HomeMy WebLinkAbout0004_7_PA 2021-13 - Exhibit F - ISMND
NORTH ELSINORE BUSINESS PARK
Planning Application (PA) No. 2021-13
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 38124
Industrial Design Review (IDR) No. 2021-01
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2021-04
(INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
Prepared By:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Owner/Applicant: Saddleback Associates
c/o Mark Severson, President
27405 Puerta Real, Suite 120
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Environmental Consultant:
Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc.
42011 Avenida Vista Ladera
Temecula, CA 92591
March 2022
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 2
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION 4
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 19
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 32
I. AESTHETICS 32
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 38
III. AIR QUALITY 41
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 52
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES 61
VI. ENERGY 66
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 70
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 78
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 88
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 95
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING 107
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES 108
XIII. NOISE 110
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING 121
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES 122
XVI. RECREATION 125
XVII. TRANSPORTATION 126
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 131
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 137
XX. WILDFIRE 144
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 147
V. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 149
VI. REFERENCES 149
Figures
Figure 1, Regional Location Map 11
Figure 2, Vicinity Map 12
Figure 3, Aerial Photo 13
Figure 4, Site Plan 15
Figure 5, TPM 38124 16
Figure 6, Elevations 17
Figure 7, Landscape Plan 18
Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map 21
Figure 9, Zoning Map 22
Figure III-1, Location of Sensitive Receptors 47
Figure VII-1, Surrounding Topography 74
Figure IX-1, GeoTracker 92
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 3
Figure IX-2, EnviroStor 93
Figure X-1, WQMP Site Plan 100
Figure XIII-1, Sensitive Receiver Locations 114
Tables
Table 1, TPM 38124 14
Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses 19
Table III-1, Project Construction Emissions 44
Table III-2, Project Operational Emissions 45
Table III-3, Localized Significance Thresholds – Construction 48
Table III-4, Localized Significance Thresholds – Operation 49
Table VI-1, Total Project Energy Consumption 68
Table VIII-1, Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions 79
Table VIII-2, 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary 80
Table VIII-3, Project Consistency with City of Lake Elsinore CAP 85
Table X-1, Downstream Receiving Waters 96
Table X-2, Hydrological Impacts 97
Table X-3, Operational BMPs 99
Table XIII-1, Significance Criteria Summary 112
Table XIII-2, Noise Impacts from Project Traffic 115
Table XIII-3, Construction Noise Impacts 115
Table XIII-4, Construction Noise Level Compliance 116
Table XIII-5, Operational Noise Impacts 117
Table XIII-6, Operational Noise Level Compliance 117
Table XIII-7, Operational Noise Level Increase 118
Table XIII-8, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels 119
Table XIV-1, SCAG Demographic Forecasts 121
Table XIX-1, Landfills Serving Lake Elsinore 142
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 4
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of North Elsinore Business Park or Planning Application (PA) No. 2021-13, which
covers Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 38124; Industrial Design Review (IDR) No. 2021-01; and
Environmental Review (ER) No. 2021-04. For purposes of this document, this application will be
called the “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.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 5
This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.); the
State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA
Guidelines”), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section
15000, et seq.); applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements,
and procedures of any other responsible public agency or agency with jurisdiction by law.
The City of Lake Elsinore is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the
CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment.
C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents, which are intended
to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the
general public of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review
process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to
examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While
CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and
other responsible agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives,
including economic and social goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021).
