HomeMy WebLinkAbout0002_10_PA 2021-11 - Exhibit G - ISMND
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 1 of 122
LAKESIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-11
ZONE CHANGE NO. 2021-04 (PUD OVERLAY)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38116
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-02
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2021-02
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared By:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Applicant:
TRIPOINTE HOMES
1250 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 600
Corona, CA 92879
Environmental Consultant:
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1120
Irvine, CA 92614
November 2021
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 2 of 122
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the Lakeside Residential 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.
This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 3 of 122
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 will be
circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments received on the document
will be considered by the Lead Agency before it acts on the proposed project.
D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and
environmental implications of the proposed project.
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.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 4 of 122
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.
Tiering is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15385 as follows:
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 5 of 122
“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
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
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 6 of 122
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:
• 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:
(List Technical Studies used in the preparation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration.)
Appendix A: Air Quality Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2021.
Appendix B: Biological Technical Report, prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc., 2021.
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Study, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., 2021.
Appendix D: Energy Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2021.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 7 of 122
Appendix E: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, prepared by Leighton and Associates,
Inc., 2020.
Appendix F: Paleontological Assessment, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., 2021.
Appendix G: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2021.
Appendix H: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2020.
Appendix I: Preliminary Hydrology Report, prepared by MDS Consulting, 2021.
Appendix J: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by MDS Consulting, 2021.
Appendix K: Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2021.
Appendix L: Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Fehr and Peers, 2021.
Appendix M: VMT Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Fehr and Peers, 2021.
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
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 8 of 122
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
Project Location
The 34.81-acre project site is located along State Route 74 (SR-74) east of the intersection of Riverside
Drive and Grand Avenue in the southwest portion of the City of Lake Elsinore. The project site is located
to the west of Interstate 15 (I-15). Local access to the site is provided by Grand Avenue/ SR-74.
The site is bound by Grand Avenue / Riverside Drive / SR-74 to the west, a mobile home park to the north,
Lake Elsinore to the east, and Grand Avenue/ SR-74 to the south followed by single-family residences and
commercial businesses.
The project site consists of three parcels with the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 379-060-
022, 379-060-005 and 379-060-027. The Site is located in Sections 10 and 11 of Township 6 South, Range
5 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The site is located within the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Alberhill, Quadrangle (2012).
Existing Project Site
The elevation of the site is approximately 1,268 feet above mean sea level and generally flat. The project
site is currently vacant and undeveloped with the exception of remnants of a single-family residence located
near the central portion of the site and a cinderblock retaining wall that is approximately 100 feet long on
the east central portion of the site. The western portion of the site consists of non-native grasslands grasses
while the eastern portion has areas of grasslands and a large area of trees and native habitat.
Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations
The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Residential and Recreational and
a zoning designation of High Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation (R).
The General Plan Land Use Element describes that the High Density Residential land use designation
provides for single-family attached homes, multi-family residential units, group quarters, public and quasi-
public uses, and similar and compatible uses. Residential densities shall be between 19 and 24 units per net
acre. The General Plan Land Use Element describes that the Recreation land use designation provides for
public and private areas of permanent open space and allows for passive and/or active private and public
recreation.
The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 17.84 describes that the High Density Residential (R-
3) district is intended for multiple-family residential projects at densities of up to 24 dwellings to the net
acre, in compliance with the City’s General Plan designation of High Density Residential. The Municipal
Code Chapter 17.104 describes that the Recreation (R) district is for a variety of open space, active and
passive recreation uses.
Surrounding Land Uses, General Plan and Zoning Designations
The project site is located within a partially developed and urbanizing area. The project site is bound Grand
Avenue / SR-74, residential development, open space wetland areas adjacent to Lake Elsinore, and the Hill
Street Channel, which is a cement lined flood control channel:
North: Area to the north of the project site includes a residential mobile home development and open
space areas adjacent to Lake Elsinore.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 9 of 122
West: Area to the west of the project site includes Grand Avenue / SR-74 followed by residential and
commercial uses.
South: Area to the south of the project site includes the Hill Street Channel, Grand Avenue / SR-74,
residential, and commercial uses.
East: Area to the east of the project site includes the Hill Street Channel, followed by open space wetlands
and a partially developed residential area.
The land uses surrounding the project site are described in Table 1 along with the General Plan Land Use
and zoning designations.
Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation
North Mobile Home Residential
and Open Space
High Density Residential &
Recreational
(R3) High Density
Residential &
(R) Recreation
West Single-Family Residential
and Commercial Low-Medium Residential Residential
South Single-Family Residential
and Commercial
High Density Residential,
Recreational, Low-Medium
Residential
(R3) High Density
Residential and
(R) Recreation
East Undeveloped Open Space Recreational (R) Recreation
Figure 1
Regional Location
Lakeside Residential Project
Figure 2
Aerial of the Project Site and Vicinity
Lakeside Residential Project
74
74
Figure 3
Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations
Lakeside Residential Project
Existing General Plan
Existing Zoning
General Plan Designations Zoning Designations
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 13 of 122
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development Summary
The project includes a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to divide the project site into 9 lots. One lot for detached
condominium residences, one reserved open space lot, one water quality basin, two recreation lots, and four
open space landscaping lots. The proposed project would develop the project site with 140 two-story
condominium residences, recreation areas, and the associated amenities and infrastructure on the western
portion of the site, and the eastern 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as
natural open space. The project also includes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay to provide
modified development regulations and design standards for the underlying R-3 zoning district. The
proposed site plan provided as Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan.
The residences would range in size from approximately 1,793 square feet (SF) to approximately 2,288 SF
and include three different two-story floor plan options. The project would develop 47 Plan 1 and Plan 2
units and 46 Plan 3 units as detailed below in Table 2. Minor adjustments may occur as the project is
processed through the City.
Table 2: Proposed Residence Plan Options
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3
1,793 SF
3 Bedrooms
2.5 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage
2,021 SF
3-4 Bedrooms
2.5-3 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage
2,288 SF
4-5 Bedrooms
2.5-3 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage
47 Plan 1 Units 47 Plan 2 Units 46 Plan 3 Units
Architectural Design
The proposed two-story residences would encompass 10.94-acres of the site and would be designed with
Spanish Colonial, Santa Barbara, and Craftsman architectural elements, multi-level rooflines, and an earth
tone color scheme. The residences would incorporate stucco finishes, tiled roofs, front porches, and
decorative windows and doors in the exterior design. The tallest roofline of the two-story residences would
be approximately 24-feet 3-inches in height. Figure 5, Exterior Elevations, illustrated the proposed exterior
elevations.
Ambient Noise Abatement Features
Due to the vehicular noise generated by Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74, which is adjacent to the
site, the project includes development of a 6-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the project site frontage
of Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 and the following noise abatement design features on Lots 1
through 32:
• Windows & Glass Doors: Windows and glass doors would be well-fitted, well-weather-stripped
assemblies and would have minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 27.
• Exterior Doors: All exterior doors facing Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive would be well-fitted, well-
weather stripped, and have minimum STC ratings of 27.
• Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall
and pipes, ducts, or conduits would be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. All
exterior wall assemblies facing Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 shall have a minimum STC
rating of 46.
• Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked
plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the
attic space.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 14 of 122
• Ceilings: Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or constructed of well-sealed gypsum
board of at least one-half inch thick.
• Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can
be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system
(e.g., air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g., fresh air supply) shall be provided which
satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
Solar Panels
Consistent with the CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6), the project would include
photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the rooftop of each residence to offset its energy demand.
Walls and Fences
The project proposes to 6-foot-high concrete masonry wall to be constructed along the project site boundary
with Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. Pedestrian and vehicular entry gates would be 6-foot-high
metal rolling security gates. Residences would be separated by rear and side yard 5-foot-6-inch-high vinyl
fences.
Circulation
As depicted in Figure 6, Conceptual Site Plan, the project would develop two gated driveways to the project
site from Grand Avenue/SR-74. A 78-foot-wide main driveway with a landscaped median would be located
at Jamieson Street, at the center of the site, and a secondary 26-foot-wide gated driveway would be located
at the northwestern corner of the site. The proposed onsite roadway system would include sidewalks
throughout the project site.
Parking
The proposed project would provide garage, driveway, and on-street parking. Each residence would have
a two-car garage and a minimum of two driveway parking spaces. The project would also provide 167 on-
street parking spaces for residences and visitors. Table 3 shows the parking to be provided by the project.
Table 3: Proposed Parking
Type of Parking Quantity Percentage
Garage Parking Spots 280 38.5%
Driveway 280 38.5%
On-Street 167 23%
Total Parking Spots
Provided 727 100%
Parking to Unit Ratio 5.2 / Dwelling Unit
Recreation and Open Space
The project includes development of two recreation areas in the center of the project site. Recreation Lot A
would be 0.44-acre and Recreation Lot B would be 0.33-acre. The recreation areas would include a grassy
area/playfield, a tot lot, shade structure, pool, spa, restrooms, lounge chairs, BBQs, benches and picnic
benches. Figure 6, Recreation and Landscape Plan, illustrates the recreation area landscaping and
amenities. In addition, the project includes 15.65 acres of land adjacent to the lake that would be preserved
natural open space.
Landscaping
Landscaping proposed as part of the project would consist of ornamental trees, vines, shrubs, and
groundcovers throughout the common areas of the development, such as along roadways, common walls,
water quality basin, and the recreation areas. In addition, street trees would be installed along the proposed
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 15 of 122
sidewalks throughout the project site. The roadway entrance to the project site would have a landscaped
median and decorative landscaping to enhance the entrance to the residential neighborhood. Figure 6,
Recreation and Landscape Plan, illustrates the proposed landscaping. The landscape plan would be
consistent with the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 19.08).
Lighting
Outdoor lighting included as part of future development on the project site would be typical of residential
uses and would consist of wall-mounted lighting as well as pole-mounted lights along the proposed internal
roadways. Nighttime lighting would be used as accent/security lighting in the recreation areas. All of the
project’s outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize off-site spill. The location
of all exterior lighting would comply with lighting standards established in the City’s Municipal Code.
Infrastructure Improvements
Roadway
The project includes off-site improvements to provide half-width roadway improvements to Grand
Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. The project includes widening Riverside Drive / SR-74 to two lanes along
the project frontage to meet the future roadway buildout of the Lake Elsinore General Plan and to construct
a median to prohibit left-turns onto SR-74/ Riverside Drive from the project site and Jamieson Street. Left-
turns to the project site and Jamieson Street would be provided from dedicated storage for eastbound and
westbound left-turns. Left-turns to Riverside Drive / SR-74 would make a U-turn at the intersection of
Riverside Drive / SR-74 and Grand Avenue. The project also includes addition of a striped bike lane,
streetlights, parkway landscaping, removal of the existing utility poles along Grand Avenue/Riverside
Drive/SR-74 fronting the project site and undergrounding the dry utilities.
Water and Sewer
The proposed project would install onsite 8-inch water lines that would be located within each of the
residential streets and serve each of the proposed residences. The project would also install a new 8-inch
water line within the Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 right-of-way along the project frontage and
within Grand Avenue that would connect to the existing 32-inch water line at the intersection of Riverside
Drive and Grand Avenue and to the existing 14-inch water line within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-
74, as shown in Figure 7, Utility Infrastructure.
The project would install an 8-inch sewer line that would be located within each of the residential streets
and serve each of the proposed residences. The new 8-inch sewer line would extend approximately 700 feet
offsite from the northern portion of the project site to connect with the existing offsite 10-inch sewer line
within the within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 right-of-way, as shown in Figure 7.
Drainage
The project includes development of a 1.33-acre water quality basin to be located along the northern portion
of the site, adjacent to the preserved natural open space area. The water quality basin would be vegetated,
as shown on Figure 6, Recreation and Landscape Plan. The proposed project would install an onsite
drainage system that could convey runoff to the water quality basin. From the water quality basin, runoff
would flow to the South Riverside Channel that is maintained by Riverside County Flood Control, and then
to Lake Elsinore.
CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities include demolition of the existing structures, excavation, grading, and re-
compaction of soils; utility and infrastructure installation; building construction; roadway pavement; and
architectural coatings. Excavation and grading would occur to a minimum depth of 5 feet below existing
grade or 3 feet below the base of the foundations, whichever is deeper. Also, grading is expected to require
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 16 of 122
the import of approximately 56,200 cubic yards (cy) of fill. Construction activities are anticipated to last
40 months and would occur within the hours allowable by the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section
17.176.080, which prohibits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any
time on weekends or on holidays.
Table 4: Construction Schedule
Construction Phase
Working
Days
Site Preparation 30
Grading 75
Building Construction 771
Trenching 111
Paving 346
Architectural Coating 651
DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS
The following discretionary approvals and permits are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of
the proposed project:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
• Tentative Tract Map
• Zone Change (PUD Overlay)
• Design Review Approval
• Grading Permits
• Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Storm Water Storm Water Pollutant and
Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Lakeside Residential Project Figure 4
Tentative Tract Map
Lakeside Residential Project Figure 5
Conceptual Site Plan
Lakeside Residential Project Figure 6a
Plan 1 Exterior Elevations
Lakeside Residential Project Figure 6b
Plan 2 Exterior Elevations
Lakeside Residential Project Figure 6c
Plan 3 Exterior Elevations
Lakeside Residential Project
Recreation and Landscape Plan
Figur e 7
Lakeside Residential Project
Wall and Fence Plan
Figure 8
Off Site Water and Sewer Line Improvements
Figur e 9Lakeside Residential Project
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 25 of 122
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Lakeside Residential Project 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: See project location and setting in Section II.A, Project Location and Setting,
above. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Chris Willis, TriPointe Homes, 1250 Corona Pointe Court,
Suite 600, Corona, CA 92879 6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential and Recreational 7. Zoning: (R-3) High Density Residential and Recreation 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. 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 6 Native
American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area on June 30, 2021, 2021. Of
the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and the
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested formal government-to-government consultation under AB 52.
Consultation meetings were held on September 1, 2021 with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, on
September 16, 2021 with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and on August 16, 2021 with the Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians. The City concluded consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on
September 9, 2021. The City has not yet concluded consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño
Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. It is anticipated that consultation will conclude upon
review of this Initial Study and preparation of a Final Initial Study. 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.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 26 of 122
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
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
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.
(Damaris Abraham, City of Lake Elsinore, Senior Planner)
Date
November 15, 2021
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 27 of 122
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
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?
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
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest uses?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural
use?
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
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 28 of 122
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
applicable air quality plan?
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?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
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 species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
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
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 29 of 122
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
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?
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 30 of 122
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
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?
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?
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?
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,
such 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
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 31 of 122
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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?
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
groundborne 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 public 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?
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 32 of 122
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public services/facilities?
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 accelerated?
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?
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
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
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.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 33 of 122
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
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
provider’s existing commitments?
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?
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
response plan or emergency evacuation 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?
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?
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?
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 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?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 34 of 122
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 35 of 122
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.)
Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features
that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about
view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a
particular view or visual setting. A scenic vista can be impacted in 2 ways: a development project can have
visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors
or “vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether the proposed project would
block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land
uses and travel corridors.
The most notable aesthetic resource in the City of Lake Elsinore is Lake Elsinore itself, a 3,000-acre natural
lake. The City’s aesthetic setting is characterized by urbanized development of various densities occurring
within varied topographical features and interspersed with undeveloped natural areas around the lake.
Scenic vistas within and surrounding the City include the lake and Cleveland National Forest mountains
and ridgelines.
The project includes development of the site with residences that would be two-stories (a maximum of 24-
feet 3-inches) in height and is consistent with zoning and other regulations related to size and location of
structures (as detailed in response I.c, below). Development of vacant land around the lake was evaluated
in the City’s General Plan EIR (page 3.3-27), where it is described that “the addition of the residential
development surrounding the lake would significantly alter visual character as the viewer looks toward the
lake and sees residential development where undeveloped land once existed”. In addition, the City’s
General Plan EIR (page 3.3-34), describes that with buildout of the City’s General Plan (which includes the
project site) views of the lake would not be obstructed but would include an increased amount of
development surrounding the lake on all sides; and that development would be an extension of existing land
uses.
Consistent with the General Plan EIR discussion, the proposed project is on a site that is planned for
residential land uses and is adjacent to existing residences. The project would provide for an extension of
the existing residential land uses, which would change scenic views of the lake that include the site.
However, the proposed residences would be located on the western portion of the site, adjacent to Grand
Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 and the existing development. The eastern 15.65 acres of the site would
remain in the existing natural open space condition. Thus, views of the site adjacent to the lake would be
preserved, and impacts related to a scenic vista would be less than significant.
The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan Resource Protection and Preservation Chapter,
Aesthetics Section, policies protect views and specify design requirements for new development (such as
incorporation of views of the lake into new development) to that reduce impacts to scenic vistas to a less
than significant level. The project’s consistency with the project related policies is detailed in Table AES-
1. As shown, the project would be consistent with these, and therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 36 of 122
Table AES-1: Project Consistency with General Plan Scenic Policies
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 11.1 For new developments and
redevelopment, encourage the maintenance and
incorporation of existing mature trees and other
substantial vegetation on the site, whether
naturally-occurring or planted, into the landscape
design.
Consistent. The proposed project includes
preservation of over 15 acres of land that includes
mature trees. In addition, the project includes
installation of new ornamental trees and other
landscaping throughout the project site, as shown
in Figure 6, Landscape and Recreation Plan.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with
Policy 11.1.
Policy 11.2 Maintain and improve the quality of
existing landscaping in parkways, parks, civic
facilities, rights-of-ways, and other public open
areas.
Consistent. The proposed project includes
installation of new landscaping throughout the
project site and along Grand Avenue/Riverside
Drive/SR-74 as shown in Figures 6, Recreation and
Landscape Plan and Figure 8, Proposed Walls and
Fencing. Therefore, the project would be consistent
with Policy 11.2.
Policy 11.3 Where appropriate, encourage new
planting of native and/or non-invasive ornamental
plants to enhance the scenic setting of public and
private lands.
Consistent. The proposed project includes
installation of non-invasive ornamental plants to
enhance the scenic setting of public and private
lands as shown in Figures 6, Recreation and
Landscape Plan and Figure 8, Proposed Walls and
Fencing. In addition, the project preserves 15.65
acres of open space area that contains mature native
vegetation. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with Policy 11.3.
Policy 12.1 Encourage development designs and
concepts that provide public views of Lake
Elsinore and local ridgelines through proper siting,
building design, and landscape design.
Consistent. The proposed project preserves 15.65
acres of open space area adjacent to the lake, which
would preserve existing views of Lake Elsinore. In
addition, development of two-story residences on
the project site would not hinder existing public
background views of local ridgelines. Therefore,
the project would be consistent with Policy 12.1.
Policy 12.3 Encourage new development and
redevelopment to incorporate views of Lake
Elsinore
from roadways and other public spaces that
provide residents and tourists with scenic vistas to
the water, marinas, and lakeshore activities.
Consistent. As detailed previously, the proposed
project preserves 15.65 acres of open space area
adjacent to the lake, which would preserve existing
views of Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the project
would be consistent with Policy 12.3.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and General Plan EIR, Section 3.3, Aesthetics, 2011)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less than Significant Impact.)
The 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) identifies SR-
74 as eligible for listing as state scenic highways, but it is not officially designated. The project site is
located adjacent to SR-74. The development portion of the project site includes grasslands and remnants of
previous development on the site and does not include any scenic resources. The project includes
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 37 of 122
landscaping and decorative wall treatments along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 to improve views
of the site from SR-74 and includes preservation of 15.65 acres of scenic open space land that is adjacent
to the lake to preserve scenic views of the lake. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant
impact related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and General Plan EIR, Section 3.3, Aesthetics, 2011;
California State Scenic Highway System Map, Accessed:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aaca
a)
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.)
The project site is located within an urbanized area that is adjacent to roadways, residential, and recreational
uses. The development area of the project site is generally undeveloped, except for remnants of a previous
residence and related infrastructure, such as a retaining wall. The existing character of the development
portion of the site is neither unique nor of special aesthetic value or quality.
The project would develop this area to provide 140 new residences with recreation areas and open space
areas, which would be consistent with the residential uses that are adjacent to the site, and across Grand
Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 from the site.
The 15.65 acre-open space preservation portion of the site that is located toward and along Lake Elsinore
includes trees and vegetation that is part of the lakeside natural environment and would be preserved as part
of the project. Preservation of the western portion of the project site would preserve the existing visual
character and quality of public views of the site from the lake and across the lake.
