISH: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION WALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE- REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION REF: STRUCTURAL FOR ALLOWABLE CORING OF BEAMS GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING - OK PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE ALUMINUM CORNICE- COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT- REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM RED CORYDON, L 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 M U R R I ETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7025 'BACKDROP' MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) COMPOSITE SIDING MFR: FIBERON HORIZON FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM PAD 1 FLOOR PLAN/ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 5 MAY 2020 KPIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3 OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 949.344.2710 gkparchitecture.com ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 ILI$1]V 0 4' 8' 16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1' -0" FLOOR PLAN PLAN NORTH I c Qc C\ cc EAST (MISSION TRAIL) ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA SOUTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES OA EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" © EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7025 'BACKDROP' © MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY' (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) OD COMPOSITE SIDING MFR: FIBERON HORIZON FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN ( ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM O ALUMINUM CANOPY W/ UP & DOWN LIGHTS - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM GO METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE OH DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MFR: ECLIPSE GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD FINISH: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION O NOT USED O GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING - PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE © ALUMINUM CORNICE - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM O SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT - REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM RED CORYDON, L 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 M U R R I ETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 PAD 4 FLOOR PLAN/ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 4 MAY 2020 KPIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3 OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 949.344.2710 gkparchitecture.com ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 c cr oc ILI$1]V 0 4' 8' 16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1' -0" FLOOR PLAN PLAN NORTH Co am c Qc C\ c cc C\, EAST (MISSION TRAIL) ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA SOUTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES OA EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" © EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7025 'BACKDROP' © MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" (1 /2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) OD COMPOSITE SIDING MFR: FIBERON HORIZON FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN ( ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM O ALUMINUM CANOPY W/ UP & DOWN LIGHTS - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM GO METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE OH DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MFR: ECLIPSE GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD FINISH: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION O NOT USED O GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING - PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE © ALUMINUM CORNICE - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM O SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT - REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM RED CORYDON, L 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 M U R R I ETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7025 'BACKDROP' MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) COMPOSITE SIDING MFR: FIBERON HORIZON FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM PAD 4 FLOOR PLAN/ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 4 MAY 2020 KPIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3 OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 949.344.2710 gkparchitecture.com ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 w IJ J W I" cr Q i 1w, FLOOR PLAN (EAST END) W Iz J W I� a i T-- I (11 J OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,420 SF L - - - - - - OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,420 SF - - - - - - J OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,420 SF L - OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,420 