The City of Lake Elsinore City Council, as Lead Agency, has determined that environmental clearance
for the proposed Project can be provided with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study and
Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration 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.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 6
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:
“Tiering” refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general plans
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 7
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
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
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 8
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:
Appendix A Map My County 11-4-2021
Appendix B1 North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore,
prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021
Appendix B2 North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis
Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
Appendix C Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency
Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006,
prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021
Appendix D A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 9
by Jean A. Keller, 12-2021
Appendix E North Elsinore Business Park Energy Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 5-12-2021
Appendix F Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN
389-220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021
Appendix G North Elsinore Business Park Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared
by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021
Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel
Number(s): 389-220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020
Appendix I1 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by
Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021
Appendix I2 Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by
JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021
Appendix J1 Saddleback/Elsinore Business Park Noise Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore,
prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2-19-2021
Appendix J2 North Elsinore Business Park Noise Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 11-12-21
Appendix K1 North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 6-10-2021
Appendix K2 North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening, City of Lake
Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 9-20-2021
Appendix K3 North Elsinore Business Park Trip Generation Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore,
prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-9-2021
Appendix K4 North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memorandum,
City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
Appendix L Project Plans, 8-2021
Appendix M Southern California Gas Company website; and EVMWD Service Requirement Letters,
prepared by EVMWD, 5-18-2021 and 12-8-2020
c. The above-listed documents and technical studies are available for review at:
City of Lake Elsinore Hours: Mon-Thurs: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Planning Division Friday: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
130 S. Main Street Closed Holidays
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 10
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
North Elsinore Business Park (“Project”) is located in the City of Lake Elsinore (City), Riverside County,
California, located southerly of the I-15 freeway, between Collier Avenue and El Toro Road. The Project
site consists of an approximately 7.5-acre undeveloped area (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004,
005, and 006) and is located within Section 36, Township 5S, Range 5W as shown on the Lake Elsinore,
California 7.5 minute U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic map. Reference Figure 1, Regional
Location Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
A biological survey of the study area was conducted by Principe and Associates, Inc. on July 26, 2021
(reference Appendix C). According to the field survey, the Project site is mostly undeveloped, vacant land
that has been disturbed by repeated disking. Evidence of the former uses of the site (single family residence
and contractor’s storage yard) exist but were being removed as of the writing of the biological survey. Only
disturbed habitat (according to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
[MSHCP], developed or disturbed lands consist of areas that have been disced, cleared, or otherwise
altered) is present on site. Two man-made drainage features are also located on site. The first is a concrete
v-ditch originates from runoff from improved properties generally northwest of the property and conveys
flows northwest to southeast onto the study area along the southwestern property boundary along Collier
Avenue. A second set of concrete-lined ditches were dug along the site’s south and east property lines
which have since been covered by vegetation.
No surface water was present on-site. The Project site does not fall under the jurisdiction of United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) due to its isolation and substantial distance from navigable or interstate
waters. Please see Initial Study Section IV, Biological Resources for a more detailed analysis.
The Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and is bound to the north by El Toro Road and the
parking lot for the Lake Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier
Avenue, to the east by self-storage facilities zoned as General Manufacturing (M-2), and vacant land to the
immediate west zoned as M-1. Reference Figure 3, Aerial Photo.
FIGURE 1
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Source: Map My County – Riverside County https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public
SITE
TPM 38214
Page 11
FIGURE 2
VICINITY MAP
Source: Project Plans – (Appendix L)
Page 12
TPM 38214
FIGURE 3
AERIAL PHOTO
Source: Map My County – Riverside County https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public
Page 13
TPM 38214
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 14
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project consists of Planning Application No. 2021-13 for a Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 (TPM
38124) and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01, collectively known as North Elsinore Business Park.
The Project will provide a neighborhood business park with approximately 94,665 square feet (sq. ft.) of
commercial space in 5 separate building clusters, as outlined below and as shown on Figure 4, Site Plan.
• Total Building – 94,665 sq. ft.
o Building 1 – 9,000 sq. ft.
o Building 2 – 8,300 sq. ft.
o Building 3 – 9,850 sq. ft.
o Building 4 – 9,140 sq. ft.
o Building 5 – 7,070 sq. ft.
o Building 6 – 5,595 sq. ft.
o Building 7 – 8,270 sq. ft.
o Building 8 – 6,120 sq. ft.
o Building 9 – 7,000 sq. ft.
o Building 10 – 8,220 sq. ft.
o Building 11 – 10,200 sq. ft.
o Building 12 – 5,900 sq. ft.
Vehicular Access to the Project site would be taken from any of the three (3) driveways to be located on
Collier Drive or from the driveway to be located on El Toro Road. The Project will provide 276 parking
spaces, including 21 accessible spaces. Per the City’s Municipal Code, parking for the site requires 218
stalls.