General Plan. As shown on Figure 3, Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations, the
western portion of the project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential that
provides for residential uses at a density of between 19 and 24 dwelling units per acre and the eastern
portion is designated Recreation. The proposed project includes residential units in the High Density
Residential designated that would not exceed the allowable density. The area that is designated Recreation
would be preserved as open space. In addition, the project would be consistent with the General Plan
policies related to scenic quality, as shown in Table AES-1. Therefore, conflicts with General Plan
regulations governing scenic quality would not occur.
Zoning. The project site is zoned as High Density Residential (R-3), which provides for residential
dwellings at densities of up to 24 dwellings to the net acre. Specifically, Municipal Code Section 17.84.020,
Permitted Uses, includes condominiums (such as the project) subject to compliance with all provisions of
Chapter 17.108, Planned Unit Development Overlay District, which states that the PUD overlay district is
intended to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in the development regulations and design
standards of the underlying base district. In addition, Municipal Code Section 17.080.050(B)(2) states that
the development standards for PUDs are generally the same as for the underlying base zoning district.
However, modifications to those standards may be approved as part of the PUD plan in order to allow for
greater flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan, such as providing an increase in housing
opportunities for the community.
As shown Table AES-2, the proposed project meets the zoning development standards of the R-3 zone,
except for the front setback, which provides a minimum setback of 10 feet, which is 5 feet less than the 15-
foot front setback requirement. However, implementation of the PUD Overlay allows for this slight
modification. Therefore, a conflict with the zoning development standards would not occur. Overall, the
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 38 of 122
project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore,
the proposed project would not degrade the visual character of the project site and surrounding area; and
impacts would be less than significant.
Table AES-2: Consistency with Zoning Development Standards
Development Feature R-3 Zoning Requirement Proposed Project
Minimum lot area for lots over
8,400 square feet
1,815 square feet per unit 2,600 minimum
Front setback 15 feet minimum 10 feet minimum
Rear setbacks 10 feet 10 feet minimum
Lot coverage 60% 60%
Building height 30 feet 28-feet
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and Municipal Code)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Less than Significant Impact.)
The project site is vacant and generally undeveloped, and light is not generated on the site. However, the
project site is located along Grand Avenue, Riverside Drive/SR-74, adjacent to residential uses, and located
across the street from, residential and commercial uses. Existing sources of light in the vicinity of the project
site includes: security lighting, landscape lighting, and roadway lighting, and lighting from building
interiors that pass-through windows.
The proposed project would include the provision of nighttime lighting for security purposes around all of
the residences and at the project driveway entrance at Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74, which would
contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. However, all outdoor
lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses. The lighting increase in light
that would be generated by the project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Overall, lighting impacts would be less than significant.
Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as
window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have a higher visible
light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun
reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. The proposed project would not use highly reflective
surfaces, or glass sided buildings. Although the residences would contain windows, the windows would be
separated by stucco and architectural elements, which would limit the potential of glare. In addition, as
described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the potential
on onsite lighting to generate glare. Therefore, the project would not generate substantial sources of glare,
and impacts would be less than significant.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code)
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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.)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 39 of 122
The California Department of Conservation Important Farmland mapping identifies the project site and
surrounding areas as Other land. No areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance is located on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, impacts related to Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would not occur.
(Sources: California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Mapping, Accessed:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact.)
The project site is zoned High Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation and surrounded by areas zoned for
residential and recreation uses. No agricultural zoning is located in the vicinity of the project site and no
parcels in the project vicinity have Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, implementation of the project
would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Thus, no impact
would occur.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603; California Department of Conservation Important Farmland
Mapping, Accessed: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/)
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.)
The project site is developed and located in an area that is void of forest land or timberland. In addition, the
project site is zoned High Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation and surrounded by areas zoned for
residential and recreational uses. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing forest land,
timberland, or zoning for forest or timberland uses. Thus, no impact would occur.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? (No Impact.)
As described in the previous response, the project area is void of any forest land and is not zoned for forest
uses. Thus, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
uses. No impact would occur
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603)
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.)
As described in the previous responses, the project area does not include and is not near any land zoned for
farmland or forest land. The project would redevelop the vacant site for residential uses. As the project site
is not used for agriculture and is within an area developed with and planned for urban uses, the development
of the site with residences would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Thus, no
impacts would occur.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 40 of 122
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603; California Department of Conservation Important Farmland
Mapping, Accessed: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/)
III. AIR QUALITY
This section is based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Urban
Crossroads (Appendix A). The project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0. 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 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? (Less than
Significant 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 (SCAG) 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) for certain pollutants. 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.
The project site has General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential that provides for
residential densities up to 24 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project includes 140 residences within
a 10.94 gross acre portion of the site. According to the General Plan, standards of building intensity for
residential uses are stated as the allowable range of dwelling units per net acre. On a net acre basis, the 140
residences would be developed on 6.00 net acres, which would result in 23.33 units per net acre. Thus, the
project would not exceed the allowable density of the land use. As a result, the development density of the
proposed project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and would not conflict with SCAQMD’s
attainment plans.
Also, as further described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the 140 new residences would result
in a 0.7 percent increase in residential units within the City. This limited level of growth would not exceed
growth projections and would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP. In addition, emissions
generated by construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed thresholds. As described
in the analysis below, the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air
quality violations or cause a new violation. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with the AQMP from the
proposed project would be less than significant.
(Sources: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 41 of 122
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 SCAB has a non-attainment status for not meeting federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide
standards, and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the
proposed project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. The methodologies from the
SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts. SCAQMD has established
daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are listed in Table AQ-1. The SCAQMD’s
CEQA Air Quality Handbook methodology describes that any project that results in daily emissions that
exceed any of these thresholds would have both an individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant
air quality impact. If estimated emissions are less than the thresholds or reduced to below the thresholds
with implementation of mitigation, impacts would be considered less than significant.
Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds0F1
Pollutant Construction
(lbs/day)
Operations
(lbs/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate pollutant emissions from the
following: (1) grading and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3)
delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel combustion by
onsite construction equipment; (5) building construction and application of architectural coatings; and
paving. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and
types of construction activities occurring.
It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403
for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements
include, but are not limited to: applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible
dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible,
utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before
vehicles exit the site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height
of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted
for in the construction emissions modeling for the project.
As shown in Table AQ-2, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed
project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, emissions from construction activities
would be less than significant.
1 Regional thresholds are from the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 42 of 122
Table AQ-2: Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Summary (lbs/day)
Year Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2022 4.44 53.75 41.14 0.12 24.27 12.49
2023 7.35 33.31 52.68 0.14 9.12 3.33
2024 7.39 34.71 58.71 0.15 9.29 3.40
2025 7.07 32.36 57.23 0.15 9.13 3.24
Maximum Daily Summer Emissions 7.39 53.75 58.71 0.15 24.27 12.49
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Winter
2022 4.44 54.27 39.45 0.12 24.27 12.49
2023 7.44 33.76 50.78 0.14 9.12 3.33
2024 7.49 35.16 56.92 0.15 9.29 3.40
2025 7.17 32.79 55.57 0.14 9.13 3.24
Maximum Daily Winter Emissions 7.49 54.27 56.92 0.15 24.27 12.49
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A
Operation
Operation of the 140 residences would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and
ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications
of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, vehicular emissions would generate a majority
of the operational emissions from the project. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project
were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, the proposed project would
result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s
applicable thresholds. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and operational impacts would be less than significant.
Table AQ-3: Maximum Daily Operational Emissions(lbs/day)
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Area Source 6.14 2.22 12.44 0.01 0.23 0.23
Energy Source 0.12 1.00 0.43 0.01 0.08 0.08
Mobile Source Passenger Cars 4.08 4.46 41.99 0.09 9.68 2.62
Maximum Daily Summer Emissions 10.34 7.68 54.86 0.11 10.00 2.94
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Winter
Area Source 6.14 2.22 12.44 0.01 0.23 0.23
Energy Source 0.12 1.00 0.43 0.01 0.08 0.08
Mobile Source Passenger Cars 4.08 4.46 41.99 0.09 9.68 2.62
Maximum Daily Winter Emissions 10.34 7.68 54.86 0.11 10.00 2.94
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A
(Sources: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 43 of 122
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated.)
The SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008) recommends the
evaluation of localized NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold
(LST) analysis. According to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, “off-
site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs”
(SCAQMD 2008). SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project
that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts.
LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each
of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The project site is located in SRA 25, Lake Elsinore.
Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities. The
nearest sensitive receptors are existing residences located adjacent to the project site. The distance between
the project site boundary and the closest existing residential structure is approximately 36-feet (10.97
meters). As such, the Air Quality Analysis utilizes a sensitive receptor distance of 25 meters, which is the
closest distance provided by SCAQMD LST guidance.
Construction
The localized thresholds from the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final LST methodology
document, were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to 5-acres in size or have a
disturbance of less than or equal to 5 acres daily. The site preparation and grading area is 10.94 acres and
would occur over a 105-day period, and the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix A) determined that the
proposed project could conservatively disturb a maximum of 3.5 acres per day.
The two closest receptors to the project site include the residences approximately 36-feet to the north of the
site and the retail business across Grand Avenue/SR-74 approximately 75-feet to the south of the site. Table
AQ-4 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest air quality sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of
the project site. Without mitigation, localized maximum day construction emissions could exceed the
SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5.
Table AQ-4: Localized Significance Summary of Construction Without Mitigation
On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 42.0 36.3 24.1 12.4
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 303 1,533 10 6
Threshold Exceeded? No No Yes Yes
Source: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A
As a result, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 has been included to require that the construction contractor ensure
that off-road diesel construction equipment used during site preparation or grading complies with
EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. As shown on Table AQ-5, impacts related to LSTs
would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 44 of 122
Table AQ-5: Localized Significance Summary of Construction With Mitigation
On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 34.1 36.3 9.4 5.0
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 303 1,533 10 6
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A
Toxic Air Pollutants. The construction equipment would emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is a
carcinogen, However, the DPM emissions would be short-term in nature and occur intermittently
throughout the 40-month construction process. Determination of risk from DPM is considered over a 70-
year exposure time. As such, considering the short 40-month time frame for construction, exposure to DPM
during construction would be less than significant.
CO Hotspots. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These
pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9
ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse
into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an
analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic
congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.
With the turnover of older vehicles and introduction of cleaner fuels, electric vehicles, and vehicles with
stop-start systems (where the engine shuts down when the vehicle is stopped and restarts when the break
petal is released), as well as implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO
concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin and the state have steadily declined.
The analysis of CO hotspots compares the volume of traffic that has the potential to generate a CO hotspot
(exceedance the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm) and the volume of
traffic with implementation of the proposed project. In 2003, the SCAQMD estimated that a project would
have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to exceed state standards and
generate a CO hot spot.
As detailed in Section XVII, Transportation, shown on Table T-2, the proposed project would generate 104
new vehicle trips (26 inbound trips and 78 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak
hour, the project would generate 139 vehicle trips (88 inbound trips and 51 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour
period, the project is forecast to generate approximately 1,322 daily trips. Thus, the proposed project would
not result in an increase in traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—
or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix and would not generate a CO
hotspot. Therefore, impacts related to CO hotspots from operation of the proposed project would be less
than significant.
(Sources: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A)
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people? (No Impact.)
No Impact. The proposed project would not emit other emissions, such as those generating objectionable
odors, that would affect a substantial number of people. The threshold for odor is identified by SCAQMD
Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 45 of 122
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance
to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort,
repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a
natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of
this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for
the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
The type of facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, include
wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass
manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries,
asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities.
The proposed project would implement residential development that does not involve the types of uses that
would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, odors generated by
non-residential land uses are required to be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, which would prevent
nuisance odors.
During construction, emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving activities
may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and would not affect
a substantial number of people. The noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the
construction equipment. Also, the short-term construction-related odors would cease upon the drying or
hardening of the odor-producing materials. Therefore, impacts associated with other emissions, such as
odors, would not adversely affect a substantial number of people.
(Sources: Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A)
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce pollutant air quality emissions from the proposed
project:
PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply
with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The project
shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or
which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or
have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply
with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes
the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph
per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project
are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather;
preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced
to 15 miles per hour or less.
PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply
with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 46 of 122
“Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure
Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Tier 3. The project applicant, construction contractor, or their representative,
shall verify, to the satisfaction of the City, that all off-road diesel construction equipment utilized during
the site preparation and grading phases complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and that all
construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section is based on the Biological Technical Report prepared for the proposed project by Glenn Lukos
Associates, Inc. (Appendix B).
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.)
Special-Status Plants. As detailed in the Biological Technical Report and shown in Figure B-1, Vegetation
Impacts, the project site consists of disturbed areas, non-native grassland areas, and Southern Willow
Cottonwood Riparian Forest areas associated with Lake Elsinore. The Southern Willow Cottonwood
Riparian Forest is a special-status vegetation type and is located within the area to be preserved as natural
open space. In addition, smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens subsp. laevis) was identified in the open
space preserve area in the northeastern portion of the site. The smooth tarplant is designated as a CNPS List
1B.1 species and is covered under the MSHCP, with surveys being required within criteria areas. Because
these plants are located in the open space preserve area, no impacts to these species would occur. In
addition, the following additional special status plant species were not detected, but have a low potential to
occur within the southern willow cottonwood riparian forest / open space preserve area:
• California satintail (Imperata brevifolia)
• Campbell’s liverwort (Geothallus tuberosus)
• Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata subsp. coulteri)
• Lemon Lily (Lilium parryi)
• Mud nama (Nama stenocarpa)
• Parish’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes alba subsp. parishii)
• Prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata)
• San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum)
• San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
• San Diego button celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii)
• San Miguel savory (Clinopodium chandleri)
• Santa Lucia dwarf rush (Juncus luciensis)
• Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. australis)
• White rabbit tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum)
Because these plants only have the potential to be located in the open space preserve area, no impacts to
these plant species would occur. The Biological Technical Report details that no special-status plants were
detected within the project disturbance area. Therefore, impacts related to special status plants would not
occur from implementation of the project.
Vegetation Impacts
Figure B-1Lakeside Residential Project
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 48 of 122
Special-Status Animals. One special status animal species, the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus),
was detected on the project site. The least Bell’s vireo is designated as a federally and state endangered
species. Least Bell's vireo primarily occupies riparian habitats that typically feature dense cover within 1-
2 meters of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy. It inhabits low, dense riparian growth along water or
along dry parts of intermittent streams. At the project site, this species is associated with the Southern
Willow Cottonwood Riparian Forest areas that would not be disturbed by the project. However, least Bell’s
vireo can be indirectly impacted by nearby activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been
included to ensure the nesting/breeding activities of this species are not disrupted and no impact to the least
Bell’s vireo habitat to be preserved by the project would occur. The following additional special status
animal species were not detected, but have the potential to occur within the southern willow cottonwood
riparian forest / open space preserve area:
Amphibians/Reptiles
• Coast Range Newt (Taricha torosa torosa) – low potential to occur
• Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) – low potential to occur
Birds
• Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) – low to moderate potential to occur
• Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) – low potential to occur
• Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) - moderate potential to occur
• Long-Eared Owl (Asio otus) - moderate potential to occur
• Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) - moderate potential to occur
• Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) – moderate potential to occur
• Yellow-Breasted Chat (Icteria virens) - moderate to high potential to occur
Mammals
• American Badger (Taxidea taxus) – low potential to occur
• Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) – low potential to occur
• Western Red Bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) - moderate potential to occur
• Western Yellow Bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) - moderate potential to occur
Burrowing owl is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. Its habitat includes coastal prairie, coastal scrub,
Great Basin grassland, Great Basin scrub, Mojavean desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub, and valley and
foothill grassland. Although surveys completed for the Biological Technical Report did not identify
burrowing owl, the species has a low to moderate potential to occur. Therefore, a preconstruction burrowing
owl survey is required by Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP and is included as Mitigation Measure BIO-2. The
Biological Technical Report determined that the project would not result in potentially significant impacts
to any of the other special status species that have the potential to occur on the project site due to the low
potential to occur or type of species that would avoid potential impact. Thus, impacts related to a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
(Sources: Biological Technical Report, 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 Impact.)
The Biological Technical Report (Appendix B) describes that implementation of the project would impact
0.72-acre of disturbed Southern Willow Cottonwood Riparian Forest and 14.67 acres of non-native
grassland on the site and would impact 0.48-acre of off-site non-native grassland, which is shown on Figure
B-1, Vegetation Impacts. The Biological Technical Report determined that these impacts would be less than
significant due to the limited size and disturbed nature of the habitat. The Biological Technical Report
describes that the disturbed southern willow cottonwood riparian forest area that would be impacted by the
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 49 of 122
project consists of individual, maintained willow and/or cottonwood trees, and giant wild rye individuals
totaling 0.72-acre, which, in the context of the project site do not constitute riparian resources as they are
consistently and historically maintained. The area does not have the density or a stratified canopy needed
to support riparian associated species such as least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or western
yellow-billed cuckoo. The disturbed and maintained areas are isolated, and individually are a component
of the assemblage of the surrounding non-riparian vegetation communities, including non-native grasslands
and disturbed areas. Therefore, the Biological Technical Report determined that the impacts to the 0.72-
acre area of disturbed Southern Willow Cottonwood Riparian Forest would be less than significant.
(Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B)
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? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.)
The Biological Technical Report (Appendix B) describes that implementation of the project would result
in a permanent impact to 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of Corps and Regional Board Waters
of the United States and 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of CDFW non-riparian streambed along
a concrete portion of the Hill Street Channel from construction of two outlet structures into the cement lined
channel. As a result, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to require purchase of 0.01 acre of re-
establishment mitigation credits at an accredited mitigation bank located within the Santa Ana River
watershed. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, impacts would be less than significant.
(Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B)
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.)
Habitat linkages are areas which provide a communication between two or more other habitat areas which
are often larger or superior in quality to the linkage. Corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific
opportunities for individual animals to disperse or migrate between areas, generally extensive but otherwise
partially or wholly separated regions. Adequate cover and tolerably low levels of disturbance are common
requirements for corridors. The site is surrounded by roadways, residential development, the lake, and a
cement lined drainage. The Biological Technical Report determined that no wildlife corridors exist within
the project site. Thus, impacts related to wildlife corridors would not occur from implementation of the
project.
Wildlife nurseries are sites where wildlife concentrate for hatching and/or raising young, such as rookeries,
spawning areas, and bat colonies. No wildlife nurseries or maternity roosts for colonial bat species exist
within the project site. However, the Project site contains trees, shrubs, and ground cover that provide
suitable habitat for nesting native birds. The riparian/wetland habitat on the site provides a dense canopy of
riparian vegetation and trees that can be utilized by the LBV as well as larger raptors such as Cooper’s
hawk or red-tailed hawk. These areas may also provide nesting habitat for additional raptor and songbird
species. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 is included to require nesting bird surveys and
implementation of measures to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds from implementation of the project.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 impacts would be less than significant
(Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 50 of 122
preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact.)
The Biological Technical Report (Appendix B) determined that the project site does not contain any trees
or other biological resources protected by City of Lake Elsinore policies or ordinances. Public trees in Lake
Elsinore are protected under Chapter 15.120, Tree Preservation, of the Municipal Code (PPP BIO-1),
which regulates street trees or trees located in other public locations in the City; including the location and
species of any trees to be installed along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. The proposed project
would be required to comply with the Municipal Code requirements as part of the City permitting process
would ensure that the project does not conflict with local policies or ordinances related to public trees. As
a result, no impact would occur.
(Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Less
Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.)
The Project site is located within the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP and is not located within MSHCP
criteria cells, cell groups, or public/quasi-public (PQP) lands [Exhibit 5 – MSHCP Map]. The Project site
is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA), the Narrow Endemic
Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA), Mammal Survey Areas, Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Survey Area, Amphibian Survey Area, or Core and Linkage areas.
The Biological Technical Report (Appendix B) describes that implementation of the project would result
in a permanent impact to 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of MSHCP riverine streambed along
a concrete portion of the Hill Street Channel from construction of two outlet structures into the cement lined
drainage channel. As described previously, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to require
purchase of 0.01 acre of re-establishment mitigation credits at an accredited mitigation bank located within
the Santa Ana River watershed. As the project is avoiding all but 0.01 acre of MSHCP riverine resources
(greater than 99 percent avoidance) and all riparian resources, with implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-3, the project would be consistent with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2 regarding riparian/riverine
areas, and impacts would be less than significant.