SF OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,420 SF L - - - - - - OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,420 SF - - - - 158' -4" i 1w, FLOOR PLAN (EAST END) W Iz J W I� a i T-- I (11 I I I L - - - - - J - - J OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 2, 380 S F - L OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 15420 SF 1 - J OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,420 SF - - L - - - - - - OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,420 SF F - - - - - -- - J OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,420 SF - - - - - - L - - - - - - OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,420 SF - - - 0 TRUE NORTH 0 4' 8' 16' ,--_v SCALE: 1/8" = 1' -0" PLAN NORTH FLOOR PLAN (WEST END) CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA kw IJ J W C) �3- Q a- RED CORYDON, L 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 M U R R I ETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 FLEXTECH FLOOR PLAN CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 4 MAY 2020 KPIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 949.344.2710 gkparchitecture.com ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 w IJ J W I" cr Q i 1w, FLOOR PLAN (EAST END) W Iz J W I� a i T-- I (11 J OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,400 SF L - - - - - - OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,400 SF - - - - - - J OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,400 SF L - OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,400 SF OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,400 SF L - - - - - - OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,400 SF - - - - 158' -4" i 1w, FLOOR PLAN (EAST END) W Iz J W I� a i T-- I (11 I I I L - - - - - J - - J OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 2, 580 S F — L OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 15400 SF 1 - J OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,400 SF - - L - - - - - - OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,400 SF F — — — — — -- - J OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,400 SF - - - - - - L - - - - - - OFFICE 500 SF STORAGE 1,400 SF - - - 0 TRUE NORTH 0 4' 8' 16' ,--_v SCALE: 1/8" = 1' -0" PLAN NORTH FLOOR PLAN (WEST END) CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA kw IJ J W C) �3- Q a- RED CORYDON, L 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 M U R R I ETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 FLEXTECH FLOOR PLAN CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 4 MAY 2020 KPIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 949.344.2710 gkparchitecture.com ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 c c cam: 0 N o� �O P� O� TOP OF SLAB EL. 0.00' A o uo N B2 TOP OF SLAB EL. 0.00' WEST ELEVATION 0 4' 8' 16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1' -0" c Lf; h NORTH ELEVATION (WEST END) EAST ELEVATION CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA EXTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES OA EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" g1 EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 "ANTLER VELVET" B2 EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM (ECPS)- FINISH: FINE SAND COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7025 "BACKDROP" © MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) OD COMPOSITE SIDING MFR: FIBERON HORIZON FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN OE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM O ALUMINUM CANOPY W/ UP & DOWN LIGHTS - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM O METAL DOORS & FRAMES- PAINTED COLOR: TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE OH DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MFR: ECLIPSE GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES- VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD FINISH: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM REF: ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFICATION JO WALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE O GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COPING - PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE © ALUMINUM CORNICE - COLOR: ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM O SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT - REFER TO SIGN PROGRAM i ED CORYDON, LLU"" 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 M U R R I ETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 "ANTLER VELVET" SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7025 "BACKDROP" MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) COMPOSITE SIDING MFR: FIBERON HORIZON FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN FLEXTECH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 4 MAY 2020 KPIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 949.344.2710 gkparchitecture.com ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7035 "AESTHETIC WHITE" EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 9111 "ANTLER VELVET" EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7025 "BACKDROP" MANUFACTURED BRICK VENEER MFR: CORONADO STONE PATTERN/ COLOR: SPECIAL USED BRICK - "COUNTRY" (1/2" SMOOTH BRUSHED JOINT) COMPOSITE SIDING MFR: FIBERON HORIZON FINISH: 60% IPE/ 40% TUDOR BROWN METAL BROWS & STOREFRONTS - ANODIZED CLEAR ALUMINUM METAL BROWS & STOREFRONTS - ANODIZED DARK BRONZE METAL BROWS & ACCENTS - COLOR: TO MATCH DUNN EDWARDS DE 5090 "POMEGRANTE" METAL BROWS & ACCENTS - COLOR: TO MATCH DUNN EDWARDS DE 5341 "TUSCAN SUN" DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MFR: ECLIPSE GALILEO SIGNATURE SERIES - VEGA W/ FULL PERFEX SHIELD FINISH: ANODIZED CLEAR OR DARK BOENZE CORYDON CROSSING RED CORYDON, LLC 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA MUR951.6 3 7192562 COLORS & MATERIALS CORYDON CROSSING OKRA PROJECT #19114,01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 12 MAY 2020 PIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3 OVERTURE AUSO VIEJO, CA 92656 909.632.3532 gkpemhllecWre.com BUSINESS CONDOS 22,080 SF TRUE NORTH 0 20' 40' 80' SCALE: 1 "= 40' -0" PNORTHT s% Fc TREES ON NORTH SIDE OF DRIVE TO BE INSTALLED BY PARCEL 1/ PARCEL 2 RECIPROCAL ACCESS 30" HIGH SCREEN I I Fl1Tl1RF IMF \ /FI t7PFR — nIRFr.TinNALSIGN DRIVEWAY HEDGE I I � N I I I I I I:V I PROJECT ISIGI AG I IR.O.W. DEDICATIO a I I I I I 1 I I I I PROJECT SIGINAG I I � I 3 00F�I N I I J PROZCT / SIGNAGE ;`' 4 i PROJECT C.! / SIGNAGE �ry 00 4�Z-� O O CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA I a LEMON STREET MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL c� io I I EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL RED MIX OF TREES SHALL INCLUDE AT LEAST: 25% 15- GALLON TREES, 70% 24" -BOX TREES, AND 5% 36" -BOX TREES 24" Box Deciduous O Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 36" Box flowering accent 17 24" Box Evergreen tall Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box 36" Box vertical 36 Deciduous oval Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree 36" Box street tree 7 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear 24" Box Deciduous vertical 32 Deciduous oval Platanus x acerifolia London Plane Tree 15 Gal street tree 7 Evergreen broad Ulmus parvifolia 'True Green' Evergreen Elm 24" Box dome 12 100% OF SHRUBS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 5 GALLON SIZE UNLESS THE SHRUB'S MATURE SIZE IS SUCH THAT NURSERIES DO NOT SELL STOCK LARGER THAN 1 GALLON SIZE. SHRUBS SHALL BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM OF 36" APART ON AVERAGE. Bougainvillea cvr. Bougainvillea 5 Gal Cistus x purpureus Orchid Rockrose 5 Gal Coprosma repens 'Marble Queen' Mirror Plant 5 Gal Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily 5 Gal Lavandula augustifolia 'Hidcote' English Lavender 1 Gal Leptospermum scoparium New Zealand Tea Tree 5 Gal Leucophylum frutescens 'Compacta' Compact Texas Ranger 5 Gal Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Texas Privet 5 Gal Liriope muscari Big Blue Lily Turf 1 Gal Myrtus communis 'Compacta' Dwarf Myrtle 5 Gal Phormium tenax New Zealand Flax 5 Gal Pittosporum tobira Mock Orange 5 Gal Rhaphiolepis indica cvr. Indian Hawthorne 5 Gal Rosa 'Flower Carpet' Groundcover Rose 5 Gal Salvia clevelandii Cleveland Sage 5 Gal Salvia leucantha 'Santa Barbara' Mexican Bush Sage 5 Gal Festuca idahoensis ' Siskiyou Blue' Siskiyou Blue Idaho Fescue 1 Gal Distictus buccinatoria Macfadyena unguis -cati Blood Red Trumpet Vine 15 Gal Cat's Claw Vine 15 Gal NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE, MEDIUM BROOM FINISH Massing 39,383 SF Massing Shade massing Accent Accent Background massing Screening / Massing Screening Shade massing Screening / Massing Accent Screening / Massing Screening / Massing Accent / Massing Accent / Massing Accent / Massign Foreground Massing LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: SITE AREA (GROSS): 263,648 SF LANDSCAPE AREA: 40,589 SF LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE: 15.4% LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CODES, ORDINANCES, AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES AS APPLY TO PLANTING DESIGN AND IRRIGATION. 2. PLANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN SELECTED APPROPRIATE TO THE CLIMATE AND REGION AND IS CONSIDERED "CALIFORNIA FRIENDLY" BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. 3. VINES OR OTHER LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHALL BE PLANTED AROUND TRASH ENCLOSURES. 4. LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY ABOVE GROUND EQUIPMENT. 5. ANY STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 24" BOX SIZE MINIMUM. 6. LANDSCAPE SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPER OR HIS SUCCESSORS. 7. PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE ADDED OR REMOVED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. Pacific Landscape Studio LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING 2523 ANTLERS WAY, SAN MARCOS, CA 92078 P: 805.440.8047 PLS PROJECT #20011.01 DON, LLC 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 M U R R I ETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 CONCEPTUAL LANDCAPE PLAN SCHEME Kv6 CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 24 JUNE 2020 KPIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 T 949.344.2710 F 949.344.2720 OGK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 I I b I I TREES ON NORTH SIDE OF I I I I I I DRIVE TO BE INSTALLED BY PARCEL 1/ PARCEL 2 RECIPROCAL ACCESS 30 HIGH SCREEN I I FUTURE DEVELOPER DIRECTIONAL SIGN DRIVEWAY HEDGE I I 30 HIGH SCREEN � � I I 30" HIGH SCREEN HEDGE HEDGE N � I � � I PROJECT SIGNAGE 4 i — — — — — — ETENTION LOT A , _ TIRES ORE N 0.22 AC EXISTING I I I 9 SF-t) ® I • ( 452 � ) < � � PARCEL LINE CAR WASH a 4,333 SIF 1 -- PARCEL 4 _ _ _ _ — — — — — — — — I " PAR EL I I 0.86 AC (37,572 SF ±) C 3 PROJECT s 'Q — 1.10 AC (47,910 SF 4- I SIGNAGE ID so \ \ I I x 9F osF \ \ • � v R.O.W. I e I T ELEVEN I I DEDICATIO • �) CS : i 4,088 SF I I EVCS : -- - - I "oF ' 2.15 C 3, 4 SF ±)� L -- — — - -- PROJECT SIGNAGE F- w Q I I Z � I � I 3 N I 0 \ \ O I \/ ) \ I I } o ONSITE O e OFF IRRIGAT O o coo coo coo 36 J CONTR LL °o° s e A A I FUEL SLAND I li oo oho °1O BUSINESS CONDOS 22,080 SF ���i ° PARCEL 2 �s 1.09 AC (47,680 SF ±) 36° �� I \ O4' l \ � I • / BUILDING I CO . SETBACK �ti I 1 \ A MONUMENT z0 0. 03 SF4- 36" SIGNAGE O I CIO � \ • ,'� `�\ / 30" HIGH SCREEN '�/ J /' PROJ CT HEDGE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LEMON STREET MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL I TRUE NORTH 0 20' 40' 80' SCALE: 1 "= 40' -0" PNORTHT CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA I I c� I I c� I I MIX OF TREES SHALL INCLUDE AT LEAST: 25% 15- GALLON TREES, 70% 24" -BOX TREES, AND 5% 36" -BOX TREES 24" Box Deciduous O Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 36" Box flowering accent 17 24" Box Evergreen tall Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box 36" Box vertical 36 Deciduous oval Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree 36" Box street tree 7 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear 24" Box Deciduous vertical 32 Deciduous oval • Platanus x acerifolia London Plane Tree 15 Gal street tree 7 Evergreen broad • Ulmus parvifolia 'True Green' Evergreen Elm 24" Box dome 12 100% OF SHRUBS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 5 GALLON SIZE UNLESS THE SHRUB'S MATURE SIZE IS SUCH THAT NURSERIES DO NOT SELL STOCK LARGER THAN 1 GALLON SIZE. SHRUBS SHALL BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM OF 36" APART ON AVERAGE. Bougainvillea cvr. Bougainvillea 5 Gal Massing 39,383 SF Cistus x purpureus Orchid Rockrose 5 Gal Massing Coprosma repens 'Marble Queen' Mirror Plant 5 Gal Shade massing Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily 5 Gal Accent Lavandula augustifolia 'Hidcote' English Lavender 1 Gal Accent Leptospermum scoparium New Zealand Tea Tree 5 Gal Background massing Leucophylum frutescens 'Compacta' Compact Texas Ranger 5 Gal Screening / Massing Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Texas Privet 5 Gal Screening Liriope muscari Big Blue Lily Turf 1 Gal Shade massing Myrtus communis 'Compacta' Dwarf Myrtle 5 Gal Screening / Massing Phormium tenax New Zealand Flax 5 Gal Accent Pittosporum tobira Mock Orange 5 Gal Screening / Massing Rhaphiolepis indica cvr. Indian Hawthorne 5 Gal Screening / Massing Rosa 'Flower Carpet' Groundcover Rose 5 Gal Accent / Massing Salvia clevelandii Cleveland Sage 5 Gal Accent / Massing Salvia leucantha 'Santa Barbara' Mexican Bush Sage 5 Gal Accent / Massign Festuca idahoensis ' Siskiyou Blue' Siskiyou Blue Idaho Fescue 1 Gal Foreground Massing "i Distictus buccinatoria Blood Red Trumpet Vine 15 Gal Macfadyena unguis -cati Cat's Claw Vine 15 Gal NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE, MEDIUM BROOM FINISH LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: SITE AREA (GROSS): 263,648 SF LANDSCAPE AREA: 40,589 SF LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE: 15.4% LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CODES, ORDINANCES, AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES AS APPLY TO PLANTING DESIGN AND IRRIGATION. 2. PLANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN SELECTED APPROPRIATE TO THE CLIMATE AND REGION AND IS CONSIDERED "CALIFORNIA FRIENDLY" BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. 3. VINES OR OTHER LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHALL BE PLANTED AROUND TRASH ENCLOSURES. 4. LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY ABOVE GROUND EQUIPMENT. 5. ANY STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 24" BOX SIZE MINIMUM. 6. LANDSCAPE SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPER OR HIS SUCCESSORS. 7. PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE ADDED OR REMOVED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. Pacific Landscape Studio LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANNING LANDCAPE PLAN SCHEME Kv6 CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 2523 ANTLERS WAY, SAN MARCOS, CA 92078 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 24 JUNE 2020 P: 805.440.8047 PLS PROJECT #20011.01 RED Crum DON, 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 MURRIETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 LLC KPIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 T 949.344.2710 F 949.344.2720 OGK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 , -imir k - 17 L !'r4o M •+„- -� ���������` r r r -:~ - - -, r- 40= Aft 4reirri yy��A44C+,r� STREET VIEW FROM CORYDON ROAD- LOOKING NORTH CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA �c -400 RED CORYDON, LL 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 MURRIETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 _ OF- VIEW POINT NOTE: BUILDING AREAS AND LAND COVERAGE ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT. ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT OR OTHER AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. ALL DIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. STREET VIEW CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 7 MAY 2020 PIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 F3 T 949.344.2710 F 949.344.2720 ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 STREET VIEW FROM CORYDON/ MISSION TRAIL INTERSECTION- LOOKING NORTHWEST CORYDON GATEWAY RED CORYDON, LL LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 MURRIETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 NOTE BUILDING AREAS AND LAND COVERAGE ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT. ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT OR OTHER AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. ALL DIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. STREET VIEW CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 7 MAY 2020 PIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3 OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 F3 T 949.344.2710 F 949.344.2720 ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020 4 QUICK 0 r LEVEn� C000Y Burgers &BBQ Super Star AAAUto Pans Gateway Office Park TIRES DUICK LUBE N: f 19mri r mow -7 EEru[n _ __ -_ -_ -_ - -- ------------ - - - _ - - mac - -- �� - - - - - ` - - -k. .. .. - �- � � -• r- _ �a - - - •` •�'" ;�. -_ - -' - ' _ •r �.-�! , - -- - - �4 ',-yam • ,�y }r � M1 a , - std. � -�. - . � .�. .. f < r. k..- r. . *;1•',.'x�..:. -, ' _, . -. _ _ - - - - _ - -'f 'L' - �- •t� "gg�'- NT - g�. S �a.•. �t LL .7 - , ,�•_ -fir - i•�`��'�`•� -A�- i. .t. . ^0.- i�{yi- - _ L •.Z -' - � �*,� ;fir 6� f� . �- •t+t - 3� - _ .iii -• .!•. l - 4L 'Y- .'TSL. _'0i c -..f•• " .A -Sr -N• �F '4 •�.tl M1 - �`� a+ All � *fir: a i. `.i• * � . _..}y •fir? 'Y .�.'L. Y ..i. -S� b •M r4' y- � - '`i `- 5i!r- •��s+Je '�i Lam``' =�' 'k. -t - .Y4 � 4 � �4+ ti ti-�,' — � +.. ;fit • .�� . z � ':S. � � 4 �. _--.� �c - eE 'i•.�- ; z "�`-� - Cy-�:, - •!� -6 -- �•..1�s.�,��. - _ c � �l..,d . �ti.'� '� � { ?4.p .k+�' �'ei;,t. 'T:�` [ -, . .. �- - '.� r `-�r *'��,�!'� - r '1itiF'� • `�: „� _ __'_. , � • -5 ,� i )) y, .�. _ _ . Lew r�.�t.pk.�j�� �s 5 1' rtr. .,,kl� ��t'�`�i���p- ,,}� - __ t' .. � � ♦ .� _ +'S� fi,. - r � sf� I .+�{. � s T�YC�" � � i47'i�- '] �,,,�� `a��' � -�i� ` ' �: �. }�y• i'� ��ti. •y� ` �rTC^ �F .1c - - } z mot`. _ . -. i��, t'�. � .�:. -� . sj`j k•, �j ',�t'i'}�. � 3�".� Y. t � :S.y �� _ �'�a' i� � -•w '-.:. �.:.i - •'� �.`�4Y� �ti'- �.�? - � :«�..- �'�,'' "�Y' -"� c ;' „K �',Y r ^�, i� .y LE:�• _ � �. - i4„ �� �f4,a !. � � _ - _ y���y�� r' �� :ryc _ 4 ]e 7ti y, "ti ti- '`�_ .w• ` tr � t v �.�_ T r =tip - - -f- - `a• _ 4c: , � y �. s►v�[ t. -t�T ;+r '� r iTr - - + ` k ,^ y 'S0 -+V- t� .,ti. -�• = +�Y.1. E. i�,.�. .i!.�- ar ��_ r •.. •).'•�2a '�W- ;' A � �'`�� � ��' \ I!. -lLy �-. \ y Ea' - 11 .�-r�S y)�� ,p -; i^G .�i. •� f p... \� �, "� L .� r f�i `T �i� _• •1 - '� J _ , �r, - _.V .•' .1 WT • •4... -ti �tiY,y. - ..; �^,`S -. i' rr �� ,{��� •,a+•- - � .+r tR- � - i-�S'Q�' -t. L . , �'•4 - �e, F:l-�+ "v . ff.'s: xy, �. 1 - - STREET VIEW FROM MISSION TRAIL/ LEMON INTERSECTION- LOOKING SOUTHWEST CORYDON GATEWAY LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RED CORYDON, LL 25425 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 MURRIETA, CA 92562 951.643.4711 alb LZ7 o� I.7L157Q0m NOTE: BUILDING AREAS AND LAND COVERAGE ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT. ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT OR OTHER AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. ALL DIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. STREET VIEW CORYDON GATEWAY GKPA PROJECT #19114.01 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 7 MAY 2020 PPW PIERCE A R C H I T E C T S 3OVERTURE ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 T 949.344.2710 F 949.344.2720 ©GK PIERCE ARCHITECTS, INC. 2020