The Tentative Parcel Map proposes to subdivide the existing four (4) lots into twelve (12) parcels via TPM
38124. Parcels sizes are as follows, as shown on Table 1, TPM 38124. Reference Figure 5, TPM 38124.
Table 1
TPM 38124
Parcel Number Net Acreage
1 0.86
2 0.50
3 0.65
4 0.88
5 0.50
6 0.34
7 0.71
8 0.58
9 0.52
10 0.80
11 0.71
12 0.46
Total 7.51
The building architecture is single-story with a grey, white, and green color palette, and incorporates trellis
features. Reference Figure 6, Elevations. The Project will provide 66,889 sq. ft. (20.4%) of landscaping
on the site; the City’s Municipal Code requires 15% of the site to be landscaped. Reference Figure 7,
Landscape Plan.
FIGURE 4
SITE PLAN
Source: Project Plans – (Appendix L)
Page 15
TPM 38214
FIGURE 5
TPM 38124
Source: Project Plans – (Appendix L)
Page 16
TPM 38214
FIGURE 6
ELEVATIONS
Source: Project Plans – (Appendix L)
Page 17
TPM 38214
FIGURE 7
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Source: Project Plans – (Appendix L)
Page 18
TPM 38214
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 19
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A.BACKGROUND
1.Project Title: “North Elsinore Business Park” - Planning Application No. 2021-13 for a Tentative
Parcel Map No. 38124 (TPM 38124); Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01; and Environmental
Review (ER) No. 2021-04.
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: South of El Toro Road, northeast of Collier Avenue. Reference Figure 1,
Regional Location Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Saddleback Associates, Mark Severson,
27405 Puerta Real, Suite 120, Mission Viejo, CA 92691
6. General Plan Designation: Limited Industrial. Reference Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map.
7. Zoning: Limited Manufacturing (M1). Reference Figure 9, Zoning Map.
8. Description of Project: The proposed Project, North Elsinore Business Park, is a business park
located along Collier Avenue with approximately 94,665 square feet (sq. ft.) of industrial buildings in
12 separate buildings. Reference Figure 4, Site Plan.
9.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and
is bound to the north by El Toro Road and the parking lot for the Lake Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as
Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier Avenue, to the east by self-storage facilities zoned
as General Manufacturing (M-2), and vacant land to the immediate west zoned as M-1. Reference Table
2, Surrounding land Uses, and Figure 3, Aerial Photo.
Table 2
Surrounding Land Uses
Direction General Plan Land Use
Designation
Zoning Classification Existing Land Use
Project Site Limited Industrial M-1 (Limited Manufacturing)Vacant
North Specific Plan Specific Plan Lake Elsinore Outlets
South Limited Industrial M-1 and C-M (Commercial
Manufacturing) Business Park
East Hillside Residential R-H (Hillside Single Family
Residential) Self-Storage Facility
West Neighborhood Commercial
and General Commercial
C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial) and C-2 (General
Commercial)
Vacant and Lake Elsinore
Outlets
Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Map, Zoning Map, and Google Maps.
10.Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
•South Coast Air Quality Management District
•Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD)
•Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 20
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project
area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there
a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to
tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?: In accordance with the
requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City sent notification to six Native American Tribes
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area on June 29, 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. Standard
mitigation measures have been added to address the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and
human remains during groundbreaking activities. Please see Initial Study Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural
Resources for more detail.
FIGURE 8
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
Source: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Map
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24601
SITE
Page 21
TPM 38214
FIGURE 9
ZONING MAP
Source: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603
SITE
Page 22
TPM 38214
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 23
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
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 24
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, Senior Planner)
March 4, 2022
Date
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?
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 25
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
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
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 26
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
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?
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 27
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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?
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 28
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 29
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 30
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
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,
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 31
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 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?
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 32
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) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact
The term “aesthetics” generally refers to the identification of visual resources, the quality of one’s view,
and/or the overall visual perception of the environment. The issue of light and glare is related to both
relative to the creation of daytime glare due to the reflection of the sun (such as on glass surfaces) and/or
an increase in nighttime ambient lighting levels (such as from building lights, streetlights, and vehicle
headlights).
Public Resources Code Section 21099 pertains to “Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-
Oriented Infill Projects.” The proposed Project does not meet any of the criteria of a transit-oriented
development which would otherwise preclude an evaluation of aesthetic impacts. Therefore, the provisions
of Public Resources Code Section 21099 are not applicable, and this section will evaluate potential aesthetic
impacts of the Project.
Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways, 1) a structure may be constructed that blocks
the view of a vista, and 2) the vista itself may be altered (e.g., development on a scenic hillside).