The Biological Technical Report details that the project would not impact habitat with the potential to
support riparian birds or other species requiring additional surveys and procedures under MSHCP Volume
I, Section 6.1.2; however, due to the proximity of the project footprint to riparian habitat associated with
Lake Elsinore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to provide protection for least Bell’s vireo.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed project would be consistent with
MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2 for riparian/riverine-associated species.
The project site does not contain, and therefore will not impact, any MSHCP vernal pools. As such, the
project is consistent with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2 as it pertains to vernal pools. Additionally,
Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey
Areas (NEPSSA), site-specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plants Species are required. The
project site is not located within this designated survey areas and does not require these surveys. As such,
the project would be consistent with Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.
Overall, the proposed project is consistent with the biological requirements of the MSHCP, which will be
implemented through Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4. Further, because the site is within
the MSHCP, the project applicant/proponent is required to pay MSHCP Mitigation Fees as outlined in PPP-
BIO-2.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 51 of 122
(Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B)
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce potential biology related impacts from the proposed
project:
PPP BIO-1: Tree Regulations. The trees shrubs and plants installed on public property shall conform to
the regulations within Municipal Code Chapter 15.120.
PPP BIO-2: MSHCP Fees. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall pay the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) development mitigation
fee in effect at the time the permits are issued.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Least Bell’s Vireo. Construction specifications and permits shall include the
following requirements to ensure that impacts to least Bell’s vireo and the associated habitat do not occur:
• The project impact footprint, including any construction buffer, shall be staked and fenced (e.g., with
orange snow fencing, silt fencing or a material that is clearly visible) and the boundary shall be
confirmed by a qualified biological monitor prior to ground disturbance. The construction site
manager shall ensure that the fencing is maintained for the duration of construction and that any
required repairs are completed in a timely manner.
• Equipment operators and construction crews shall be informed of the importance of the construction
limits by the biological monitor prior to any ground disturbance.
• Construction activities within 200-300 feet of the nearest extent of adjacent riparian habitat associated
with Lake Elsinore shall be avoided from April 1st through August 31st.
• For any vegetation clearing or work within 100 feet of riparian habitat associated with Lake Elsinore,
a biologist shall monitor to ensure encroachment into the riparian habitat area does not occur.
• Active construction areas shall be watered regularly (at least once every two hours) to control dust
and thus minimize impacts on vegetation within and adjacent to Lake Elsinore.
• Construction personnel shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction
materials to the limits of disturbance and designated staging areas and routes of travel approved by
the biological monitor.
• Vegetation shall be covered while being transported, and vegetation materials removed from the site
shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
• All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other toxic substances
shall occur only in designated areas within the limits of disturbance and at least 200 feet from
jurisdictional aquatic features. These designated areas shall be clearly marked and located in such a
manner as to contain runoff and will be approved by the biological monitor.
• To avoid attracting predators, the project site shall be kept clear of trash and debris. All food related
trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Burrowing Owl. A pre-construction survey for burrowing owls shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the start of construction/ground-breaking
activities, as ensured through grading permit approval. If no active burrows are detected, then no further
action would be required. If an occupied burrow is detected during the burrowing owl breeding season
(March 1 to August 31), a protective buffer of 500 feet shall be designated around the active burrow by a
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 52 of 122
qualified biologist to avoid impacting a breeding owl. No work shall occur within 500 feet of the burrow
unless a reduced buffer area is determined to be acceptable by the City of Lake Elsinore. If an occupied
burrow is detected during the non-breeding season (September 1 to February 28), the burrowing owl may
be passively excluded based on California Department of Fish and Wildlife-approved methods and the
burrow can be excavated prior to construction. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left
undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey will again be necessary to ensure that
burrowing owls have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Jurisdictional Area. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for areas
identified with jurisdictional features, the project applicant shall obtain regulatory permits from the Corps,
RWQCB, and CDFW. Through the permitting and subject to approval by the regulatory agencies, the
applicant shall compensate for Project-specific impacts at a minimum 1:1 ratio subject to approval of the
resource agencies, by purchase of 0.01 acre of re-establishment mitigation credits at an accredited
mitigation bank located within the Santa Ana River watershed, such as the Riverpark Mitigation Bank.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Prior to issuance of grading or demolition
permits that include vegetation and/or tree removal activities that will occur within the active breeding
season for birds (March 1–September 15), the project applicant (or their Construction Contractor) shall
retain a qualified biologist (meaning a professional biologist that is familiar with local birds and their
nesting behaviors) to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of
construction activities.
The nesting survey shall include the project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could
potentially be affected by project-related construction activities, such as noise, human activity, and dust,
etc. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet (ft) of the designated construction area prior to
construction, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer around the active nests (e.g., as
much as 500 ft for raptors and 300 ft for non-raptors [subject to the recommendations of the qualified
biologist]), and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile
birds can survive independently from the nests.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section is based on the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project by Brian F. Smith
and Associates, Inc. (Appendix C). The Cultural Resources Study includes a records search, Sacred Land
File search, historic archival research, and a field survey.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is defined as something that meets one or
more of the following criteria:
1) Listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources;
2) Listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
5020.1(k);
3) Identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section
5024.1(g); or
4) Determined to be a historical resource by the project’s Lead Agency.
PRC Section 5024.1 directs evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing on the
CRHR. The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 53 of 122
previously established criteria developed for listing on the NRHP, enumerated above, and require similar
protection to what NHPA Section 106 mandates for historic properties. According to PRC Section
5024.1(c)(1-4), a resource is considered historically significant if it meets at least one of the following
criteria:
1) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;
3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or
represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the
local area, California or the nation.
At the time the Cultural Resources Study was prepared for the proposed project, the project site included
the ruins of the circa 1858 Machado Adobe (Site P-33-007230) that has since been removed through a City
approved demolition permit. No other historic or cultural resources were identified within the property
boundaries. The Machado Adobe building and project site are known for their association with the Machado
family (1858 to 1884). Portions of the Machado Adobe building were previously incorporated into an
expansive residence which burned in a fire on September 2, 2017. At the time the Cultural Resources Study
prepared for the proposed project, only damaged remnants of the original adobe building remained, which
consisted of two rooms comprised of structurally unsound adobe brick and mud mortar walls, which were
vandalized, crumbling and collapsing. Due to the past changes to the structure, including additions,
modifications, modernization, fire, vandalism, and neglect, the building retained a very low level of
integrity.
Prior to the fire that destroyed most of the structure, the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) had listed the structure as a “Community-Recognized Significant
Historical Resource” (City of Lake Elsinore 2011) because is significant for its association with historic
individuals and events. However, it no longer retained the level of integrity needed to convey this
significance. The Machado Adobe qualified for the CRHR under Criteria 1 and 2 for its association with
events and persons important to the history of Lake Elsinore. However, the existing structure ruins had no
integrity or research value, and, as such, the site is not a significant historical resource. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to a historic resource.
(Sources: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C)
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.)
An archaeological records search for the project identified archaeological resources within 0.25-mile of the
project site that include prehistoric habitation sites. In addition, the site’s location next to the lake provides
potential for the site to contain archaeologic resources. Although, historic aerial photographs show that the
development portion of the site has been modified and cleared multiple times from past construction and
agricultural production, the Cultural Resources Study for the project recommends archaeological
monitoring during grading/excavation/trenching activities to ensure that impacts related to archaeological
resources would be less than significant. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 are
included to ensure that any potential disturbance to buried archaeological resources during the grading
and/or construction phases of the project is reduced to a less than significant level.
(Sources: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 54 of 122
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.)
The Cultural Resources Study describes that the project site has been previously used for one residence and
for agricultural activities. The project site has not been previously used as a cemetery. Thus, human remains
are not anticipated to be uncovered during project construction. However, due to the prehistoric occupation
of the region Mitigation Measures CUL-6 and CUL-7 have been included to ensure that should human
remains be uncovered during implementation of the project, measures are implemented to reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5,
CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate a process to be followed in
the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall remain halted
until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of death, and
made recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person
responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section
5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or
her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American,
he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.
Mitigation Measures CUL-6 and CUL-7 and compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to
human remains would be less than significant.
(Sources: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 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.
Mitigation Measure 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 provided to the
Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading
permit. The CRMP provides procedures to be followed and are to ensure that impacts on cultural resources
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 55 of 122
will not occur without procedures that would reduce the 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.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural
resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent 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:
1. 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 are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally
appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 56 of 122
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 at 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.
Mitigation Measure 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 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.
Mitigation Measure 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 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.
Mitigation Measure 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
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 57 of 122
human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American
cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).
Mitigation Measure 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).
VI. ENERGY
This section is based on the Energy Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Urban Crossroads
(Appendix D). The project’s construction and operational energy usage was calculated using CalEEMod,
Version 2020.4.0. The energy calculations are summarized herein.
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.)
The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to the project vicinity and gas lines are currently
located within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74, adjacent to the site. Southern California Edison
currently provides electricity services to the project area. The proposed project would install onsite
electrical and natural gas infrastructure that would connect to the existing offsite lines. In addition, the
project would remove the existing utility poles and underground the existing dry utilities (including electric
lines) on Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 along the project frontage.
Construction
During construction of the proposed project, energy would be consumed in three general forms:
1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project
site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, as well as delivery truck trips;
2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and
3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes,
and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Based on these uses of energy during construction activities, the proposed buildings and the associated
infrastructure would not be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis
than other development projects in Southern California. Construction does not involve any unusual or
increased need for energy and would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. In addition, the extent of
construction activities that would occur is limited to a 40-month period, and the demand for construction-
related electricity and fuels would be limited to that time frame.
Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources
Board (CARB) regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-
duty diesel on- and off-road equipment as part of the City’s construction permitting process. Compliance
with existing CARB idling restrictions, which is included as PPP E-2, would reduce fuel combustion and
2 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroadzone/pdfs/offroad_booklet.pdf
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 58 of 122
energy consumption. The energy modeling shows that project construction equipment usage over the 40-
month construction period is estimated to use 329,564 gallons of diesel fuel, as shown in Table E-1.
Table E-1: Estimated Construction Equipment Diesel Fuel Consumption
Activity Duration
(Days) Equipment HP
Rating Quantity Load
Factor
HP-
hrs/day
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal. diesel
fuel)
Demolition 84
Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 2 0.73 946 4,296
Excavators 158 5 0.38 2,402 10,905
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 3 0.40 2,371 10,767
Site
Preparation 125 Crawler Tractors 97 4 0.37 1,148 7,760
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 3 0.40 2,371 16,022
Grading 130
Crawler Tractors 97 2 0.37 574 4,035
Excavators 158 3 0.38 1,441 10,126
Graders 187 1 0.41 613 4,310
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 1 0.40 790 5,554
Building
Construction 865
Scrapers 367 2 0.48 2,819 131,787
Cranes 231 1 0.29 536 25,058
Forklifts 89 3 0.20 427 19,974
Generator Sets 84 1 0.74 497 23,251
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 3 0.37 861 40,274
Paving 125
Welders 46 1 0.45 166 1,119
Pavers 130 2 0.42 874 5,903
Paving Equipment 132 2 0.36 760 5,137
Architectural
Coating 125 Rollers 80 2 0.38 486 3,286
Total Construction Fuel Demand 329,564
Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D
Table E-2 shows that construction activities are anticipated to require approximately 1,121,911 kWh of
electricity.
Table E-2: Estimated Construction Electricity Consumption
Construction Size
(1,000 SF) Electricity Usage (kWh)
Residential 252.000 217,178
Park 849.420 732,046
Other Asphalt Surfaces 200.376 172,688
Total Construction Electricity Usage
(kWh) 1,121,911
Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D
Table E-3 shows that construction worker vehicular trips in light-duty-autos (LDA) to and from the project
site are anticipated to require approximately 128,705 gallons of gasoline.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 59 of 122
Table E-3: Estimated Construction Worker Fuel Consumption from Light-Duty-Automobiles
Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
LDA Trips /
Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 30 13 14.7 5,733 32.77 175
Grading 75 15 14.7 16,538 32.77 505
Building
Construction 771 349 14.7 3,955,461 32.77 120,707
Paving 346 4 14.7 20,345 32.77 621
Trenching 111 70 14.7 114,219 32.77 3,486
Architectural
Coating 651 11 14.7 105,267 32.77 3,212
Total Construction Worker (LDA) Fuel Consumption 128,705
Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D
Table E-4 shows that construction worker trips in light-duty-trucks (LDT1) to and from the project site are
anticipated to require approximately 16,306 gallons of gasoline.
Table E-4: Estimated Construction Worker Fuel Consumption from Light-Duty-Trucks
Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
LDT1 Trips
/ Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 30 2 14.7 1,764 27.55 64
Grading 75 2 14.7 2,205 27.55 80
Building
Construction 771 36 14.7 408,013 27.55 14,809
Paving 346 1 14.7 5,086 27.55 185
Trenching 111 8 14.7 13,054 27.55 474
Architectural
Coating 651 2 14.7 19,139 27.55 695
Total Construction Worker (LDT1) Fuel Consumption 16,306
Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D
Table E-5 shows that construction worker trips in medium-duty-trucks (LDT2) to and from the project site
are anticipated to require approximately 50,543 gallons of gasoline.
Table E-5: Estimated Construction Worker Fuel Consumption from Medium-Duty-Trucks
Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
LDT2 Trips
/ Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 30 4 14.7 1,764 26.03 68
Grading 75 5 14.7 5,513 26.03 212
Building
Construction 771 108 14.7 1,224,040 26.03 47,023
Paving 346 2 14.7 10,172 26.03 391
Trenching 111 22 14.7 35,897 26.03 1,379
Architectural
Coating 651 4 14.7 38,279 26.03 1,471
Total Construction Worker (LDT2) Fuel Consumption 50,543
Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D
In addition to construction workers, vendors that deliver materials and equipment to the site would utilize
fuel. Table E-6 shows that vendor trips in medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT) are anticipated to require
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 60 of 122
approximately 43,601 gallons of gasoline.
Table E-6: Estimated Vendor Fuel Consumption from Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks
Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Vendor
Trips /
Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Building
Construction 771 85 6.9 452,192 10.37 43,601
Total Construction Vendor (MHDT) Fuel Consumption 43,601
Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D
Table E-7 shows that vendor trips in heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT) to and from the project site are
anticipated to require approximately 77,590 gallons of gasoline.
Table E-7: Estimated Vendor Fuel Consumption from Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks
Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Vendor
Trips /
Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Building
Construction 771 103 6.9 547,950 7.06 77,590
Total Construction Vendor (HHDT) Fuel Consumption 77,590
Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D
The project includes import of approximately 56,200 cy of fill soils. Table E-8 shows that haul trips related
to grading activity in heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT) is anticipated to require approximately 16,142
gallons of gasoline.
Table E-8: Estimated Hauling Fuel Consumption from Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks
Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Hauling
Trips / Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Grading 75 76 20 114,000 7.06 16,142
Total Hauling (HHDT) Fuel Consumption 16,142
Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D
Operation
Once operational, the project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for
motor vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the residences,
water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, and outdoor lighting, and the transport
of electricity, natural gas, and water to the residences where they would be consumed. This use of energy
is typical for residential development, no additional energy infrastructure would be required to be built to
operate the project, and no operational activities would occur that would result in extraordinary energy
consumption.
The proposed project would be required to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards, which is
included as PPP E-1. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design
components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures
that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating,
ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials; solar panels;
energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with
the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide
and regional energy needs would be reduced. Thus, operation of the project would not use large amounts
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 61 of 122
of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and no operational energy impacts would occur.
As detailed in Table E-9, the vehicular trips related to the new residences are anticipated to result in
4,462,113 annual VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 165,281gallons of fuel.
Table E-9: Project Annual Vehicle Fuel Consumption from Operation
Vehicle Type
Annual
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Annual
Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
LDA 2,423,550 33.8 71,732
LDT1 271,069 28.4 9,551
LDT2 824,421 27.0 30,511
MDV 581,226 21.5 27,091
LHD1 106,332 14.6 7,293
LHD2 28,348 15.3 1,858
MHD 52,287 10.8 4,853
HHD 40,770 7.4 5,483
OBUS 3,623 6.7 538
UBUS 2,271 6.2 365
MCY 107,952 37.9 2,849
SBUS 3,347 8.1 415
MH 16,916 6.2 2,742
Total
(All Vehicles) 4,462,113 -- 165,281
Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D
As detailed in Table E-10, operation of the proposed project is estimated to result in the annual use of
approximately 3,960,170 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas and approximately
1,115,050 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity.
Table E-10: Project Operational Electricity and Natural Gas Usage
Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
140 Residences 3,960,170
Electricity Demand kWh/year
140 Residences 1,115,050
Source: Energy Analysis, Appendix D
kBTU – kilo-British Thermal Units
kWh – Kilo Watt Hours
(Sources: Energy Analysis, Appendix D)
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (No
Impact.)
The proposed project would be required to meet the CalGreen energy efficiency standards in effect during
permitting of the project, as included as PPP E-1. The City’s administration of the requirements includes
review of design components and energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which
ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the project would not conflict with or obstruct
opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy. As discussed, the project proposes to use
photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on each of the residences to offset their energy demand in accordance with
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 62 of 122
the existing Title 24 requirements (included as PPP E-1). As such, the project would not conflict with or
obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and less than significant impacts
would occur.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies: The following existing requirements would reduce energy
consumption from the proposed project:
PPP E-1. CalGreen Compliance. The project is required to comply with the CalGreen Building Code as
included in the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.32.010 to ensure efficient use of energy. CalGreen
specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition of building permit approval.
PPP E-2: Idling Regulations. The project is required to comply with California Air Resources Board
(CARB) Rule 2485 (13 CCR, Chapter 10 Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-
Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
This section is based on the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, prepared by Leighton
and Associates, Inc., 2020 (Appendix E); the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan,
prepared by MDS Consulting, 2021 (Appendix K); and the Paleontological Assessment, prepared by
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., 2021 (Appendix F).
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 With Mitigation Incorporated.)
The Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that the project site is not within
a Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone based on published geologic hazard maps; however, the
northeastern-most (lake margin) part of the site is located within an established Riverside County
Fault Hazard Zone for the Wildomar Fault. The fault evaluation prepared for the project identified
subsurface anomalies that may be indicative of faulting. Thus, a fault setback for habitable
structures is included in the project design, pursuant to the California Building Code (CBC), and
would be ensured by Mitigation Measure GEO-1 that requires compliance with the Geotechnical
and Fault Evaluation recommendations. With implementation of the required setback, as ensured
through the mitigation, impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than
significant.
(Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
The project site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California. The Wildomar
Fault is located to the north and east of the project site and the Willard Fault is located to the west
and south of the site. Thus, moderate to strong ground shaking can be expected at the site. The
amount of motion can vary depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 63 of 122
earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an
earthquake epicenter, that consists of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in
response to an earthquake of great magnitude.
Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code
(CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), included in the Municipal Code as Title
15. In addition, PPP GEO-1 has been included to provide provisions for earthquake safety based
on factors including occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probable strength of the
ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety
features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper
building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would
withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. Because the proposed project would be constructed
in compliance with the CBC, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact
related to strong seismic ground shaking.
(Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated.)
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils layers, located within
approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure
generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil
acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties
and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths
to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils.
Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine-
grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground
surface. Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface
layer.
According to the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation prepared for the proposed
project, the site is mapped by Riverside County as having potential for liquefaction. The
groundwater encountered on the site during onsite borings ranged between 2 to 14 feet below the
ground surface. In addition, the site is underlain by loose, silty to clayey sand and sandy to silty
clay. Therefore, the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation includes engineering and
design recommendations that are included in the proposed project to reduce the potential for
liquefaction to a less than significant level. The recommendations include excavation and
recompaction of the upper 5 feet of existing soils and to extend at least 3 feet in depth below
proposed pad grade within the building foundation areas, subgrade stabilization within over
excavation areas; and post-tension foundation systems with perimeter foundations embedment of
at least 18-inches. Implementation of these recommendations would be ensured by Mitigation
Measure GEO-1.
In addition, as described previously, structures built in the City are required to be built in
compliance with the CBC, as included in the City’s Municipal Code as Title 15 (and herein as PPP
GEO-1), which implements specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, and
building construction. Compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1 would reduce hazards
related to liquefaction to a less than significant level.
(Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 64 of 122
iv) Landslides? (No Impact.)
Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon
after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquakes induced landslides are steep slopes
underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.
As described above, the project site is located in a seismically active region subject to strong ground
shaking. However, the project site is generally flat and does not contain any hills or any other areas
that could be subject to landslides, and no substantial slopes are located adjacent to the site. The
Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that the project site is relatively flat
and varies from a low of approximately 1,267 msl in the eastern portion of site to a high of 1,295
msl near the intersection of Grand Avenue/SR-74. Therefore, the project would not cause potential
substantial adverse effects related to slope instability or seismically induced landslides.
(Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
Construction of the project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Grading
and excavation activities that would be required for the proposed project would expose and loosen topsoil,
which could be eroded by wind or water. However, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 14.08 implements
the requirements of the NDPES Storm Water Permit and all projects in the City are required to conform to
the permit requirements. This includes installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance
with the NPDES permit, which establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls
that are required to be implemented for the proposed project. To reduce the potential for soil erosion and
the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer).
The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction
activities. The SWPPP is required to identify potential sources of erosion and sedimentation loss of topsoil
during construction, identify erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil,
such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding.
With compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and the BMPs in the SWPPP
that is required to be prepared to implement the project included as PPP WQ-1, construction impacts related
to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
In addition, the proposed project includes installation of landscaping, such that during operation of the
project large areas of loose topsoil that could erode would not exist. In addition, as described in Section X,
Hydrology and Water Quality, the onsite drainage features that would be installed by the project have been
designed to slow, filter, and infiltrate stormwater, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to
erode topsoil during project operations. Furthermore, implementation of the project requires City approval
of a site specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), included as PPP WQ-2, which would ensure
that the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and appropriate operational BMPs would be
implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result,
potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
(Sources: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix E)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.)
Landslide. As described above, the project site is generally flat, and does not contain nor is adjacent to any
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 65 of 122
slope or hillside area. The project would not create slopes. Thus, on or off-site landslides would not occur
from implementation of the project.
Liquefaction. As described previously, the site is mapped by Riverside County as having potential for
liquefaction, groundwater ranges between 2 to 14 feet below the ground surface. Therefore, the Due-
Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation includes engineering and design recommendations to reduce
the potential for liquefaction to a less than significant level, which are included as Mitigation Measure
GEO-1. In addition, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC, as
included in the City’s Municipal Code as Title 15 (and herein as PPP GEO-1), which would reduce hazards
related to liquefaction to a less than significant level.
Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading, a phenomenon associated with seismically induced soil liquefaction,
is a display of lateral displacement of soils due to inertial motion and lack of lateral support during or post
liquefaction. It is typically exemplified by the formation of vertical cracks on the surface of liquefied soils,
and usually takes place on gently sloping ground or level ground with nearby free surface such as drainage
or stream channel. The Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that due to the clayey
and interbedded nature of the near surface soils, lateral spread is expected to be minimal or not expected to
exceed 6 inches, which would occur to the most easterly portion of the site. As described previously,
liquefaction and lateral spreading impacts would be reduced to a less than significant impact by
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and PPP GEO-1.
Subsidence and Collapse. The Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that
undocumented fill, surficial topsoil, and the upper 3 to 5 feet of alluvial deposits on the project site are
potentially collapsible in their present state and may settle under the surcharge of fills or foundation loading.
As described previously, the project includes excavation and recompaction of the upper 5 feet of existing
soils and to extend at least 3 feet in depth below proposed pad grade within the building foundation areas,
subgrade stabilization within over excavation areas; and post-tension foundation systems with perimeter
foundations embedment of at least 18-inches. These measures would reduce the potential for soils collapse
to a less than significant level. Thus, implementation of these measures would be ensured by PPP GEO-1
and Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
(Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E)
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 contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or well as the moisture content changes;
the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with
seasonal changes of soil moisture experiences, such as southern California, have a higher potential of
expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.
The Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that the site is underlain by alluvial soils,
that consist of silty to clayey sand and sandy to silty clay. The testing of the onsite soils identified a low to
very low expansion potential. As described previously, compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP
GEO-1 would ensure that foundation designs are consistent with the CBC regulations, included as PPP
GEO-1. Thus, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
(Sources: Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E)
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.)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 66 of 122
The project would not use septic tanks or alternative methods for disposal of wastewater into subsurface
soils. Furthermore, the proposed project would connect to existing public wastewater infrastructure within
Grand Avenue/SR-74. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts related to septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal methods
(Sources: Project Plans and Figure 8, Proposed Water and Sewer Lines)
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.)
Paleontological resources are the remains of prehistoric life that have been preserved in geologic strata.
These remains are called fossils and include bones, shells, teeth, and plant remains (including their
impressions, casts, and molds) in the sedimentary matrix, as well as trace fossils such as footprints and
burrows. Fossils are considered older than 5,000 years of age (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010),
but may include younger remains (subfossils), for example, when viewed in the context of local extinction
of the organism or habitat.
A Paleontological Resource Assessment (Appendix F) was completed for the project, which describes that
the geologic units mapped as underlying the western portion of the project site are Holocene and late
Pleistocene-aged, young, sandy, alluvial-valley deposits (Qyva). These sedimentary deposits are almost
entirely of Holocene age, consisting of unconsolidated silt, sand, and clay-bearing alluvium. The eastern
portion of the project site is mapped as Holocene lacustrine deposits (Ql)” and mostly consist of fine-grained
sediments. The Paleontological Resource Assessment describes that Holocene alluvium is generally
considered to be geologically too young to contain significant fossils.
The Paleontological Resource Assessment includes a records search of the Los Angeles County Natural
History Museum (LACM), the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM), the University of California at
Riverside (UCR), and primary literature, which determined that no fossil localities have been previously
identified within the project boundaries. The closest known fossil localities are approximately five and eight
miles east of the project. In addition, the City’s General Plan Figure 4.6, “Paleontological Resources,”
identifies the project site as having a “Low” sensitivity for potential paleontological resources.
The Paleontological Resource Assessment determined that based on the low paleontological sensitivity of
the Holocene-aged sediments underlying the project site, and the lack of known fossil localities near the
site, impacts related to paleontological resources are not anticipated. However, Mitigation Measure PAL-1
has been included to provide measures in the unanticipated event that potential paleontological resources
are uncovered during project grading and excavation activities. With implementation of PAL-1, impacts
related to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce geology and soils related impacts from the proposed
project:
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the project is
required to demonstrate compliance with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal
Code Title 15 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. California Building
Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the project are required to be incorporated
into grading plans and specifications as a condition of construction permit approval.
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed in in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 67 of 122
PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As listed in in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Measures. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
proposed project applicant/developer shall demonstrate compliance with the California Building Code in
effect at the time of permitting as detailed in the recommendations of the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and
Fault Evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, the required structural setback from the Wildomar
Fault, foundation specifications, and soils requirements.
Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Paleontological Resources. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit,
evidence shall be provided to the City Building and Safety Division that a qualified paleontologist has been
retained. In the event that potential paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-
disturbing activities, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified
paleontologist. Construction activities may continue in the other areas of the Project site. Any potentially
significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices
and Society for Vertebrate Paleontology professional standards. Any fossils recovered during mitigation
should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future
generations. A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the
significance of any fossils would be prepared and submitted to the City Building and Safety Division.
(Sources: Paleontological Assessment, Appendix F)
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section is based on the Greenhouse Gas Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Urban
Crossroads(Appendix G). The project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using
CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. The results and conclusions of the report and calculations relative to
emissions are summarized herein. These impacts are analyzed on a cumulative basis, utilizing Carbon
Dioxide Equivalent
(CO2e), measured in metric tons (MT) or MTCO2e.
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 (N2O), ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of
planning and regulation, CCR Section 15364.5 defines GHGs to include CO2, CH4, N2O,
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.
GHG Thresholds
The City of Lake Elsinore has not adopted a numerical significance threshold to evaluate greenhouse gas
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 68 of 122
(GHG) impacts. SCAQMD does not have approved thresholds; however, it does have draft thresholds that
provides a tiered approach to evaluate GHG impacts, which includes the following:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under
CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a
project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG
emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with
all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years
and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the
following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
o Residential and Commercial land use: 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2e) per year
o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e per year
o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e
per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
The SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 year 2050 goal as the basis for the Tier 3
screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap
CO2 concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm), thus stabilizing global climate. Therefore, for purposes
of examining potential GHG impacts from implementation of the proposed project, and to provide a
conservative analysis of potential impacts, the Tier 3 screening level for all land use projects of 3,000
MTCO2e was selected as the significance threshold.
In addition, SCAQMD methodology for evaluating a project’s construction emissions are to amortize them
over 30-years and then add them to the project’s operational emissions to determine if the project would
exceed the screening values listed above.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
Construction activities produce GHG emissions from various sources, such as site excavation, grading,
utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles onsite, equipment hauling materials to and from the site,
asphalt paving, building construction, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. As shown on
Table GHG-1, construction of 140 residences would result in a total of 177.83 MTCO2e amortized over 30
years.
Table GHG-1: Project Construction Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTC02e)
Year Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
2022 568.11 0.10 0.04 581.11
2023 1535.78 0.13 0.08 1562.41
2024 1635.48 0.15 0.08 1662.63
2025 1505.02 0.17 0.07 1528.67
Total Annual Construction Emissions 5,244.38 0.55 0.26 5,334.82
Amortized Construction Emissions (MTCO2e) 174.81 0.02 0.01 177.83
Source: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G.
In addition, operation of the proposed residences would result in area and indirect sources of operational
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 69 of 122
GHG emissions that would primarily result from vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption,
water transport (the energy used to pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from
electricity consumed by the residences would be generated off-site by fuel combustion at the electricity
provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy
required to transport water from its source. The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be
generated from 140 residences was determined using CalEEMod. Additionally, in accordance with
SCAQMD recommendation, the project’s amortized construction related GHG emissions are added to the
operational emissions estimate in order to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions.
As shown on Table GHG-2, operation of 140 residences would generate approximately 2,321.24 MTCO2e
per year, which would be below the screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, operation
of the proposed 140 residences would also be below the screening threshold, and impacts related to
greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.
Table GHG-2: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Construction emissions amortized over 30 years 174.81 0.02 0.01 177.83
Area 32.62 0.00 0.00 32.85
Energy 409.08 0.02 0.01 411.36
Mobile 1,509.37 0.10 0.07 1,531.61
Waste 33.63 1.99 0.00 83.32
Water Use 76.27 0.24 0.01 84.27
Total CO2e (All Sources) 2,321.24
Source: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G.
(Sources: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases? (No Impact.)
The proposed project would develop the site with residences that would comply with state programs that
are designed to be energy efficient. The proposed project would comply with all mandatory measures under
the California Title 24, California Energy Code, and the CalGreen Code, which would provide efficient
energy and water consumption. Consistent with these requirements, the project includes photovoltaic (PV)
solar panels to offset the energy demand. The City’s administration of the requirements includes review of
the energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are
met.
Also, as described in Section 17, Transportation, the proposed project would result in a less than significant
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact because the project is located within a low VMT generating area,
where the VMT per service population and VMT per capita is lower than the jurisdictional average; and
therefore, is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and SB
375.
In addition, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan recommends strategies for
implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan to
reduce GHG emissions levels. The Scoping Plan identifies the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990
levels, set by SB 32. The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable measures established in
the Scoping Plan, as shown in Table GHG-3. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with CARB
plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 70 of 122
Table GHG-3: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
Implement SB 350 by 2030
Increase the Renewables Portfolio
Standard to 50% of retail sales by 2030
and ensure grid reliability.
CPUC,
CEC,
CARB
Consistent. The project area uses
energy from Southern California
Edison (SCE). SCE has committed to
diversify its portfolio of energy sources
by increasing energy from wind and
solar sources. The project would not
interfere with or obstruct SCE energy
source diversification efforts.
Establish annual targets for statewide
energy efficiency savings and demand
reduction that will achieve a
cumulative doubling of statewide
energy efficiency savings in electricity
and natural gas end uses by 2030.
Consistent. The new development
implemented by the project would be
designed and constructed to implement
the energy efficiency measures. The
project would not interfere with or
obstruct policies or strategies to
establish annual targets for statewide
energy efficiency savings and demand
reduction.
Reduce GHG emissions in the
electricity sector through the
implementation of the above measures
and other actions as modeled in
Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) to
meet GHG emissions reductions
planning targets in the IRP process.
Load-serving entities and publicly-
owned utilities meet GHG emissions
reductions planning targets through a
combination of measures as described
in IRPs.
Consistent. The new development
would be designed and constructed to
implement the Title 24 (CalGreen)
Standards.
Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels)
At least 1.5 million zero emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty EV by 2025.
CARB,
California State
Transportation
Agency (CalSTA),
Strategic Growth
Council (SGC),
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans),
CEC,
OPR,
Local Agencies
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB zero
emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty
EV 2025 targets.
At least 4.2 million zero emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty EV by 2030.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB zero
emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty
EV 2030 targets.
Further increase GHG stringency on
all light-duty vehicles beyond existing
Advanced Clean cars regulations.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
to further increase GHG stringency on
all light-duty vehicles beyond existing
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 71 of 122
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
Advanced Clean cars regulations.
Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG
Phase 2.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
to implement Medium- and Heavy-
Duty GHG Phase 2.
Innovative Clean Transit: Transition
to a suite of to-be-determined
innovative clean transit options.
Assumed 20% of new urban buses
purchased beginning in 2018 will be
zero emission buses with the
penetration of zero-emission
technology ramped up to 100% of new
sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas
buses, starting in 2018, and diesel
buses, starting in 2020, meet the
optional heavy-duty low-NOX
standard.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
improve transit-source emissions.
Last Mile Delivery: New regulation
that would result in the use of low NOX
or cleaner engines and the deployment
of increasing numbers of zero-
emission trucks primarily for class 3-7
last mile delivery trucks in California.
This measure assumes ZEVs comprise
2.5% of new Class 3–7 truck sales in
local fleets starting in 2020, increasing
to 10% in 2025 and remaining flat
through 2030.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
to improve last mile delivery emissions.
Further reduce vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) through continued
implementation of SB 375 and
regional Sustainable Communities
Strategies; forthcoming statewide
implementation of SB 743; and
potential additional VMT reduction
strategies not specified in the Mobile
Source Strategy but included in the
document “Potential VMT Reduction
Strategies for Discussion.”
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with
implementation of SB 375 and would
therefore, not conflict with this
measure.
CARB
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 72 of 122
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
Increase stringency of SB 375
Sustainable Communities Strategy
(2035 targets).
to Increase stringency of SB 375
Sustainable Communities Strategy
(2035 targets).
Harmonize project performance with
emissions reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes (e.g. via
guideline documents, funding
programs, project selection, etc.).
CalSTA,
SGC,
OPR,
CARB,
Governor’s Office
of Business and
Economic
Development
(GO-Biz),
California
Infrastructure and
Economic
Development
Bank (IBank),
Department of
Finance (DOF),
California
Transportation
Commission
(CTC),
Caltrans
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to harmonize transportation facility
project performance with emissions
reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes.
By 2019, develop pricing policies to
support low-GHG transportation (e.g.
low-emission vehicle zones for heavy
duty, road user, parking pricing, transit
discounts).
CalSTA,
Caltrans,
CTC,
OPR,
SGC,
CARB
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to develop pricing policies to support
low-GHG transportation.
Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve freight system efficiency.
CalSTA,
CalEPA,
CNRA,
CARB,
Caltrans,
CEC,
GO-Biz
Consistent. This measure would apply
to all trucks accessing the project site,
this may include existing trucks or new
trucks that are part of the statewide
goods movement sector. The project
would not obstruct or interfere with
agency efforts to Improve freight
system efficiency.
Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles
and equipment capable of zero
emission operation and maximize both
zero and near-zero emission freight
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles
and equipment capable of zero emission
operation and maximize both zero and
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 73 of 122
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
vehicles and equipment powered by
renewable energy by 2030.
near-zero emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable
energy by 2030.
Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard
with a Carbon Intensity reduction of
18%.
CARB
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard
with a Carbon Intensity reduction of
18%.
Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS) by 2030
40% reduction in methane and
hydrofluorocarbon emissions below
2013 levels.
CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA,
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
Consistent. These are not emissions
related to the proposed project. Hence,
the proposed project would not obstruct
or interfere agency efforts to reduce
SLPS emissions.
50% reduction in black carbon
emissions below 2013 levels.
By 2019, develop regulations and
programs to support organic waste
landfill reduction goals in the SLCP
and SB 1383.
CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
Consistent. The new development
would be required through City
permitting to implement waste
reduction and recycling measures
consistent with state and City
requirements. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
support organic waste landfill reduction
goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.
Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-
Trade Program with declining annual
caps.
CARB
Consistent. The project is not
applicable to implementation of Cap-
and-Trade Program provisions. Thus,
the project would not obstruct or
interfere implementation the post-2020
Cap-and-Trade Program.
By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure
California’s land base as a net carbon sink
Protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other
incentives.
CNRA,
Departments
Within
CDFA,
CalEPA,
CARB
Consistent. The project includes
preservation of 15.65-acres of natural
open space. Thus, the project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other
incentives.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 74 of 122
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
Increase the long-term resilience of
carbon storage in the land base and
enhance sequestration capacity
Consistent. The project provides for
residential development. The project
would not obstruct or interfere agency
efforts to increase the long-term
resilience of carbon storage in the land
base and enhance sequestration
capacity.
Utilize wood and agricultural
products to increase the amount of
carbon stored in the natural and built
environments
Consistent. Where appropriate, the
new development would incorporate
wood or wood products. The project
would not obstruct or interfere agency
efforts to encourage use of wood and
agricultural products to increase the
amount of carbon stored in the natural
and built environments.
Establish scenario projections to serve
as the foundation for the
Implementation Plan
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
establish scenario projections to serve
as the foundation for the
Implementation Plan.
Establish a carbon accounting
framework for natural and working
lands as described in SB 859 by 2018
CARB
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
establish a carbon accounting
framework for natural and working
lands as described in SB 859.
Implement Forest Carbon Plan
CNRA,
California
Department of
Forestry and Fire
Protection
(CAL FIRE),
CalEPA and
Departments
Within
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
implement the Forest Carbon Plan.
Identify and expand funding and
financing mechanisms to support
GHG reductions across all sectors.
State Agencies &
Local Agencies
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
identify and expand funding and
financing mechanisms to support GHG
reductions across all sectors.
Source: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G.
The City of Lake Elsinore adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2011. The following table consists of
an analysis of project consistency with the policies in the CAP.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 75 of 122
Table GHG-4: Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan
CAP Measure Applicability to
Proposed Project Consistency
Measure T-1.2:
Pedestrian Infrastructure Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires the installation of
sidewalks along new and reconstructed streets and
sidewalks or paths to internally link all uses and
provide connections to neighborhood activity centers,
major destinations, and transit facilities contiguous
with the project site.
The project would provide sidewalks along all
internal streets and would be implemented through
project permitting. As such, the proposed project
would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-1.4: Bicycle
Infrastructure Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires new development
to implement and connect to the network of Class I, II
and III bikeways, trails and safety features identified
in the General Plan, Bike Lane Master Plan, Trails
Master Plan and Western Riverside County Non-
Motorized Transportation plan.
Consistent with the City’s General Plan a Class II
bicycle lane is included in the half-width
improvements along Grand Avenue/Riverside
Drive/SR-74. This measure is implemented by the
Department of Public Works, Community Services
Department, and Building Department through policy
development, development review, and conditions of
approval. As such, the proposed project would not
conflict with this measure.
Measure T-1.5: Bicycle
Parking Standards Not Applicable
Not Applicable. This measure requires the City to
enforce short-term and long-term bicycle parking
standards for new non- residential developments. This
measure is not applicable to the residential project. As
such, the proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure T-2.1:
Designated Parking for
Fuel Efficient Vehicles
Not Applicable
Not Applicable. This measure requires new non-
residential developments to designate 10% of total
parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient
vehicles. This measure is not applicable to the
residential project. As such, the proposed project
would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-4.1:
Commute Trip
Reduction Program
Not Applicable
Not Applicable. This measure requires the City to
institute a commute trip reduction program for
employers with fewer than 100 employees. This
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 76 of 122
CAP Measure Applicability to
Proposed Project Consistency
measure is not applicable to the residential
project. As such, the proposed project would not
conflict with this measure.