The natural setting of the City of Lake Elsinore and the larger Southwest Riverside County region with
lake, mountain and hillside views is significant to the area’s visual character which provides scenic vistas
from many locations within the community.
The City of Lake Elsinore is one of three incorporated cities within Riverside County’s larger Elsinore Area
Plan (EAP) along with the City of Canyon Lake and the City of Wildomar. Much of the EAP is situated
within a valley, generally extending northwest by southeast and framed by the Santa Ana and Elsinore
Mountains on the west and the Gavilan and Sedco Hills on the east. Lake Elsinore is a centerpiece within
the valley. Additional prominent hydrologic features within the valley include the Temescal Wash, the San
Jacinto River, the man-made Canyon Lake/Railroad Canyon Dam, and Murrieta Creek.
The City of Lake Elsinore encompasses approximately forty-three (±43) square miles within the City limits,
plus an additional ±29 square miles within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). According to the General Plan,
as of 2010/2011, almost half of the land within the City was vacant and undeveloped. It should be noted
that a significant portion of these vacant lands will be preserved as open space in conjunction with the
ongoing implementation of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan by the Regional Conservation
Agency.
Lake Elsinore (“the lake”) is located roughly one and one-quarter (1¼) mile southwest of Interstate 15 (I-
15) and it extends to the City’s southwest boundary contiguous to the unincorporated community of
Lakeland Village. In addition, the lake is located adjacent south/southeast of State Route 74 (SR-74), also
known as Riverside Drive as it extends through the City limits.
The lake is highly visible from SR-74 after it extends east through the Cleveland National Forest from
Orange County and then east/northeast down through the Santa Ana Mountains to the west side of the lake.
Distant views of the south half of the lake are available from north bound I-15; however, the hillsides
associated with the City’s Country Club Heights District (of which the Project site is a part) block the lake
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 33
views from I-15 to the north half of the lake.
In addition, prominent views of the lake are available from various vantage points within the City’s Lake
View and Lake Edge Districts north of the lake and distant “peek-a-boo” views are available from various
locations with the City east of I-15 in the Sedco Hills area and from SR-74 as it proceeds east past the
Meadowbrook community toward the City of Perris.
The Project site is approximately 1.4 miles from the northwest corner of the lake. The Project site is not
visible from the lake, and vice versa.
The Project site’s General Plan land use designation is Limited Industrial, and zoning is Limited
Manufacturing (M-1).
Collier Avenue, where the Project site is located, parallels Interstate 15. In its current condition, the Project
site topography generally rises approximately twenty-one (21) feet in elevation from its Collier Avenue
frontage to El Toro Road.
• The Project site elevation along its Collier Avenue frontage varies from approximately 1,260’ AMSL
at the northwest corner of the site, to ±1,263’ AMSL at mid site, to 1,265’ AMSL at the southeast end;
Proposed earthwork quantities set forth on the Project site Preliminary Grading Plan indicate the proposed
Project will require 17,000 cubic yards of raw cut, 7,000 cubic yards of raw fill, and 10,000 cubic yards of
raw export.
Upon completion of grading activities, the improved Project site pads will generally be at least four feet
above Collier Avenue street grade. Finished floor elevations range from 1,265.50 (Buildings 1, 7, 8, 9, and
10; along Collier Avenue) to 1,273.50 feet AMSL (Bldg 4; at the northwest end of the project at El Toro
Road).
As set forth in Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses, provided in Section III of this Initial Study, the Project
site, in its present condition, is mostly surrounded by developed properties to the southeast and northwest,
zoned Neighborhood Commercial, followed by General Commercial contiguous to the northwest, and
Recreational to the southwest across Lakeshore Drive.
Implementation of the proposed Project would change the visual character of the vacant, undeveloped site
through grading activity to create building pads in between two established properties along Collier Avenue
and the construction of a twelve building business park consisting of 94,665 square concrete walkways,
asphalt paved parking for 276 vehicles, and 66,889 square feet (20.4%) of landscaping. In addition, the
proposed Project requires street modifications along Lakeshore Drive and Manning Street and wet and dry
utility connections.
Each of the twelve proposed buildings would be single-story wood frame and stucco structures with an
architectural design incorporating earth tones, accentuated façade, awning and trellis features.
The Project site’s proposed development plan is consistent with the City’s Limited Industrial General Plan
land use designation and zoning. A change in land use is not being requested.
The Project site is located contiguous west of several lots with a similar Limited Industrial land use
designation and east of adjacent lands designated Specific Plan for the Lake Elsinore Outlets.
Based on a review of the City’s General Plan and General Plan Circulation Element, Collier Avenue is not
a state or local designated Scenic Highway.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 34
The City’s General Plan – Draft EIR (GP-DEIR) addresses visual impacts associated with proposed and
future development within the City. Areas addressed include: 1) Views of Lake Elsinore; 2) Views of
Hillsides and Mountains; 3) Views from Six Public Vantage Points; and 4) District Plan Visual Impacts.
• Views of Lake Elsinore. The GP-DEIR acknowledges that due the topography of the City, most views
of the lake are from a high elevation and not easily obscured by development. Furthermore, the
character of the lake would be preserved through implementation of Goals 10 and 11 of the Resource
Protection and Preservation Chapter, Aesthetics Section, which provide and maintain a natural and built
environment, Policies 10.1-10.6 and 11.1-11.3 discourage development that blocks or substantially
alters public views of Lake Elsinore and local ridgelines, protect views of the lake, require new
development and redevelopment to incorporate public views of Lake Elsinore, and require design
guidelines and landscaping. The GP-DEIR concludes: “With implementation of these policies of the
GPU, potential impacts on the visual quality of views of the area surrounding the lake will be reduced
to a less-than-significant level.”
With respect to the proposed Project, the location of the Project site along Collier Avenue and Interstate 15
and is not visible by Lake Elsinore. Respectively, Lake Elsinore is not visible at the Project location.
• Views of Hillsides and Mountains. Much of the sloping hillsides and mountains surrounding the lake
are protected to the extent feasible by implementation of the General Plan Land Use Plan which
designates large portions of these areas as either Open Space or Hillside Residential. The hillside
designation is intended for low-density single-family residential development and minor agricultural
uses in areas of steep slopes. Parcel sizes of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, or 20 (gross) acres are required, depending on
the predominant slope and if the parcel has access to an adequate sewer connection or package treatment
plant. Furthermore, General Plan Goals 10 and 11 of the Resource Protection and Preservation Chapter,
and Policies 10.1-10.6 and 11.1-11.3, discussed above, would further reduce visual impacts. The GP-
DEIR concludes: “With implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs of the
GPU, potentially significant impacts on the visual character of mountains and hillsides will be reduced
to a less-than-significant level.”
Similar to the above, with respect to the proposed Project, the location of the Project site along Collier
Avenue and Interstate 15 is not affected by this policy.
• Views from Public Vantage Points. The GP-DEIR analyzes six (6) public vantage points including: 1)
I-15; 2) SR-74/Ortega Highway; 3) Lake Elsinore Recreation and Campground; 4) Minor League
Baseball Stadium; 5) Boat Launch/Recreation Area; and 6) Aloha Pier Look-out. The Project site is
visible from Item 1, but not from Items 2, 3, 4, and 5; Item 6 (Aloha Pier) was removed in 1950. The
Project site will be visible along I-15, is it is directly adjacent to the Lake Elsinore Outlet Mall.
However, given the style of architecture of the Project, and the speed of traffic along I-15, the amount
of time the Project will be visible will be nominal.
• District Plans/Country Club Heights District. The GP-DEIR (p.3.3-39) states public views of the lake
from the Country Club Heights District “would be preserved by the district plan policies. Public views
of hillsides would be affected by increased hillside development.” As discussed above, the Project site
setting along Collier Avenue is not affected by this policy.
Based on the above data and analysis, implementation of the Project as proposed would not have a
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 35
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Any potential impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan – Circulation Element; General Plan DEIR, Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning,
and Section 3.3, Aesthetics; Zoning Map; Project Plans (Appendix L); Public Resources Code; Figure 1,
Regional Location Map, Figure 2, Vicinity Map, Figure 3, Aerial Photo, Figure 8, General Plan Land
Use Map, Figure 9, and Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study, Figure VII-1,
Surrounding Topography, included in Section VII of this Initial Study; and Google Earth.
b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact
Please reference the discussion in Threshold I.a. as it pertains to Public Resources Code Section 21099 and
the visual character of the Project site environs.