Measure E-1.1: Tree
Planting Requirements Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires new developments
to plant at minimum one 15-gallon non-deciduous,
umbrella-form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary
length near buildings. The project would comply with
this measure as shown on Figure 6, Landscape and
Recreation Plan. This measure is implemented by the
Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Parks
and Recreation through the development review
process, and conditions of approval. As such, the
proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure E-1.2: Cool
Roof Requirements Not Applicable
Not Applicable. This measure requires new non-
residential development to use roofing materials
having solar reflectance, thermal emittance, or Solar
Reflectance Index consistent with CALGreen Tier 1
values. This measure is not applicable to the
residential project. As such, the proposed project
would not conflict with this measure.
Measure E-1.3: Energy
Efficient Building
Standards
Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires that new
construction exceed the California Energy Code
requirements through either the performance-based or
prescriptive approach described in the California
Green Building Code. This measure is implemented
by the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and
Building through the development review process,
and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed
project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure E-3.2: Energy
Efficient Street and
Traffic Signal Lights
Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires the City to work
with Southern California Edison to replace existing
high-pressure sodium streetlights and traffic lights
with high efficiency alternatives, such as Low
Emitting Diode (LED) lights; replace existing City
owned traffic lights with LED lights; require any new
street and traffic lights to be LED. This measure is
currently being implemented by the Department of
Public Works through renovation. This measure
would apply to any street and/or traffic lights replaced
or installed as part of the project. This measure is
implemented by the Departments of Planning, Public
Works, and Building through the development review
process, and conditions of approval. As such, the
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 77 of 122
CAP Measure Applicability to
Proposed Project Consistency
proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure E-4.1:
Landscaping Ordinance Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires the City to enforce
the City’s AB 1881 Landscaping Ordinance, which
requires that landscaping be water efficient, thereby
consuming less energy and reducing emissions. The
proposed project is consistent with the City’s
landscaping and irrigation requirements. This
measure is verified by the Departments of Planning,
Public Works, and Building through the development
review process, and conditions of approval. As such,
the proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure E-4.2: Indoor
Water Conservation
Requirements
Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires that development
projects reduce indoor water consumption. The
proposed project is designed to be consistent with the
Title 24 water conservation requirements. This
measure would be verified by the Departments of
Building and Planning through project permitting. As
such, the proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure E-5.1:
Renewable Energy
Incentives
Applicable
Consistent. This measure facilitates the voluntary
installation of small-scale renewable energy systems,
such as solar photovoltaic and solar hot water
systems, by connecting residents and businesses with
technical and financial assistance through the City
website. This measure is implemented by the
Departments of Building and Planning through
outreach and incentive programs. The proposed
project is designed to be consistent with the Title 24
energy requirements and would include PV solar
panels. No elements of the proposed project would
conflict with this measure.
Measure S-1.4:
Construction and
Demolition Waste
Diversion
Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires development
projects to divert, recycle or salvage nonhazardous
construction and demolition debris generated at the
site, and requires all construction and demolition
projects to be accompanied by a waste management
plan for the project. This measure is implemented by
the Departments of Planning and Building through
City contracts, Municipal Code amendments,
development and review process, and conditions of
approval. The proposed project would implement
construction and demolition waste diversion, as
further detailed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service
Systems. As such, the proposed project would not
conflict with this measure.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 78 of 122
Source: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G.
(Sources: Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G)
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Leighton and Associates,
Inc., 2020. (Appendix H).
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.)
A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or
chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the
environment if released into the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous
substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that regulatory agencies have a reasonable basis for
believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released
into the home, workplace, or environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because
of their potential to damage public health and the environment.
Construction
The proposed construction activities would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking during construction activities. In addition,
hazardous materials would routinely be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the
site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these
materials are regulated by federal and state regulations that are implemented by the City during building
permitting for construction activities. Construction of the project would not require the use of acutely
hazardous materials. As such, impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is not expected. Therefore, impacts related to use of these
materials during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The project involves operation of 140 new residences and recreation facilities, which involve routinely
using hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and
aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in
limited quantities. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing
regulations would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the
project. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less
than significant.
(Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H)
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.)
Construction
While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 79 of 122
regulations during construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts;
improper use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in
accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. To avoid an
impact related to an accidental release, the use of best management practices (BMPs) during construction
are implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (and included as PPP WQ-1).
Implementation of an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the
environment. Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs
that include, but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities
that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies;
• Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products
used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks;
• Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and
• Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
Operation
Other operational aspects of the proposed residential project involve use and storage of common hazardous
materials such as paints, solvents, cleaning products, fuels, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and
pesticides/herbicides. These types of hazardous materials are regulated by existing laws that have been
implemented to reduce risks related to the use of these substances. Normal routine use of typical residential
products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment,
residents, or workers in the vicinity of the project.
(Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H)
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.)
The closest school to the project site is the Lakeside High School, at 32593 Riverside Drive, which is less
than 0.25-mile from the project site. As detailed previously, construction and operation of the proposed
residential project would involve the use, storage, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials on
the project site. These hazardous materials would be limited and used and disposed of in compliance with
federal, state, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential of accidental release into the
environment near the school.
Additionally, the emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the project were
evaluated in the Air Quality analysis presented in Section III, and the emissions generated from the project
would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the federal or state air quality standards. Thus, the project
would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste near the school, and
impacts would be less than significant
(Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H)
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 Impact.)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 80 of 122
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment describes that the Site is listed in the environmental database
search report in the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker Cleanup Sites (CLEANUPSITES)
and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (CALUST) databases, the Riverside County Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks database (CARCLUST), and the Facility Registry System (USFRSCA)
database. The listings are related to the discovery, removal of, and cleanup of three leaking underground
storage tanks (USTs) on the site in 1989. The USTs were previously used for operation of an RV park on
the site. The site remediation included the bioremediation of approximately 200 tons of soil and the
installation of an activated carbon groundwater treatment system. This leaking UST (LUST) case was
closed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a closure letter was issued for the site
on August 2, 1999. According to the closure letter, concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and
xylene were remediated to concentrations below the California maximum contaminant levels.
In 2005, a Phase II environmental site assessment was one the site and organochlorine pesticides, volatile
organic compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, and Title 22 metals concentrations were below the US EPA
Residential Screening Levels and the California Department of Toxics Substances Control screening levels
for residential land uses. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the proposed project
completed a comparison of these detections to present day residential screening levels, which determined
that the site is suitable for residential land use. Thus, hazards related to the previous leaking UST no longer
exist on the project site. The project site does not include hazardous materials that could result in a hazard
to the public or environment, and impacts would be less than significant.
(Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 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? (No Impact.)
The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan. The
closest airport is the Skylark Field located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the project site. As such,
the project would not be exposed to hazards related to airport operations, and no impacts would occur.
(Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H; Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K)
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
The proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
Construction
Short-term construction activities include improvements to Grand Avenue/SR-74, development of the
project driveways, and installation of utility connections to the existing infrastructure systems. These
activities would require the temporary closure of one lane of Grand Avenue/SR-74. However, the
construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the
California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through
the City’s permitting process, as incorporated into the construction permits. Thus, impacts related to an
emergency response or evacuation plan during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
Direct access to the project site would be provided from Grand Avenue/SR-74. The design of internal streets
would provide access to each of the proposed residences. The project is required to provide internal streets
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 81 of 122
and fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) that conform to the California Fire Code
requirements, included in Municipal Code Chapter 15.56 (included as PPP HAZ-1), as verified through the
City’s permitting process. As such, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than
significant.
(Sources: project plans, City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code)
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires? (No Impact.)
The project site is vacant and moderately covered with vegetation. The project site is adjacent to residential,
roadways, commercial uses, and undeveloped areas within the urban environment. The project site is not
within or adjacent to any wildland areas. According to the CalFire Hazard Severity Zone map, the project
site is not within a high fire hazard zone. As a result, the proposed project would not expose people or
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf )
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce the potential for impacts related to hazards:
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed in in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.
PPP HAZ-1: Fire Code. The project shall conform to the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code
of Regulations, Part 9), as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56, Fire Code. Specifically,
Section 503 of the California Fire Code provides regulations related to emergency access.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The discussion below is based on the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Project Specific Water Quality
Management Plan, prepared by MDS Consulting, 2021, included as Appendix I and Appendix J.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
Construction
Implementation of the proposed project includes grading, site preparation, construction of new buildings,
and infrastructure improvements. Grading, stockpiling of materials, excavation, construction of new
structures, and landscaping activities would expose and loosen sediment and building materials, which
would have the potential to mix with stormwater and urban runoff and degrade surface and receiving water
quality.
Additionally, construction generally requires the use of heavy equipment and construction-related materials
and chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents,
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 82 of 122
and paints. In the absence of proper controls, these potentially harmful materials could be accidentally
spilled or improperly disposed of during construction activities and could wash into and pollute surface
waters or groundwater, resulting in a significant impact to water quality.
Pollutants of concern during construction activities generally include sediments, trash, petroleum products,
concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in
combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. In addition, chemicals,
liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may
be spilled or leaked during construction, which would have the potential to be transported via storm runoff
into nearby receiving waters and eventually may affect surface or groundwater quality. During construction
activities, excavated soil would be exposed, thereby increasing the potential for soil erosion and
sedimentation to occur compared to existing conditions. In addition, during construction, vehicles and
equipment are prone to tracking soil and/or spoil from work areas to paved roadways, which is another
form of erosion that could affect water quality.
However, the use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit (and Municipal Code
Section 14.08) and included as PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that project impacts related to
construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant.
Furthermore, an Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer
(QSD) is required to be included in the SWPPP for the project, and typically includes the following types
of erosion control methods that are designed to minimize potential pollutants entering stormwater during
construction:
• Prompt revegetation of proposed landscaped areas;
• Perimeter gravel bags or silt fences to prevent off-site transport of sediment;
• Storm drain inlet protection (filter fabric gravel bags and straw wattles), with gravel bag check
dams within paved roadways;
• Regular sprinkling of exposed soils to control dust during construction and soil binders for
forecasted wind storms;
• Specifications for construction waste handling and disposal;
• Contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas;
• Erosion control measures including soil binders, hydro mulch, geotextiles, and hydro seeding of
disturbed areas ahead of forecasted storms;
• Construction of stabilized construction entry/exits to prevent trucks from tracking sediment on City
roadways;
• Construction timing to minimize soil exposure to storm events; and
• Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping.
Therefore, compliance with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements,
included as PPP WQ-1, which would be verified during the City’s construction permitting process, would
ensure that project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality
would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed project includes operation of residential and recreation/open space uses. Potential pollutants
associated with the proposed uses include various chemicals from cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes,
nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease
from vehicles. If these pollutants discharge into surface waters, it could result in degradation of water
quality. However, operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 83 of 122
the Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit and has prepared a project-specific WQMP (included as Appendix J)
that describes the low-impact development (LID) infrastructure and non-structural, structural, and source
control and treatment control BMPs that are included in the project’s design to protect surface water quality.
The Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit regulations are included in the City’s Municipal Code in Chapter
14.08. The MS4 Permit:
• Provides the framework for the program management activities and plan development;
• Provides the legal authority for prohibiting unpermitted discharges into the storm drain system and
for requiring BMPs in new development and significant redevelopment;
• Ensures that all new development and significant redevelopment incorporates appropriate Site
Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs to address specific water quality issues; and
• Ensures that construction sites implement control practices that address construction related
pollutants including erosion and sediment control and onsite hazardous materials and waste
management.
The Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit requires that new development and significant redevelopment projects
(or priority projects), such as the proposed project, develop and implement a WQMP that includes BMPs
and LID design features that would provide onsite treatment of stormwater to prevent pollutants from onsite
uses from leaving the site. A WQMP has been developed (included as Appendix J) and is required to be
approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
The proposed project would install a water quality basin on the site to provide stormwater treatment, which
has been sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour) from the project
site. As described previously, the WQMP is required to be approved prior to the issuance of a building or
grading permit. The project’s WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure it complies
with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Permit regulations. In addition, the City’s permitting process would
ensure that all BMPs in the WQMP would be implemented with the project. Overall, implementation of the
WQMP pursuant to the existing regulations (included as PPP WQ-2) would ensure that operation of the
proposed project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise
degrade water quality; and impacts would be less than significant.
(Sources: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix J)
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 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) provides water services to the project area. The
EVMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan describes that the EVMWD obtains water from local
groundwater wells, surface water from Canyon Lake Reservoir and treated at the Canyon Lake Water
Treatment Plant, and imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District. EVMWD pumps
water from the Elsinore Valley Subbasin and the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. EVMWD actively manages
the groundwater subbasins and serves as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Elsinore
Valley Subbasin and is a member of the Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Authority
(BCGSA), which serves as the GSA for the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. The EVMWD 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) shows that the anticipated production of groundwater would remain the same
through 2045 and the supply would exceed demand in both normal years and multiple dry year conditions
(shown in Table UT-1 in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems). The project would not result in
changes to the projected groundwater pumping that would decrease groundwater supplies, and the project
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 84 of 122
would not otherwise impede the sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
The project site is largely undeveloped impervious surface. After completion of project construction, a large
portion of the site would be impervious. The project would convey stormwater drainage into landscaping
areas and the water quality basin, which would infiltrate into soils and groundwater and lake. From the
water quality basin, runoff would flow to the South Riverside Channel and then to Lake Elsinore. Therefore,
impacts related to interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan,
Appendix J)
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 project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a natural stream or river. The Hill Street
Channel, which is a cement lined flood control channel is located adjacent to the site. However, the
project would not alter this drainage structure and implementation of the project would not alter the
course of a stream or river.
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and grading activities that would expose
and loosen building materials and sediment, which has the potential to mix with storm water runoff and
result in erosion or siltation off-site. However, the project site does not include any slopes, which
reduces the erosion potential, and the large majority of soil disturbance would be related to excavation
and backfill for installation of building foundations and underground utilities.
The NPDES Construction General Permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a
Qualified SWPPP Developer for the proposed construction activities (included as PPP WQ-1). The
SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to potential sources of sedimentation and
erosion and would list the required BMPs that are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of
erosion or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. In addition, a Qualified SWPPP
Practitioner (QSP) is required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and
visual inspections during construction activities. The SWPPP would be amended and BMPs revised, as
determined necessary through field inspections, in order to protect against substantial soil erosion, the
loss of topsoil, or alteration of the drainage pattern. Compliance with the Construction General Permit
and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) would prevent
construction-related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or erosion from
development activities. With implementation of the existing construction regulations that would be
verified by the City during the permitting approval process, impacts related to alteration of an existing
drainage pattern during construction that could result in substantial erosion, siltation, and increases in
stormwater runoff would be less than significant.
Operation
The project site consists of a generally undeveloped site with a grassland and soil surface, which has
the potential for erosion and sedimentation. With development of the project, a large portion of the site
would be covered by impervious surfaces, such as residential structures, roadways, sidewalks, and
driveways, which would not be subject to erosion. Pervious areas of the site would be landscaped with
groundcovers that would inhibit erosion and the water quality basin that is designed to filter in infiltrate
stormwater and would not result in erosion or sedimentation.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 85 of 122
The proposed project would maintain the existing drainage pattern. The runoff from the project area
would be collected by roof drains, surface flow designed pavement, curbs, and area drains and conveyed
to either landscaping areas or to the proposed water quality basin. Additionally, the MS4 permit requires
new development projects to prepare a WQMP (included as Appendix J) that is required to include
BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or sedimentation through site design and structural
treatment control BMPs. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage and water
quality design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division to ensure
that the site-specific design limits the potential for erosion and siltation. Overall, the proposed drainage
system and adherence to the existing regulations would ensure that project impacts related to alteration
of a drainage pattern and erosion/siltation from operational activities would be less than significant.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management
Plan, Appendix J)
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.)
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and grading. These activities could
temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and change runoff flow rates. However, as
described previously, implementation of the project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that
would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the project and include BMPs to
eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. This
includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the
Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP
WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction-
related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding on or off-site from
development activities. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
As described previously, the proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces on the
project site. However, the project would convey runoff to landscaped areas or to the proposed water
quality basin for treatment and infiltration that has been designed to accommodate the stormwater
volume pursuant to the MS4 permit requirements, as shown in the Preliminary Hydrology Report,
Appendix I. Therefore, an increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite would not occur.
As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage design and engineering plans would
be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that the proposed drainage would
accommodate the appropriate design flows. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to
the existing MS4 permit regulations, which would ensure that project impacts related to alteration of a
drainage pattern or flooding from operational activities would be less than significant.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management
Plan, Appendix J)
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.)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 86 of 122
Construction
As described in the previous response, construction of the proposed project would require grading and
excavation activities that could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and could
result in increased runoff and polluted runoff if drainage is not properly controlled. However,
implementation of the project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site
specific pollutant and drainage issues related to construction of the project and include BMPs to
eliminate the potential of polluted runoff and increased runoff during construction activities. This
includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the
Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP
WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction-
related impacts related to increases in run-off and pollution from development activities. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
As described previously, the proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces.
However, the project would manage stormwater flows with landscaping and the water quality basin
that has been designed to accommodate the stormwater volume pursuant to the MS4 permit
requirements. As stormwater flow conditions would be controlled and accommodated by the proposed
infrastructure, an increase in runoff that could exceed the capacity of storm drain systems and provide
polluted runoff would not occur.
As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage design and engineering plans would
be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that project specifications adhere to the
existing MS4 permit regulations, which would ensure that pollutants are removed prior to discharge.
Overall, with compliance to the existing regulations as verified by the City’s permitting process, project
impacts related to the capacity of the drainage system and polluted runoff would be less than significant.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management
Plan, Appendix J)
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 06065C2017G, the project
site not within a flood zone. As detailed in the previous responses, implementation of the project would
result in an increase of impermeable surfaces on the site. However, the runoff from the project area
would be accommodated by landscaping, catch basins, and a water quality basin that has been sized to
accommodate the MS4 required design storm. Therefore, the project would not result in impeding or
redirecting flood flows by the addition of the impervious surfaces. As detailed previously, the City’s
permitting process would ensure that the drainage system specifications adhere to the existing MS4
permit requirements, and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts would be less
than significant.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan,
Appendix J)
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
(Less Than Significant Impact.)
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 06065C2017G, the project site
not within a flood zone. Thus, the project site is not located within a flood hazard area that could be
inundated with flood flows and result in release of pollutants. Impacts related to flood hazards and pollutants
would not occur from the project.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 87 of 122
Tsunamis are generated ocean wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the sea floor
associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The
proposed project is approximately 23 miles from the ocean shoreline and behind mountains. Based on the
distance of the project site to the Pacific Ocean, the project site is not at risk of inundation from tsunami.
Therefore, the proposed project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from a tsunami. No
impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside
water retention facilities (e.g., reservoirs and lakes). Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and
flood downstream properties. The project site is located adjacent to Lake Elsinore that could generate a
seiche. However, the Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation describes that due to the distance
and planned elevation of the residences, the possibility of seiches impacting the site is less than significant.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant risk related to the release of pollutants
from inundation from a seiche.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation,
Appendix E)
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
As described previously, use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by
the NPDES Construction General Permit and PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that project impacts related
to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Thus,
construction of the project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
All new development projects are required to implement a WQMP (per PP WQ-2) that would comply with
the MS4 permit requirements. The WQMP and applicable BMPs are verified as part of the City’s permitting
approval process, and construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with these
regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan.
Water production from groundwater basins is managed by EVMWD, who is the Groundwater Sustainability
Agency (GSA) for the Elsinore Valley Subbasin, and by the Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater
Sustainability Authority for the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. The 2020 UWMP details that the anticipated
production of groundwater would remain steady through 2045 (as shown in Table UT-1). As detailed in
Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, the EMWD’s supply of water listed in Table UT-1 would be
sufficient during both normal years and multiple dry year conditions between 2025 and 2045 to meet all of
the estimated needs, including the proposed project. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the
groundwater management plan and would not conflict with or obstruct its implementation. Thus, impacts
related to water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than
significant.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix I; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan,
Appendix J)
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality:
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 88 of 122
provide the City Building and Safety Department evidence of compliance with the NPDES (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water
Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of
one acre or larger. The project applicant/proponent shall comply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI)
and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring
program and reporting plan for the construction site.
PPP WQ-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a
completed Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and
submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department. The Final WQMP shall identify all Post-
Construction, Site Design. Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving
waters.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact.)
The project site is currently vacant and generally undeveloped with the exception of remnants of a residence
and its related infrastructure and retaining wall. The site is planned for residential development by the City’s
General Plan and zoning designations. The site is adjacent and across the street from existing residential
development. The proposed project would develop the site with 140 residential units, which is consistent
with the existing development adjacent to the site and consistent with the recreation land use and zoning
designations near the lake. Therefore, the change of the project site from a vacant site to a residential
neighborhood would not physically divide an established community. Conversely, it would add to the
existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. In addition, the proposed roadway/sidewalk system provides
for circulation through the site and does not result in any physical division. Thus, the proposed project
would not result in impacts related to physical division of an established community.
(Sources: Project site plan, General Plan Land Use map, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24601; and City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed:
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603)
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.)
As described previously, the project site is adjacent to residential, open space, and roadways. The project
would develop the project site to provide 140 new residences and recreation areas, which would be similar
to the existing uses that are adjacent to the site.
General Plan
The project site has General Plan land use designations of High Density Residential and Recreational. The
High Density Residential land use designation provides for residential densities between 19 and 24 units
per net acre. The Recreation land use designation provides for public and private areas of permanent open
space and allows for passive and/or active private and public recreation.
The project includes 140 single-family residences within 10.94 gross acres of the site. According to the
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 89 of 122
General Plan, standards of building intensity for residential uses are stated as the allowable range of
dwelling units per net acre. On a net acre basis, the 140 residences would be developed on 6.00 net acres,
which would result in 23.33 units per net acre. Thus, the project would not exceed the allowable High
Density Residential density of 24 dwelling units per acre. In addition, 15.65 acres of the project site, which
is designated Recreational would be preserved as open space adjacent to Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the
project would not conflict with the existing residential and recreation General Plan land use designations
for the site, and impacts related to General Plan land uses would be less than significant.
Zoning
The project site is zoned as High Density Residential (R-3) and Recreation (R). The R-3 zone allows a
density up to 240 dwelling units per net acre, which is consistent with the High Density Residential General
Plan land use designation.
The proposed project includes 140 residences within 10.94 gross acres of the site. On a net acre basis, the
140 residences would be developed on 6.00 net acres, which would result in 23.33 units per net acre. Thus,
the project would not exceed the allowable R-3 density of up to 24 dwelling units per acre. In addition,
15.65 acres of the project site, which is zoned R would be preserved as open space adjacent to Lake Elsinore.
Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with the residential and recreation zoning designations
of the site.
PUD Overlay
The project includes implementation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. Municipal Code
Chapter 17.108, Planned Unit Development Overlay District states that the PUD overlay district is intended
to provide a mechanism to allow for flexibility in the development regulations and design standards of the
underlying base district. In addition, Municipal Code Section 17.080.050(B)(2) states that the development
standards for PUDs are generally the same as for the underlying base zoning district. However,
modifications to those standards may be approved as part of the PUD plan in order to allow for greater
flexibility and compatibility with the General Plan, such as providing an increase in housing opportunities
for the community. As described in the previous responses, the proposed project is consistent and
compatible with the General Plan and provides an increase in housing opportunities within the City.
Therefore, impacts related to conflict with a land use plan or policy would not occur from implementation
of the proposed PUD Overlay.
(Sources: Project site plan, General Plan Land Use map, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24601; and City of Lake Elsinore Zoning code, Accessed:
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603)
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state? (No Impact.)
Figure 3.12-1 of the General Plan EIR shows that 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 High Density Residential and
Recreation and is not planned for mineral extraction use. Therefore, 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
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 90 of 122
would not occur.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR Section 3.12 and Figure 3.12-1, Mineral Resource Zones)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact.)
As described in the previous response, Figure 3.12-1 of the General Plan EIR shows that the project site is
located within an MRZ-3 area and is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site. The project site
has a land use designation of High Density Residential and Recreation and is not planned for mineral
extraction use. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of a mineral resource recovery site as
delineated on a land use plan. No impacts would occur.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR Section 3.12 and Figure 3.12-1, Mineral Resource Zones)
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XIII. NOISE
A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Urban Crossroads (Appendix K) to
assess the project’s potential noise and vibration related impacts. The following analysis incorporates
information from the study.
California Building Code
The State of California’s interior noise standards for all new construction with habitable spaces are codified
in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Chapter
12, Section 1206. A habitable space in a building is defines as a space used for “living, sleeping, eating, or
cooking. The acceptable interior noise limit is 45 CNEL in all habitable rooms.
General Plan
The City’s General Plan Public Safety and Welfare Element includes a compatibility matrix (Table 3-1) to
determine if new land uses are compatible with the existing noise environment. The table identifies noise
environments that are less than 70 dBA CNEL to be normally compatible with residential uses.
Additionally, areas that have existing ambient noise levels above 75 dBA CNEL are considered clearly
incompatible with residential uses.
Municipal Code
Section 17.176.060, Exterior Noise Limits, identifies the maximum permissible sound levels by receiving
land use. For residential land use, the noise level limits for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours of
50 dBA L50 and 40 dBA L50 during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours for:
• a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any hour (L₅₀); or
• the standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour (L₂₅); or
• the standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour (L8); or
• the standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour (L2); or
• the standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (Lmax).
Municipal Code Section 17.176.060 for residential uses are detailed in Table N-1.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 91 of 122
Table N-1: Municipal Code Residential Exterior Noise Level Standards
Receiving Land Use Condition
Based Exterior Noise Level Standards (dBA)
L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax
(30 mins) (15 mins) (5 mins) (1 min) (Anytime)
Single-Family Residential Daytime 50 55 60 65 70
Nighttime 40 45 50 55 60
Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K.
Section 17.176.080.F, Construction/Demolition, states that the following is prohibited:
1. Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair,
alteration, or demolition work between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on
weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or
commercial real property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities or by variance
issued by the City.
2. Noise Restrictions at Affected Properties. Where technically and economically feasible, construction
activities shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum noise levels at affected residential
properties will not exceed those listed in the following schedule:
Mobile Equipment: Maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short‐term operation (less
than 10 days) of mobile equipment:
Type I Areas
Single‐Family
Residential
Type II Areas
Multifamily
Residential
Type III Areas
Semi‐Residential/
Commercial
Daily, except Sundays and Legal Holidays
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA
Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day
Sunday and Legal Holidays 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Stationary Equipment: Maximum noise levels for repetitively scheduled and relatively long‐term
operation (period of 10 days or more) of stationary equipment:
Type I Areas
Single‐Family
Residential
Type II Areas
Multifamily
Residential
Type III Areas
Semi‐Residential/
Commercial
Daily, except Sundays and Legal Holidays
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Daily,7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day
Sunday and Legal Holidays 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA
Section 17.176.080.G, Vibration, states that it is prohibited to operate any device that creates a vibration
which is above the vibration perception threshold of any individual at or beyond the property boundary of
the source if on private property or at 150 feet (46 meters) from the source if on public space or public
right-of-way.
However, the Municipal code does not define a quantitative vibration threshold. The Caltrans Construction
Vibration Manual defines the thresholds for readily or distinctly vibration levels for transient and
continuous vibration sources as 0.24 and 0.08 PPV in/sec, respectively. Many types of construction
activities fall between a single event and a continuous source. A vibration level of 0.16 PPV in/sec is the
middle point between 0.08 and 0.24 PPV in/sec. To be conservative a vibration level of 0.1 PPV in/sec is
used as the vibration threshold for construction to cover both short-term transient and continuous vibration
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 92 of 122
from construction activity.
Existing Noise Levels
As detailed in the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K), to identify the existing ambient noise level
environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at the project site on June 2, 2021. Piccolo
Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated
using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to
record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a
windscreen during all measurements.
The background ambient noise levels in the project area is dominated by the transportation-related noise
associated with the Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 and other local surface streets A description of
the locations and the existing noise levels are provided in Table N-2.
Table N-2: Summary of 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Measurement
Location Description
Energy Average
Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Daytime Nighttime
L1 North of the project site at 32900 Riverside Drive in the mobile home
park. 47.4 43.0
L2 Southeast of the project site near a single-family residence at 15524
Grand Avenue. 59.4 57.6
L3 South of the project site near a single-family residence located at
33027 Hill Street. 62.9 60.7
L4 North of the project site near the mobile-home park located at 32900
Riverside Drive. 61.1 58.0
L5 North of the project site near the mobile-home park located at 32900
Riverside Drive. 52.0 46.2
Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K.
Sensitive Receivers
Sensitive receivers are defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound
could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land, including: residences, schools, hospitals, churches,
libraries, and recreation areas. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing residences
that are as close as 37 feet north of the project site, as shown on Figure N-2.
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
The construction noise from the proposed project would occur throughout various portions of the project
site over a 40-month period. Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of
trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels.
Construction is expected to occur in the following stages: demolition, site preparation, grading, building
construction, architectural coating, paving. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment range
from approximately 67 dBA to 79 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source, as shown on Table N-3.
However, per Municipal Code Section 17.176.080, included as PPP N-1, construction activities are
prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on weekend or on holidays. The
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 93 of 122
Figure N-1: Noise Measurement Locations
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 94 of 122
Figure N-2: Sensitive Receiver Locations
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 95 of 122
construction activities would be in compliance with the City’s construction related noise standards.
Therefore, the construction noise would be limited. In addition, construction noise would be temporary in
nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the
construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. The typical operating cycle for a
piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or
four minutes at lower power settings. The construction equipment would include a combination of trucks,
power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators.
Table N-3: Construction Reference Noise Levels
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Highest Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 77
77 Hauling Trucks 71
Rubber Tired Dozers 71
Grading
Graders 79
79 Excavators 64
Compactors 67
Building
Construction
Cranes 67
72 Tractors 72
Welders 65
Paving
Pavers 70
70 Paving Equipment 69
Rollers 69
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 67
67 Air Compressors 67
Generator Sets 67
Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K.
The calculated noise from construction equipment was attenuated to the sensitive receiver locations. As
shown on Table N-4 the construction noise levels are expected to range from 39.9 to 60.9 dBA Leq, and
the highest construction levels are expected to range from 51.9 to 60.9 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver
locations. This is below the allowable construction noise level of 75 dBA in residential areas per Municipal
Code Section 17.167.080(f). Therefore, noise impacts related to construction activities would be less than
significant.
Table N-4: Project Construction Noise Levels At Receivers
Receiver
Location
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction Paving Architectural
Coating
Highest
Levels
R1 52.9 58.9 60.9 53.9 51.9 48.9 60.9
R2 43.9 49.9 51.9 44.9 42.9 39.9 51.9
R3 47.9 53.9 55.9 48.9 46.9 43.9 55.9
R4 46.2 52.2 54.2 47.2 45.2 42.2 54.2
R5 51.7 57.7 59.7 52.7 50.7 47.7 59.7
Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 96 of 122
Operation
Consistency with Residential Noise Standards. Although CEQA analysis is to evaluate the project’s
potential impact on the environment, the following evaluation is provided to show that development of the
project would not result an inconsistency (or non-compliance) with noise standards related to residential
uses.
As described previously, the project site is located along Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 which
generates the ambient noise on the project site. To reduce the onsite and residential interior noise from
vehicular noise from the adjacent roadway the project includes development of an 8-foot-high concrete
masonry wall along the project site frontage of Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 and the following
noise abatement design features on Lots 1 through 32:
• Windows & Glass Doors: Windows and glass doors would be well-fitted, well-weather-stripped
assemblies and shall have minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 27.
• Exterior Doors: All exterior doors facing Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 would be well-fitted,
well-weather stripped, and have minimum STC ratings of 27.
• Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall
and pipes, ducts, or conduits would be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. All
exterior wall assemblies facing Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 shall have a minimum STC
rating of 46.
• Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked
plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the
attic space.
• Ceilings: Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or constructed of well-sealed gypsum
board of at least one-half inch thick.
• Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can
be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system
(e.g., air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g., fresh air supply) shall be provided which
satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
Exterior Noise. As shown on Table N-5, exterior noise levels at adjacent residences with the 6-foot-high
wall would range from 52.5 to 61.7 dBA CNEL, which is identified as normally compatible with residential
uses by the City’s General Plan.
Table N-5: Exterior Noise Level Reduction From 6-Foot-High Wall
Lot
Noise Level
Without Wall (dBA
CNEL)
Noise Level With
Wall (dBA CNEL)
1 69.7 59.2
9 69.7 61.2
15 69.6 58.8
22 69.6 61.1
25 69.6 61.3
31 57.7 61.7
A 52.5 52.5
Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K.
Interior Noise. Typical building construction provides a noise reduction of approximately 12 dBA with
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 97 of 122
"windows open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." Table N-6 shows that
exterior noise levels at the first-floor building façade are expected to range from 59.9 to 62.2 dBA CNEL,
and Table N-7 shows that noise levels at the second-floor building façade are expected to range from 58.7
to 69.3 dBA CNEL. As detailed in both tables, with implementation of the proposed project design,
including noise reduction features, the interior noise levels would not exceed the 45 dBA CNEL with
windows-closed interior noise standard. Therefore, the proposed project has been designed to be consistent
with the City’s noise standards, and no impacts related to noise standard compliance would occur.
Table N-6: First Floor Interior Noise Levels
Lot Noise Level at
Façade1
Required Interior Noise
Reduction2
Interior Noise
Reduction3
Upgraded
Windows4
Interior Noise
Level5
1 59.9 -14.9 25 No 34.9
9 61.5 -16.5 25 No 36.5
15 61.2 -16.2 25 No 36.2
22 61.5 -16.5 25 No 36.5
25 61.7 -16.7 25 No 36.7
31 62.2 -17.2 25 No 37.2
Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K.
1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air
conditioning).
2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards.
3 Minimum interior noise reduction
4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27?
5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows.
Table N-7: Second Floor Interior Noise Levels
Lot Noise Level at
Façade1
Required Interior Noise
Reduction2
Interior Noise
Reduction3
Upgraded
Windows4
Interior Noise
Level5
1 69.3 -24.3 25 No 44.3
9 68.9 -23.9 25 No 43.9
15 63.8 -18.8 25 No 38.8
22 68.9 -23.9 25 No 43.9
25 62.8 -17.8 25 No 37.8
31 58.7 -13.7 25 No 33.7
Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K.
1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning).
2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards.
3 Minimum interior noise reduction
4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27?
5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows.
Project Traffic Generated Noise. Development of the proposed project would result in 140 residences,
which would generate approximately 1,322 daily vehicular trips; of which 104 would occur in the a.m. peak
hour and 139 would occur in the p.m. peak hour. The noise generated from these vehicular trips has been
identified through utilization of the FHWA Roadway Noise Model, and a comparison of noise generated
by traffic volumes with and without the project is provided in Table N-8.
Neither the General Plan or Municipal Code quantifies what constitutes a significant increase in ambient
noise. Therefore, thresholds from the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) have been utilized,
which identifies noise impacts by comparing the existing noise levels and the future noise levels with the
proposed project. Based on the FICON guidance, a substantial increase in ambient noise from vehicular
traffic could occur when the noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses (e.g. residential, etc.) are less than 60
dBA CNEL and the project creates an increase of 5 dBA CNEL or greater noise level increase; when noise
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 98 of 122
levels range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL and the project creates 3 dBA CNEL or greater noise level increase;
or when noise levels are above 65 dBA CNEL and the project creates a 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater noise
level increase.
As shown in Table N-8, without the project traffic in the opening year, would range from 71.1 to 72.7 dBA
CNEL. With inclusion of project traffic, noise levels would range from range from 71.3 to 72.9 dBA CNEL,
which is an increase of 0.1 to 0.3 dBA CNEL, which is less than the 1.5 dBA CNEL threshold. Therefore,
impacts related to operational traffic noise would be less than significant.
Table N-8: Project Generated Traffic Noise in the Opening Year Condition
ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving Land Use
(dBA)2
Incremental Noise Level
Increase
No
Project
With
Project Change Threshold Exceeded?
1 Riverside
Dr Lincoln St to Lakeshore Dr 71.8 72.0 0.1 1.5 No
2 Riverside
Dr
Lakeside HS Stadium Way
to Lincoln St 71.1 71.3 0.2 1.5 No
3 Riverside
Dr
Grand Ave to Lakeside HS
Stadium Way 72.2 72.4 0.2 1.5 No
4 Grand Ave Jamieson St to Grand Ave 72.7 72.9 0.3 1.5 No
Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K.
(Sources: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K)
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than
Significant Impact.)
Construction
Construction activities for development of the project would include demolition, excavation, and grading
activities, which have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. People residing in close
proximity to the construction could be exposed to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. The results from vibration can range from no
perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at
moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Site ground vibrations from construction
activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can be perceived in the audible
range and be felt in buildings very close to a construction site. The reference vibration levels provided by
the FTA show that a large bulldozer results in a velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet, as shown in Table
N-9.
Table N-9: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K.
Table N-10 provides the modeled construction equipment vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations.
At distances ranging from 37 feet to 318 feet from the project site boundary, construction vibration levels
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 99 of 122
would range from 0.005 to 0.049 in/sec PPV, which is below the threshold of 0.1 in/sec PPV. Therefore,
construction related vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Table N-10: Project Construction Equipment Vibration at Receiver Locations
Receiver
Location1
Distance
to
Const.
Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded? Small
bulldozer
Jack-
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 41' 0.001 0.017 0.036 0.042 0.042 0.1 No
R2 318' 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.1 No
R3 110' 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.010 0.010 0.1 No
R4 103' 0.000 0.004 0.009 0.011 0.011 0.1 No
R5 37' 0.002 0.019 0.042 0.049 0.049 0.1 No
Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K
(Sources: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K)
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? (No
Impact.)
The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan. The
closest airport is the Skylark Field located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the project site. As such,
the project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and no impacts
would occur.
(Sources: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K)
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce the potential for impacts related noise:
PPP N-1: Construction Hours. The project shall comply with Municipal Code Section 17.176.080, that
prohibits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on weekend or
on holidays.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix X)
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.)
The proposed project would construct 140 two-story condominium residences and the associated amenities
and infrastructure on the project site and preserve 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake as natural
open space. The California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of Lake Elsinore has a
residential population of 64,762 and 19,306 housing units in 2021. The Lake Elsinore General Plan Update
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 100 of 122
EIR (GPU EIR) details that the City has an average of 3.27 persons per household. Furthermore, the GPU
EIR details that by 2030 the population in the City is projected to be approximately 85,376 and the City
would have approximately 28,704 housing units.
Based on this information, the proposed 140 condominiums would result in a net increase of approximately
458 new residents. The addition of 458 new residents would represent a population increase of 0.7 percent
and the new housing units would result in a 0.7 percent increase in residential units within the City.
Additionally, the proposed population and housing unit increase would be within the projected population
and housing stock as analyzed by the GPU EIR. Furthermore, the proposed project is located in an urbanized
area of the City, is surrounded by residential and urban uses, and is already served by the existing roadways
and infrastructure systems. No infrastructure would be extended or constructed to serve areas beyond the
project site, and indirect impacts related to growth would not occur from implementation of the proposed
project. Therefore, potential impacts related to inducement of unplanned population growth, either directly
or indirectly, would be less than significant.
(Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR, August 2011; California Department of
Finance, Population and Housing Estimates, September 2021,
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact.)
The project site is generally undeveloped and vacant. The site does not include any existing housing and
no people are located onsite. Therefore, the project would not displace any people or housing, and no
impacts 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:
a) Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact.
The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection services throughout the City. The Fire
Department has four fire stations within 5.5 roadway miles of the project site, as listed in Table PS-1.
Table PS-1: Fire Stations Serving Project
Station Address Distance from Site
(roadway miles)
#85 29405 Grand Avenue Lake
Elsinore, CA 92530
2.4 miles
#11 33020 Maiden Lane Lake
Elsinore, CA 92530
3.1 miles
#10 410 W. Graham Ave Lake
Elsinore, CA 92530
4.0 miles
#97 41725 Rosetta Canyon Dr,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
5.4 miles
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 101 of 122
The proposed project would develop 140 two-story condominium residences and the associated amenities
and infrastructure within the site. Implementation of the project would be required to adhere to the
California Fire Code, as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56. As part of the permitting
process the project plans would be reviewed by the City’s Building and Safety Division to ensure that
project plans meet the fire protection requirements.