The Project site is vacant, formerly developed land that has repeatedly been disked over the years for weed
abatement. The topography is mostly flat characterized as undulating upsloping lands rising approximately
twelve feet in elevation from Collier Avenue frontage to Interstate 15. There are locations of former
building structures on the Project site and there are remnants of a former parking lot.
Per the Project’s Biology Report, based on a site inspection of the Project site and a review of aerial
photographs, on-site vegetation is limited to non-native tree and grass species.
There are no scenic trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on the Project site and the Project site is
not located within or adjacent to a state scenic highway corridor.
The California Department of Transportation identifies both I-15 and SR-74 as being eligible for listing as
state scenic highways, but they are not officially designated as such. As previously discussed in Threshold
I.a, the Project site is not visible from I-15 and the limited views from SR-74 are minimal:
• I-15 is located adjacent to the northeast of the Project site and will be visible for a very short time by
autos travelling at normal speeds.
• SR-74, at its closest point, is located approximately 240 feet southeast of the Project site and the Project
site is not noticeably visible from this location.
Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway. Any potential impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan DEIR, Section 3.3, Aesthetics; Public Resources Code; Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13,
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26-
2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C); and Google Earth.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the Project 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
Please reference the discussion in Threshold I.a as it pertains to Public Resources Code Section 21099 and
the visual character of the Project site environs.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 36
The Project site is located in the suburban City of Lake Elsinore, one of twenty-eight (28) incorporated
cities within the County of Riverside. The Project site is situated adjacent northeast of the lake (Lake
Elsinore) on the northeast side of Lakeshore Drive approximately one-quarter mile southeast of SR-74 and
1¼ mile southwest of I-15.
The Project site is zoned Limited Industrial by the City of Lake Elsinore. Furthermore, the Project site’s
General Plan land use designation is Limited Industrial. The Project site is not located in a Specific Plan.
The Project site’s zoning and general plan land use designation are consistent with each other and with the
proposed Project.
The proposed Project has been designed in accordance with the existing Limited Industrial zoning and
general plan lad use designations. The proposed Project does not entail a request for a change in land use.
The Project proposes the development of a 12 building business park consisting of 94,665 square concrete
walkways, asphalt paved parking for 276 vehicles, and 66,889 square feet (20.4%) of landscaping. In
addition, the proposed Project requires street modifications along Lakeshore Drive and Manning Street and
wet and dry utility connections.
Construction of the proposed Project would result in modest short-term impacts to the existing visual
character and quality of the area. Construction activities will require the use of equipment and storage of
materials within the Project site boundaries. Construction activities are temporary and will not result in any
permanent visual impact.
Implementation of the proposed Project would permanently change the visual character of the Project site,
although the proposed buildings will be similar in architecture and scale as the adjacent developed
properties.
The proposed Project is located in a suburban area and implementation of the proposed Project would not
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Any potential impacts
would be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan – Land Use Map, Zoning Map; Project Plans (Appendix L); Public Resources Code;
and Google Earth.
d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact
Please reference the discussion in Threshold I.a as it pertains to Public Resources Code Section 21099 and
the visual character of the Project site environs.
Construction
Currently, there are light sources that impact the Project site, most notably streetlights from I-15 and Collier
Avenue. During Project construction, nighttime lighting may be used within the construction staging areas
to provide security for construction equipment. In addition, workers arriving at the Project site before dawn,
or leaving the Project site after dusk, will require additional construction lighting. These impacts will be
temporary and will cease when Project construction is completed. For these reasons, and because
development of the proposed Project will require a limited number of construction workers, these impacts
are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operations
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 37
Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact nighttime views by reducing the ability
to see the night sky and stars (i.e., skyglow). Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting
sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal, glass windows, other) can also cause glare. Impacts
associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed
into the eyes of motorists).
There is a limited amount of existing lighting sources adjacent to the Project site consisting of streetlights
along I-15 and Collier Avenue, and the adjacent existing developments, and vehicle headlights.
The Project would include outdoor lighting associated with the proposed operation of the business park.
Exterior light sources would include a series of pole mounted light standards interspersed throughout the
parking lot area, commercial signage, and exterior building mounted safety/security lighting.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not introduce a substantial amount of new daytime glare to
the area due to the building siting, setback requirements, and perimeter landscaping.
The proposed Project would introduce new sources of nighttime light into the area from additional street
lighting, parking lot lighting, safety/security lighting, commercial signage, and indoor store lighting.