Due to the increase in onsite people that would occur from implementation of the project, an incremental
increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would occur. However, the increase
in residents onsite is limited (458 residents) and would not increase demands such that the four fire stations
would not be able to accommodate servicing the project in addition to its existing commitments.
Furthermore, per the Riverside County Fire Department Master Plan, the City falls into the Urban category
(GPU EIR). This classification requires a fire station be within three roadway miles of the project site and
has a response time goal of 7 minutes. As shown in Table PS-1, Riverside County Fire Department Station
85 is approximately 2.4 roadway miles from the site. Based on the travel distance from the station to the
site, the approximate response time would be six minutes. As such, per the Riverside County Fire
Department Master Plan, the project site would have adequate fire service. Provision of a new or physically
altered fire station would not be required that could cause environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts
related to fire protection services from the proposed project would be less than significant.
(Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; Riverside
County Fire Department)
b) Police protection? Less than Significant Impact.
The City of Lake Elsinore contracts with the County of Riverside Sheriff’s Department for police services.
The Sheriff Station serving the project area is the Lake Elsinore Station, located at 333 W. Limited Avenue,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. The Station is located approximately 4.2 roadway miles from the project site.
The City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Operating Budget describes that the City has 52.7399 sworn officers and
5 community service officers. The California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of
Lake Elsinore has a residential population of 64,762 in 2021. Therefore, the City currently has
approximately 1.2 officer per 1,000 residents.
Because the project site is currently vacant, development of the proposed 140 residences would result in an
incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services. However, the increase would not be
significant when compared to current demand levels. As described previously, the residential population of
the project site at full occupancy would be approximately 458 residents. Based on the current staffing ratio
of 1.2 officers for every 1,000 residents, the proposed project would require 0.55 percent of an additional
officer. This additional staffing would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing
policing facilities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, which
requires a development impact fee (DIF) payment to the City for impacts to public services and facilities,
including sheriff facilities and services. Payment of the DIF fee would ensure that funds are available for
either the purchase of new equipment and/or the hiring of additional sheriff personnel to maintain the
County’s desired level of service for sheriff protection. Impacts related to police services would be less
than significant.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore FY 2020-2021 Annual Operating Budget, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=27115; California Department of Finance, Population and Housing
Estimates, September 2021, https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/; Lake
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 102 of 122
Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; Riverside County Sheriff’s
Department, https://www.riversidesheriff.org/743/Lake-Elsinore-Station)
c) Schools? Less than Significant Impact.
The project site is located within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) that is comprised of
13 elementary schools, 2 K-8 schools, 4 middle schools, and 3 high schools. The schools that serve the site
are listed below:
• Lakeland Village K8 located at 18730 Grand Avenue Lake Elsinore, approximately 4.8 roadway
miles from the project site. Lakeside Village K8 has a capacity of approximately 1,300 students.
• Lakeside High School located at 32593 Riverside Drive Lake Elsinore, approximately 0.5 mile
from the project site. Lakeside High School has a capacity of 3,363 students.
The project would develop 140 condominiums. The LEUSD student generation rate is 0.28 students per
dwelling unit for elementary school; 0.15 students per dwelling unit for middle school; and 0.20 students
per dwelling unit for high school. Based on the existing capacity of the schools serving the project site, both
schools would be able to serve the project, as shown in Table PS-2.
Table PS-2: School Capacity and Project Generated Students
School School
Capacity
2019-2020
Enrollment1
Existing
Remaining
Capacity
Students
Generated by
Project
Remaining
Capacity with
Project
Lakeland
Village K8
1,300 909 391 40 351
Lakeside High
School
3,363 1,806 1,557 28 1,529
1Source: Lake Elsinore Unified School District, School Accountability Report Cards
Additionally, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities
is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of
1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local
jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess
of fees set forth in the Government Code. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance
of building permits for development projects. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants
shall pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued;
and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts. As a result,
impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant with the Government Code required fee
payments.
(Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; Lake Elsinore
Unified School District, https://www.leusd.k12.ca.us/)
d) Parks? Less than Significant Impact.
As of 2011, the City of Lake Elsinore had approximately 559 acres of developed parks and open space
within the City. There are 16 existing park facilities totaling approximately 125.1 acres and four recreational
facilities totaling 21,000 square feet. The parks closest to the project site include the following:
• McVicker Canyon Park located at 29355 McVicker Canyon Park Rd, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530,
approximately 2.7 roadway miles from the project site. This park includes baseball fields, soccer
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 103 of 122
fields, play equipment, picnic areas, barbecues, and pedestrian walkways.
• Machado Park located at 15150 Joy St, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, approximately 1.8 miles from
the project site. This park includes volleyball courts, tennis courts, play equipment, picnic areas,
barbecues, and pedestrian walkways.
The proposed project would develop 140 two-story condominium residences and the associated amenities
and infrastructure on the site, and 15.65 acres of the site that is adjacent to the lake would be preserved as
natural open space. Additionally, the project would provide 0.77 acres of recreational space for future
residents. The City’s Municipal Code Section 17.84.120 provides park requirements that are based on the
number of dwelling units. Based on the Code’s requirement of 250 square feet of common open space per
unit, the project would require 35,000 square feet or 0.80 acres of common open space. Therefore, a large
majority of the project’s park demand would be met by the provision of the onsite park. In addition, the
project would be required to pay parkland fees pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.12.170, as a
condition of the approval of a tentative map (included as PPP PS-2), which would be used by the City for
public purposes and facilities to the benefit of the public and the residents of the City. Also, as described
previously, the City currently has over 125.1 acres of park facilities, including two parks within 3 miles of
the project site. Therefore, impacts related to the need to provide new or altered park and recreation facilities
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios would be less than significant.
Further, the impacts of development of the proposed 0.77-acre recreation areas are considered part of the
impacts of the proposed project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this MND.
For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the park are analyzed
in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation sections.
(Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011)
e) Other public services/facilities? Less than Significant Impact.
The proposed project would redevelop a portion of the project site with 140 condominium units within an
area that already contains multi-family residential. The additional residences would result in a limited
incremental increase in the need for additional services, such as public libraries and post offices, etc.
Because the project area is already served by other services and the project would result in a limited increase
in residences, the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide
other services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
(Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011)
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce impacts to school facilities from the proposed project:
PPP PS-1: Schools Development Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of building permit, the project shall pay
applicable development fees levied by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District pursuant to the School
Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.407).
PPP PS-2: Park Fees. As a condition of the approval of a tentative map, the project shall pay applicable
park related fees pursuant to Municipal Code 19.12.170.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 104 of 122
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 accelerated? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
As described previously, the project would develop 140 condominium units and 0.77 acre of recreation area
with a pool/spa, open passive recreation area, barbecue, tot lot and other amenities. The City’s Municipal
Code Section 17.84.120 provides park requirements that are based on the number of dwelling units. Based
on the Code’s requirement of 250 square feet of common open space per unit, the project would require
35,000 square feet or 0.80 acres of common open space. Therefore, a large majority of the project’s park
demand would be met by the provision of the onsite recreation area. In addition, the project would be
required to pay parkland fees pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.12.170, as a condition of the approval
of a tentative map (included as PPP PS-2), which would be used by the City for public purposes and
facilities to the benefit of the public and the residents of the City. Also, as described previously, the City
currently has over 125.1 acres of park facilities, including two parks within 3 miles of the project site.
Therefore, impacts related to the increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, such that
physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated would be less than significant.
(Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; City of Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code)
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? (Less
Than Significant Impact.)
As described above, the project includes 0.77 acre of recreation space that includes a pool/spa, passive
recreation area, barbecue area, tot lot, and other amenities. The impacts of development of the recreation
areas are considered part of the impacts of the proposed project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the
various sections of this MND. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as
required for the park are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation
Sections.
In addition, while the project would contribute development impact fees pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 19.12.170 (included as PPP PS-2) to be used towards the future expansion or maintenance of parks
and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development, and the proposed
project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.
(Sources: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; City of Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code)
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirement would reduce impacts to recreation facilities from the proposed project:
PPP PS-2: Park Fees. Listed previously in Section 15, Public Services.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 105 of 122
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
This section is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Fehr and
Peers (Appendix L). The project’s vehicular trips were calculated using the Trip Generation Manual, 10th
Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017).
Traffic Threshold
The City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide identifies LOS C as the target for
intersection operations. However, LOS D is allowed in community development areas at intersections with
any combination of secondary highways, major highways, arterials, urban arterials, expressways,
conventional state highways or at freeway ramp intersections. Based on the classifications of the study area
roadways, the intersections of SR-74 & Grand Avenue (Intersection 2), SR-74 & Lincoln Street
(Intersection 4), and SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive (Intersection 5) are applicable to the criteria of LOS D and
the remaining intersections (Intersections 1 and 3) are applicable to the criteria of LOS C. However,
automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measure of traffic congestion, is no longer
considered a significant impact under CEQA, except in locations specifically identified in the Guidelines.
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21099(b)(2).) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 - Determining the Significance
of Transportation Impacts states that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of
transportation impacts and provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate
methodology and thresholds for evaluating VMT. Thus, the LOS analysis using a threshold of LOS D is
provided to describe the project effect on local intersections and project consistency with the General Plan
circulation requirement.
Traffic Study Area and Existing Conditions
The following five intersections were evaluated for impacts related to the project:
1. SR-74 & Jamieson Street/Project Driveway (Unsignalized)
2. SR-74 & Grand Avenue (Signalized)
3. SR-74 & Lakeside High School Stadium Way (Signalized)
4. SR-74 & Lincoln Street (Signalized)
5. SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive (Signalized)
As shown in Table T-1, two of the intersections currently operate at LOS E or F during either the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours, which is considered an unsatisfactory condition per City criteria.
Table T-1: Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service
Intersection Control Peak Hour Delay LOS
1 SR-74 & Jamieson Street TWSC AM 40 E
PM 53 F
2 SR-74 & Grand Avenue Signal AM 13 B
PM 11 B
3 SR-74 & Lakeside High
School Stadium Way
Signal AM 13 B
PM 7 A
4 SR-74 & Lincoln Street Signal AM 70 E
PM 30 C
5 SR-74 & Lakeshore
Drive
Signal AM 40 D
PM 37 D
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L
Bold type indicates an unacceptable LOS
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 106 of 122
Poor operations at the Riverside Drive/SR-74 and Lincoln intersection are due to high turning movement
volumes, particularly the southbound left-turn during the AM peak hour. Poor operations at the Riverside
Drive/SR-74 and Jamieson Street intersection are a result of delay experienced by vehicles turning onto
Riverside Drive/SR-74 from Jamieson Street that have few gaps in traffic due to the high volume on
Riverside Drive/SR-74.
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 would develop the project site with 140 residences and recreation/open space
facilities. The trip generation for the project was calculated using trip rates from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 10th Edition, 2017. As shown in Table T-2, the project would
generate approximately 1,322 daily trips including 104 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 139 trips during
the p.m. peak hour.
Table T-2: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units ITE Code
Peak Hour
Daily
AM PM
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Single-Family Residences DU 210 25% 75% 0.74 63% 37% 0.99 9.44
Project Trip Generation
Single-Family Residences 140 26 78 104 88 51 139 1,322
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L
Opening Year Plus Project Cumulative Condition
The project includes widening Riverside Drive / SR-74 to two lanes along the project frontage and
construction of a median to prohibit left-turns onto Riverside Drive / SR-74 from the project site and
Jamieson Street. This median would restrict left-turns onto Riverside Drive / SR-74 from Jamieson Street.
Left-turns from Jamieson Street to Riverside Drive / SR-74 would use Laguna Avenue and Grand Avenue
to make a left-turn at the signalized intersection of Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive / SR-74.
An intersection operations analysis was conducted for the study area to evaluate the opening year plus
project a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions with operation of the proposed project and cumulative projects.
The opening year traffic forecasts were developed by applying an annual growth rate of 2% to 2021 traffic
volumes. As the proposed project is expected to be complete by 2023, two years of growth was applied to
existing counts and the project generated trips, and the cumulative projects’ generated trips.
Although Table T-1 shows that two of the intersections currently operate at LOS E or F during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours, the opening year plus project scenario shown in Table T-3, includes traffic signal timing
adjustments to improve the performance of the roadway. Traffic signal timing adjustments are considered
standard maintenance for local and state agencies, and it is assumed that signal timing would be regularly
optimized based on traffic volumes. The modeling held cycle lengths constant while optimizing intersection
splits (e.g. timing allocated to each turning movement) to reflect standard maintenance. With these
adjustments and addition of project and cumulative project traffic, the intersections would experience an
improvement in delay compared to existing conditions.
As shown in Table T-3, the intersections of SR-74 & Lincoln Street and SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive would
operate below the LOS standard in the cumulative with project condition. Signal timing improvements
including cycle length optimization and optimized splits would improve operations at these two
intersections; however, LOS E conditions would continue to occur at the SR-74 & Lincoln Street
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 107 of 122
intersection during both peak hours and at the SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive intersection in the p.m. peak hour.
To provide for optimum traffic flow conditions, a Condition of Approval COA T-1 has been included to
require the project to be responsible for a 26% fair share contribution toward implementation of the timing
improvements along SR-74 to adjust cycle lengths along the roadway corridor. At the SR-74 & Lakeshore
Drive intersection, signal timing optimization would result in a 6 second decrease in delay. However, this
continues to result in LOS E operations. The project would be responsible for a 17% fair share contribution
toward the implementation of the timing improvements at the SR-74 & Lakeshore Drive intersection.
Table T-3: Opening Year Plus Project Peak Hour Level of Service
Intersection Control Peak Hour Delay LOS
1 SR-74 & Jamieson Street TWSC AM 22 C
PM 17 C
2 SR-74 & Grand Avenue Signal AM 16 B
PM 13 B
3 SR-74 & Lakeside High
School Stadium Way
Signal AM 14 B
PM 7 A
4 SR-74 & Lincoln Street Signal AM 59 E
PM 59 E
5 SR-74 & Lakeshore
Drive
Signal AM 45 D
PM 58 E
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L
Transit Services. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides 36 local fixed-routes services that connect
local communities, nine Commuter Link express bus routes, and a Rapid Link Gold Line for long-distance
commuters traveling to Metrolink, Coaster and Sprinter stations, business parks, shopping malls and
regional transit facilities. Bus routes that run through the City include RTA routes 8, 9, 22, 40, 205/206 that
serve major destinations in the region.
RTA Route 8 is the closest to the project site, and stops at Lakeside High School Stadium Way and at Grand
Avenue. Route 8 runs from the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center south to Wildomar. It operates Monday through
Friday from 4:40 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on weekends from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with one-hour headways.
These existing transit services would serve project residents. The proposed 140 residences units would not
alter or conflict with existing transit stops and schedules, and impacts related to transit services would not
occur.
Bicycle Circulation. Class II bicycle facilities are striped lanes that provide bike travel and can be located
next to a curb or parking lane and vary between 4 and 5 feet wide. There is an existing Class II bicycle
facility on Riverside Drive/SR-74 adjacent to the project site. There are no existing bicycle facilities on
Grand Avenue, Lakeside High School Stadium Way, Lincoln Street, or Lakeshore Drive. However, the
City of Lake Elsinore General Plan includes development of Class II bike facilities on Grand Avenue,
Lincoln Street, and Lakeshore Drive.
The proposed project includes roadway improvements to Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 that would
add Class II bike facilities. The existing and proposed bicycle lanes would provide bicycle transportation
opportunities for residents of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would enhance, and not conflict
with, existing bicycle facilities. Thus, impacts related to bicycle facilities would not occur from the project
Pedestrian Facilities. The only existing sidewalks near the project site are located on the south side of
Riverside Drive west of Lakeshore High School Stadium Way to Joy Street and with gaps to Lakeshore
Drive. Striped pedestrian crossings are currently located on Riverside Drive at Lakeshore High School
Stadium Way, Lincoln Street, Grand Avenue, and Lakeshore Drive.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 108 of 122
The proposed onsite roadway system includes sidewalks throughout the project site that would connect to
the offsite sidewalks. This would facilitate pedestrian use and walking to nearby locations. Therefore, the
proposed project would improve, and not conflict with, pedestrian facilities. Thus, impacts related to
pedestrian facilities would not occur.
(Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L)
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for
evaluating transportation impacts. SB743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land
uses. The bill also specified that delay-based level of service could no longer be considered an indicator of
a significant impact on the environment. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines
beginning January 1, 2019. Section 15064.3(c) states that the provisions of the section shall apply statewide
beginning on July 1, 2020.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 - Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts states that
VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and provides lead agencies with the
discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for evaluating VMT. The City of
Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service
Assessment (June 2020) provides the following VMT screening criteria from Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG) to assess the potential for VMT impacts:
1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: Projects which are located within a TPA are presumed to
have a less than significant impact on VMT.
2. Low VMT Area Screening: This screening threshold applies to residential or office projects that are
located within a low VMT-generating area, which are identified by WRCOG as traffic analysis zones
(TAZ) where total daily VMT per service population performs at or below the jurisdictional average
of total VMT per service population under base year (2012) conditions. Projects which are located
within a low VMT-generating area are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.
3. Project Type Screening: Local serving projects listed in the TIA Guidelines and projects that generate
fewer than 110 net new daily vehicle trips (or 11 single-family residences) are presumed to have a
less than significant impact on VMT.
A VMT analysis was prepared for the project (Appendix M) using the web-based VMT screening tool
developed by WRCOG that is used by the City. The screening tool identified that the TAZ that the project
site is located within has a daily total VMT of 28.23 per service population, which is lower than the
jurisdictional average 2012 daily VMT of 36.29 per service population. In addition, the TAZ that the project
site is located within has a residential home based VMT of 14.42 per capita, which is lower than the
jurisdictional average 2012 daily VMT of 18.63 per capita. Based on the City’s screening thresholds, the
proposed project is within a low VMT-generating area, and would therefore, have a less than significant
impact on VMT.
(Sources: VMT Analysis Memorandum, Appendix M)
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.)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 109 of 122
The project includes development of residences and recreation facilities and open space. The project
includes community type uses and does not include any incompatible uses, such as farm equipment. The
proposed project would be accessed from Grand Avenue/SR-74 through gated driveways that have been
designed to City standards that would be verified during construction permitting. The proposed onsite
roadways would provide access to each residence. The Transportation Impact Analysis prepared a queueing
analysis of the project driveway during both peak hours to confirm that adequate capacity would be
provided for vehicles exiting the project site. The analysis identified that a maximum queue based on peak
hour traffic volumes is expected to be four vehicles, which can be accommodated by the proposed design
without affecting circulation. With the project improvements to Riverside Drive / SR-74, project trips
traveling west on Riverside Drive / SR-74 would need to make a U-turn at the Grand Avenue intersection.
The Transportation Impact Analysis details that there is 50 feet of space between the left edge of the left-
turn pocket and the outside curb of the receiving lane. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) turning templates note a minimum 32-feet of distance to allow for U-
turns of a passenger car and our professional experience has identified that 36-feet is more appropriate to
account for longer wheel-based vehicles (such as pickup trucks and SUVs. The 50 feet of available space
is sufficient to serve vehicles making a U-turn to travel west on Riverside Drive / SR-74. Therefore, the
project would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature. All of the onsite streets would be
developed in conformance with City design standards. The City’s construction permitting process includes
review of project plans to ensure that no potentially hazardous transportation design features would be
introduced by the project. For example, the design of the project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire
engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related
to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.
(Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L)
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less Than Significant Impact.)
Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur
within the project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the project site or adjacent
areas. The installation of the driveway, and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be
implemented during construction of the proposed project would require the temporary closure of one lane
of Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. However, the construction activities would be required to ensure
emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of
Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation
of the project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and
would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level.
Operation
As described previously, the proposed project area would be accessed from a driveway along Grand
Avenue/SR-74 through the onsite streets to each residence. The design and permitting of these roadways
would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the project are and would provide more
than one route for emergency responders to access different portions of the project area. Because the project
is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City potential impacts related to
inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.
(Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L)
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce the potential for impacts related to transportation:
PPP HAZ-1: Fire Code. The project shall conform to the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 110 of 122
of Regulations, Part 9), as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56, Fire Code. Specifically,
Section 503 of the California Fire Code provides regulations related to emergency access.