However, the design of all lighting at the proposed Project site will be required to comply with Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Section 17.112.040 - Lighting (for Non-residential Development).
• LEMC, Section 17.112.040 requires all outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of 60 watts to be oriented
and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through the luminaire
and prevent any glare or illumination on adjacent properties or streets.
• LEMC, Section 17.148.110 encourages the use of low pressure sodium vapor lighting due to the City’s
proximity to the Mount Palomar Observatory.
Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Any impacts would be less
than significant.
Sources: General Plan DEIR, Section 3.3, Aesthetics; Public Resources Code; and Lake Elsinore Municipal
Code.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 38
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a) Would the Project 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
The City of Lake Elsinore consists of 27,747 acres (±43 square miles) within the city limits, plus an
additional 18,818 acres (±29 sq. mi.) within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). As of 2010/2011, almost half of
the land within the City was vacant and undeveloped. The City is comprised of eleven (11) planning
districts and eighteen (18) approved specific plans. The Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-
1) and is bounded to the north by El Toro Road and the parking lot for the Lake Elsinore Outlet mall zoned
as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier Avenue, to the east by self-storage facilities zoned
as General Manufacturing (M2), and vacant land to the immediate west zoned as M-1. The City of Lake
Elsinore General Plan was adopted on December 13, 2011, with a planning horizon of 2030. The City’s
General Plan includes eighteen (18) Land Use Designations. However, it is noted, the General Plan does
not include an Agriculture or Farmland (or similar) land use category.
Table 3.1-1 of the GP-EIR identifies a total of 215.1 acres of Existing Agriculture Land Use within the
City, plus an additional 649.6 acres within its SOI based on 2005 figures from the Southern California of
Governments. The 215.1 acres identified in the GP-DEIR as Existing Agricultural Land within the City
represents less than 1% (0.8%) of the City’s incorporated area. Historically, agricultural production was
once a significant activity in the Lake Elsinore area, but urban development within and surrounding the
City during the past decades (50+ years) has removed much of the land from crop cultivation and livestock
raising in favor of residential development and urban commercial/industrial uses. Crops once prevalent in
the area included olives, apricots, and grapes.
According to the GP-EIR, some of this existing agricultural land, as well as vacant land used for purposes
other than agriculture within the City, is designated by the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) as Farmland of Local Importance (554 acres within the City), Grazing Land (827 acres
within the City), and Unique Farmland (25 acres within the City). The remaining land is classified by the
FMMP as Urban/Built-Up Land or Other Land, reflecting its developed condition or other characteristics
that make it unsuitable for agriculture. None of the farmland designations applied by the FMMP to land
within the City or SOI is classified as “important farmland” (i.e. Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance) by the State of California.
According to the “Important Farmland Finder” within the Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) website, the entire City is designated as “Other Land” meaning
there is no land considered Prime Farmlands, Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmlands,
Farmlands of Local Importance or Grazing Lands (DOC 2021). The Project site’s farmland designation is
also classified as “Other Land” according to Map My County.
Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not convert any Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. There would be no impact.
Sources: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Important Farmland Finder, California
Department of Conservation (DOC), Website accessed November 15, 2021a; General Plan, Chapter 2.3,
Land Use; General Plan DEIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning; and Map My County
(Appendix A).
b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 39
The Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and is bounded to the north by El Toro Road and
the parking lot for the Lake Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by
Collier Avenue, to the east by self-storage facilities zoned as General Manufacturing (M-2), and vacant
land to the immediate west zoned as M-1. As previously stated, the General Plan does not include an
Agriculture or Farmland (or similar) land use category. The Project site is not located within or adjacent
to any lands designated, or zoned, for agricultural use. As stated above, no agricultural activities were
observed in the vicinity of the Project site based on a visual site inspection and a review of aerial
photographs.
The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, is the State law that
enables landowners and local jurisdictions to enter into contractual agreements that offer a reduction in
property taxes in exchange for the limitation of land uses to agricultural production, open space, recreation,
or other uses deemed compatible by the local jurisdiction. According to the City’s GP-EIR, there are no
Williamson Act agricultural preserves located within the City boundaries. This is consistent with Map My
County which states the Project site is not in an Agricultural Preserve.
According to the California DOC, Williamson Act reports and statistics, there are no Williamson Act Land
Conservation Contract lands within the City including any Inventory Sites or surrounding areas (DOC
2021b). Based on available information, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact.