Condition of Approval
The following Condition of Approval is required by the City as part of implementation of the project to
assist in meeting the City’s LOS requirements.
COA T-1: Prior to certificate of occupancies are granted, the project applicant shall provide a 24% fair
share contribution toward implementation of traffic signal timing improvements along SR-74 to adjust cycle
lengths along the project study area corridor (SR-74 between Jamieson Street and Lakeshore Drive) to
improve the function of the roadway system with implementation of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L)
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section is based on the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project by Brian F. Smith
and Associates, Inc. (Appendix C). The Cultural Resources Study includes a records search, Sacred Land
File search, historic archival research, and a field survey.
AB 52 Requirements
The project would be required to comply with AB 52 regarding tribal consultation. Chapter 532, Statutes
of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural
resources.” Such resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California
Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC Section 21074). AB 52 also gives Lead
Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource falling outside
the definition stated above nonetheless qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.”
In compliance with these requirements, on June 30, 2021, the City sent letters to the following Native
American tribes that may have knowledge regarding tribal cultural resources in the project vicinity.
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
• Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, and the
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested formal government-to-government consultation under AB 52.
The City held consultation meetings with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians on August 16, 2021, with
the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on September 1, 2021, and with the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
on September 16, 2021. Consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians concluded on September 9,
2021. Consultation with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians is
ongoing.
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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 111 of 122
As detailed previously in Section V, Cultural Resources, the project site does not include any resources
that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources. However, the records search for the project identified resources within 0.25-mile of
the project site that include prehistoric habitation sites, and the site’s location next to the lake provides
potential for the site to be used previously by tribes; and therefore, may contain tribal cultural resources.
Additionally, the Cultural Resources Study includes a search of the Sacred Lands File from the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or
locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within the project. The search results were
positive for sacred, religious, or ceremonial sites within the area surrounding the project. Therefore, to
ensure that potential impacts to unknown resources are limited to a less than significant level, Mitigation
Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 are included to ensure that any potential disturbance to buried tribal
cultural resources during the grading and/or construction phases of the project is reduced to a less than
significant level.
(Sources: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C)
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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.)
As described in the previous response, no known tribal cultural resources are known to exist on the project
site. However, the records search for the project identified prehistoric habitation sites within 0.25-mile of
the project, the site’s location next to the lake provides potential for the site to be used previously by tribes;
and the Sacred Lands File from the NAHC were positive for sacred, religious, or ceremonial sites within
the area surrounding the project. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure
CUL-7 are included to ensure that any potential disturbance to buried tribal cultural resources during the
grading and/or construction phases of the project is reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7. Listed previously in Section V, Cultural Resources.
(Sources: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C)
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.
Water Infrastructure. The proposed project would redevelop the project site, which is served by Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). Water is not currently provided to the project site as it is
vacant. The proposed project would install onsite 8-inch water lines that would be located within each of
the residential streets and serve each of the proposed residences. The project would also install a new 8-
inch water line within the Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 right-of-way along the project frontage
and within Grand Avenue that would connect to the existing 32-inch water line at the intersection of
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 112 of 122
Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue and to the existing 14-inch water line within Grand Avenue/Riverside
Drive/SR-74. The new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed residences and
landscaping through plumbing/landscape features that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code for
efficient use of water. The proposed offsite water lines would be sized to serve the proposed project.
Installation of the new water distribution lines within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 and Grand
Avenue would only serve to connect the proposed project to the existing system and would not provide new
water supplies to any off-site areas.
The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the
proposed residences and associated open space areas is included as part of the proposed project and would
not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example,
construction emissions for excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections III,
Air Quality and VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the
construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Wastewater Infrastructure. EVMWD provides wastewater treatment services to the project site via a 10-
inch sewer line within Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. The project would install an 8-inch sewer
line that would be located within each of the residential streets and serve each of the proposed residences.
The new 8-inch sewer line would extend approximately 700 feet offsite from the northern portion of the
project site to connect with the existing offsite 10-inch sewer line within the within Grand Avenue/Riverside
Drive/SR-74 right-of-way. The proposed sewer lines would be sized to serve the proposed project.
Installation of the new lines in Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74 would only serve the proposed project
and would not provide sewer service to any off-site areas.
The construction activities related to installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve the
proposed project, is included as part of the proposed project and would not result in any physical
environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, construction emissions
for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is included in Section III, Air Quality and VIII,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section XIII, Noise.
As the proposed project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the
need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage. The project includes installation of an onsite stormwater drainage system with a
1.33-acre water quality basin to be located along the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the preserved
natural open space area. The construction activities related to installation of onsite stormwater drainage that
would serve the proposed project, is included as part of the proposed project and would not result in any
physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, construction
emissions for excavation and installation of the stormwater infrastructure is included in Section III, Air
Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, drainage changes are analyzed in Section X, Hydrology and
Water Quality, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section XIII, Noise. As the
proposed project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for
construction of other new stormwater drainage facilities or expansions, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Electricity, Natural Gas, & Telecommunications. Southern California Edison provides electricity to the
project site via overhead lines on Grand Avenue/Riverside Drive/SR-74. Southern California Gas Company
provides natural gas to the project site via a 4-inch underground gas line in Grand Avenue/Riverside
Drive/SR-74. Spectrum provides telephone service to the project site and Cox Communications provides
cable and internet to the project site.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 113 of 122
The proposed project would install onsite infrastructure that would connect to the existing service systems.
In addition, the project includes removal of the existing utility poles along Grand Avenue/Riverside
Drive/SR-74 fronting the project site and undergrounding these dry utilities. The construction activities
related to installation of onsite electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications that would serve the
proposed project, is included as part of the proposed project and would not result in any physical
environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, construction emissions
for excavation and installation of the infrastructure is included in Section III, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section XIII, Noise. As the
proposed project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for
construction of other new infrastructure facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(Sources: Project Site Plans)
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
The proposed project would result in an increased demand for water supplies from the 140 residential units.
The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
details that in 2020 the water demand in the City for residential uses was 129 gallons per day per capita,
which was below the water use target of 188.6 gallons per day per capita. To provide a conservative estimate
of project water use, a generation rate of 188.6 gallons per capita per day was used to estimate water demand
from the proposed project. As described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed project
would result in 458 additional residents at full occupancy. Based on the City’s 2020 water use target of
188.6 gallons per capita per day, the 458 additional residents would generate a water demand of 86,379
gallons per day (96.8 acre-feet per year). The project would limit water demand by inclusion of low-flow
plumbing and irrigation fixtures, pursuant to the California Title 24 requirements, and by reusing treated
rainwater to irrigate the park area, as detailed in the Project Description.
The EVMWD’s 2020 UWMP estimates water supply increase to 47,219 and total water demand of 38,932
in 2025, as shown in Table UT-1. The project’s demand of 96.8 acre-feet equates to 0.3 percent of projected
water demand in 2025. Therefore, the City would have water supplies available to serve the project. Because
the project’s residential uses are consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning designation
of the site, which are used to project future water demands, the demand from the project is included in the
UWMP demand projections listed in Table UT-1.
Table UT-1: Urban Water Management Plan Projections
Water
Supply
Additional Detail on
Water Supply
Projected Water Supply (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Purchased or
imported
water
Western/Metropolitan1 26,286 26,286 26,286 26,286 26,286
Purchased or
imported
water
Raw Imported Water
Western/Metropolitan1,2 0 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700
Groundwater Elsinore Valley
Subbasin3 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
Groundwater Coldwater Subbasin3 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 114 of 122
Groundwater Bedford Subbasin3 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300
Groundwater Lee Lake Subbasin3 875 875 875 875 875
Groundwater Palomar Well
Replacement3 450 450 450 450 450
Groundwater Temecula-Pauba GW3 0 0 750 750 750
Surface
Water Canyon Lake/CLWTP4 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Other IPR at Regional WRF5 0 0 0 940 1,970
Recycled
Water
Temescal Wash & Lake
Elsinore
Replenishment5
7,270 8,027 8,863 8,960 8,960
Recycled
Water Metered Customers6 1,459 1,459 1,459 1,459 1,459
Recycled
Water
Canyon Lake and
Summerly Golf
Course6
378 378 378 378 378
Total Projected Supply7: 47,219 51,675 53,261 54,298 55,328
Total Projected Demand: 38,932 41,994 45,313 48,085 50,967
1Imported water will be used to fill the gaps will be based on the availability of local supplies. There is no total right or safe yield. EVMWD
can purchase more water at an additional charge.
2 Starting in 2026, EVMWD plans to start purchasing about 3,700 AFY of raw imported water from Western/Metropolitan for treatment at the
CLWTP.
3 The safe yield for the groundwater subbasins will be established with their respective GSPs.
4 In settlement of litigation, EVMWD agreed not to treat more than 8,000 AFY of San Jacinto River flows in any water year at EVMWD’s
CLWTP. This 8,000 AFY limit applies only to San Jacinto River runoff and excludes any imported water conveyed in the river channel.
5 In accordance with its NPDES permit, EVMWD is permitted to discharging 0.5 MGD to Temescal Wash and 7.5 MGD to Lake Elsinore.
EVMWD is planning to use excess wastewater collected at the Regional WRF to implement an IPR project. It is anticipated that this water will
be available between 2035 and 2040.
6 Includes recycled water produced by the three EVMWD WRFs and recycled water from SRRRA and Eastern.
7 The total right or safe yield were not calculated because the groundwater safe yields are being updated as part of the GSP projects.
Source: EVMWD 2020 UWMP
The EVMWD 2020 UWMP details the available supply, including groundwater, surface water, imported
water, and recycled water would meet the projected demand during normal, single dry and multiple dry
years. Therefore, impacts related to water supplies from the proposed project would be less than significant.
(Sources: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District,
May 2021, https://www.evmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/2233/637571268195170000)
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.)
EVMWD operates and maintains sewer collection pipes in the project area that feed into EVMWD’s trunk
sewers that convey wastewater to the Regional Water Reclamation Facility that has a regular capacity of
8.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and is going through an expansion to provide an additional 4 MGD of
treatment capacity.
Based on EVMWD’s wastewater generation rate of 3,500 gallons per day per acre for high density
residential, the proposed project would generate approximately 38,290 gallons per day over the 10.94-acre
portion of the site that is slated for residential development. The project generated 38,290 gallons per day
is within the 4 MGD of additional capacity that is being developed within the Regional Water Reclamation
Facility. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.
(Sources: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District,
May 2021, https://www.evmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/2233/637571268195170000;
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 115 of 122
EVMWD, 2016 Sewer System Master Plan, August 2016,
https://www.evmwd.com/home/showdocument?id=1773)
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.)
In 2019, approximately 92 percent of the solid waste from the City of Lake Elsinore, which was disposed
of in landfills, went to the El Sobrante Landfill. The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to accept 16,054 tons
per day of solid waste and is permitted to operate through 2051. In June 2019, a maximum of 13,796 tons
in a day was disposed at the El Sobrante Landfill, which provides for a remaining capacity of 2,258 tons
per day.
Construction
Project construction would generate solid waste in the form of packaging and discarded materials. Section
5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction
activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition
waste. Thus, the demolition and construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be
approximately 35 percent of the waste generated. As project construction does not require demolition of
any structure, solid waste generated would be limited in comparison to operation wastes. As described
above, the El Sobrante Landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,258 tons per day. Therefore,
the facility would be able to accommodate the limited construction waste generated by the project.
Operation
The CalEEMod solid waste generation rate for single-family residential land use is 0.41 tons per resident
per year. As described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, full occupancy of the proposed project
would generate approximately 458 new residents. Thus, operation of the project would generate
approximately 187.78 tons per solid waste per year; or 3.61 tons per week.
However, at least 75 percent of the solid waste is required by AB 341 to be recycled, which would reduce
the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 0.9 tons per week. As the El Sobrante Landfill has
additional capacity of approximately 2,258 tons per day, the solid waste generated by the project would be
within the capacity of the landfill. Thus, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs and the project would not
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than
significant.
(Sources: CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System Facility/Site Search. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/; CalRecycle Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative
Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility (ca.gov). Accessed:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste? No Impact.
The proposed project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid
waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City is subject to the requirements set forth in Section
5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction
activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition
waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste.
Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 116 of 122
the City’s development project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with all
solid waste statute and regulations; and impacts would not occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XX. WILDFIRES
The discussion below is based on CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping of the project site and
vicinity.
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (No Impact.)
The project site is vacant and moderately covered with vegetation. The project site is adjacent to residences,
roadways, commercial uses, and undeveloped areas within the urban environment. The project site is not
within or adjacent to any wildland areas. According to the CalFire Hazard Severity Zone map, the project
site is not within a high fire hazard zone. Also, as described previously, the proposed onsite street system
would meet City design standards for emergency access. Permitting of these roadways would provide
adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the project area for emergency responders. Because the
project is not located within a high fire hazard zone and is required to comply with all applicable City codes,
as verified by the City, potential impacts related to wildfire emergency response or evacuation would not
occur.
(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project 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? (No Impact.)
The project site is generally flat and does not contain or adjacent to slopes. The project site is adjacent to a
roadway, residences, and undeveloped areas. The project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas, and as
determined by the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, the project site is not within a high fire hazard
zone. There are no factors on or adjacent to the project site that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Thus, no
impact related to other factors that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would occur from the project.
(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project 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? (No Impact.)
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 117 of 122
As described previously, the project site is not within a wildfire hazard zone. The project does not include
any infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks. In addition, the project would provide internal streets
and fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) that conform to the California Fire Code
requirements, included as Municipal Code Chapter 8.16, as verified through the City’s permitting process.
Therefore, impacts related to infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risks would not occur with the
proposed project.
(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project 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? (No Impact.)
As described previously, the project site is not within a wildfire hazard zone. In addition, the
project site is relatively flat and adjacent to flat areas. There are no slope or hillsides that would
become unstable. In addition, the project would install onsite drainage that would convey runoff
to a water quality basin on the project site. Therefore, impacts related to flooding or landslides, as
a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would not occur from the
proposed project.
(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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.)
As described in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project would preserve the Southern Willow
Cottonwood Riparian Forest areas that contain the special status species, including the least Bell’s vireo
that is designated as a federally and state endangered species. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has
been included to ensure the nesting/breeding activities are not disrupted and that impacts to least Bell’s
vireo habitat would occur. Section IV, Biological Resources, also describes that although burrowing owl
was not identified during onsite surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is included to survey the site prior to
construction to ensure that no owls have colonized the site. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 has
been included to require nesting bird surveys if construction commences during nesting bird season, which
would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Also, as detailed previously, the project
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 118 of 122
would impact 0.01-acre and approximately ten linear feet of non-riparian streambed along a concrete
portion of the Hill Street Channel from construction of two outlet structures into the cement lined channel.
As a result, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to require purchase of mitigation credits within
the Santa Ana River watershed. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the loss of non-
riparian streambed would be less than significant. Therefore, potential impacts related to plant or animal
communities would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
As described in Section V, Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any buildings or structures
that meet any of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) criteria or qualify as
“historical resources” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. However, the site has the potential to contain
archaeological resources. Thus, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 have been included to
require archaeological and tribal cultural resource monitoring during initial ground-disturbance activities,
which would reduce potential impacts to important examples of California prehistory to a less than
significant level.
(Sources: Biological Technical Report, Appendix B; Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C)
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.)
The project would develop 140 residences with recreation, open space, and associated infrastructure and
amenities on a site that was planned for such uses within an urban area. The cumulative effect of the
proposed project taken into consideration with other development projects in the area would be limited,
because the project would develop the site in consistency with the General Plan land use designation, zoning
designation, and municipal code. As described by the City’s General Plan EIR Section 6.1, Growth
Inducement and Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts, which includes development of the project site pursuant
to the existing land use designations, buildout of the General Plan is anticipated to provide direction for
future growth and facilitate development. As described herein, the development area of the project site has
a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential, which allows up to 24 units per net acre.
The project would result in 23.33 units per net acre, which is within the growth projections of the General
Plan, and the cumulative impacts of which have been identified in the General Plan EIR.
Also, as described above, all of the potential impacts related to implementation of the project would be less
than significant or reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures that
would be imposed by the City and would effectively reduce environmental impacts. The project would not
result in substantial effects to any environmental resource topic that could become cumulatively significant.
As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook methodology describes
that any projects that result in daily emissions that exceed any of these thresholds would have both an
individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant air quality impact. If estimated emissions are less
than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant. As shown in Tables AQ-2, AQ-4,
and AQ-5, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed project would
not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds with use of tier 3 construction equipment, which has been
included as Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project were
modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-3, which shows that the proposed project would
result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s
applicable thresholds. Therefore, the project’s operational emissions would not exceed the NAAQS and
CAAQS, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 119 of 122
operational impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, global climate change occurs as the result of
global emissions of GHGs. An individual development project does not have the potential to result in direct
and significant global climate change effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs. The project’s
total annual GHG emissions at buildout would not exceed the annual GHG emissions threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e. As shown on Table GHG-2, the project would result in approximately 2,321.24 MTCO2e per
year. Therefore, the project would not result in cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions.
As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, the project meets the City’s VMT screening criteria because
it is located within a low VMT-generating area. Therefore, cumulatively considerable transportation related
impacts would be less than significant. Overall, impacts to environmental resources or issue areas would
not be cumulatively considerable; and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
(Sources: Previous responses and associated studies)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated.)
The project proposes the construction and operation of 140 residences and related park and open space
areas. The project would not consist of any use or any activities that would result in a substantial negative
affect on persons in the vicinity. All resource topics associated with humans the proposed project have been
analyzed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and were found to pose no impacts or
less-than-significant impacts, or less-than-significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures.
For impacts related to humans, the topic areas that require mitigation include construction related air quality
emissions and geology. The other subject areas that require implementation of mitigation measures are
related to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources
which do not have an adverse effect on a living human being. Consequently, with implementation of
mitigation, the potential environmental effects on human beings directly or indirectly would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Tier 3. As listed in Section III, Air Quality.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Least Bell’s Vireo. As listed in Section IV, Biological Resources.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Burrowing Owl. As listed in Section IV, Biological Resources.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Jurisdictional Area. As listed in Section IV, Biological Resources.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As listed in Section IV, Biological Resources.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: DBESP. As listed in Section IV, Biological Resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Unanticipated Resources. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Archaeologist/CRMP. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Cultural Resources Disposition. As listed in Section V, Cultural
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 120 of 122
Resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Tribal Monitoring. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Phase IV Report. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Discovery of Human Remains. As listed in Section V, Cultural Resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. As listed in Section V, Cultural
Resources.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Measures. As listed in Section VII, Geology and
Soils.
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 121 of 122
VI. DOCUMENT PREPARERS 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.
Lead Agency:
City of Lake Elsinore
Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner
Bradley Brophy, PE, Traffic Engineer
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
CEQA Document Preparer:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Konnie Dobreva, J.D.
Renee Escario
Meaghan Truman
Brooke Blandino
Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix A
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
William Maddux, Senior Associate
Biological Technical Report, Appendix B
Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.
Martin Rasnick, Senior Regulatory Specialist
Stephens, Lesley Lokovic-Gamber, Senior Regulatory Specialist
David Smith, Wildlife Biologist
Cultural Resources Study, Appendix C
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
Brian F. Smith, MA
Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA
Energy Analysis, Appendix D
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
William Maddux, Senior Associate
Due-Diligence Geotechnical and Fault Evaluation, Appendix E
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
Simon I. Saiid, GE 2641, Principal Engineer
Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921, Senior Principal Geologist
Paleontological Assessment, Appendix F
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
Todd A. Wirths, M.S., Senior Paleontologist, California Professional Geologist No. 7588
Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix G
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
William Maddux, Senior Associate
Lakeside Residential Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 122 of 122
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix H
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
Zachary Freeman, PG, Project Geologist
Robert Hansen, PG, Associate Environmental Geologist
Preliminary Hydrology Study, Appendix I
MDS Consulting
Edward J. Lenthr, PE
Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix J
MDS Consulting
Edward J. Lenthr, PE
Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
William Maddux, Senior Associate
Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L
Fehr and Peers
Spencer Reed, PE
Jason Pack, PE
VMT Analysis Memorandum, Appendix M
Fehr and Peers
Spencer Reed, PE
Jason Pack, PE