Sources: General Plan, Chapter 2.3, Land Use, Chapter 2.4, Circulation; General Plan EIR (GP-EIR),
Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning; Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure 9, Zoning Map,
provided in Section III of this Initial Study; Williamson Act Program: Reports and Statistics. Department
of Conservation (DOC), Website accessed November 15, 2021b; Map My County (Appendix A); Google
Earth; and Project Plans (Appendix L).
c) Would the Project 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
Please reference Thresholds II.a and II.b for a description of the Project site and surrounding properties
zoning and land use designations. Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land
that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions,
and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and
wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
The Project site and surrounding properties are not currently defined, managed, or used as forest land as
identified in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Therefore, there would be no impact.
Sources: Public Resources Code Section 12220(g); and Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure
9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study.
d) Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? No
Impact
As discussed in Threshold II.c, there is no forest land on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use. There would be no impact.
Sources: Public Resources Code Section 12220(g); and Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure
9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 40
e) Would the Project 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
The Project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land that has been repeatedly disked over past years in
conjunction with weed abatement efforts. As previously discussed in Threshold II.a and Threshold II.b,
the Project site is not located within or adjacent to any lands designated, or zoned, for agricultural use, and
no agricultural activities were observed in the vicinity of the Project site based on a visual site inspection
and a review of aerial photographs.
Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural use. There would be no impact.
Sources: Project Plans (Appendix L); Google Earth; and Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and
Figure 9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 41
III. AIR QUALITY
Any Tables or Figures in this Section are from the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study,
unless stated otherwise.
The California Supreme Court recently undertook review of a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
in Sierra Club v. Fresno County (December 24, 2018)—Cal.5th (Friant Ranch). The Supreme Court’s
opinion discussed the standard of review a court must apply when adjudicating a challenge to the adequacy
of an EIR’s discussion of significant impacts and mitigation measures; whether CEQA requires an EIR to
connect a project’s air quality impacts to specific health consequences; whether a lead agency retains the
discretion to substitute later-adopted mitigation measures in place of those proposed in the EIR or whether
that is impermissible deferred mitigation; and whether a lead agency may adopt mitigation measures that
reduce a project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level (AEP 2019.
Summary of Key 2018 CEQA Court Cases).
The Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQ Study) found that Project-related air pollutant emissions would be
below the established thresholds set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
hence no mitigation was required. In this case, the Friant Ranch decision does not apply because the
Project-generated pollutants are considered to be within the allowable limits for avoiding significant public
health impacts. Friant Ranch is concerned with projects that have significant impacts and are required to
disclose all potential health consequences from exposure to substantial pollution concentrations.
Therefore, by complying with the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) and
SCAQMD’s air pollutant thresholds of significance that have been established for the purpose of protecting
public health and welfare within a reasonable margin of safety, the Project is not expected to result in
significant health impacts that would require further disclosure or evaluation.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant
Impact
The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which is characterized by relatively
poor air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over an
approximately 10,743 square-mile area consisting of the four-county Basin and the desert portions of Los
Angeles County and Riverside County. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air
pollution control, and works directly with the SCAG, county transportation commissions, local
governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect
sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards. Currently, these state and federal air quality
standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of
AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order
to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts
of air pollution control on the economy.
In March 2017, the SCAQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP (2016 AQMP) which continues to evaluate
current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS, as well as explore new and
innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs,
recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share
reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. The 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological
information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Community Strategies (RTP/SCS) which is a planning document that supports the integration of land use
and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements. The Project’s consistency with
the 2016 AQMP is evaluated below. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in
Chapter 12, Section 12.2, and Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook issued by the SCAQMD. These
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 42
indicators are discussed below:
CONSISTENCY CRITERION NO. 1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the
frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay
the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and
NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded.
According to Threshold III.b below, the Project would not exceed the applicable regional significance
thresholds for construction activity. In addition, Threshold III.b also demonstrates the Project would
not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds for operational activity. Therefore, the Project
would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion and it consistent with the first criterion.
CONSISTENCY CRITERION NO. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based
on the years of Project build- out phase.
The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within
the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by
cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then
used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth
projections in City of Lake Elsinore General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.
Regarding construction, peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely a function
of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation,
development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site
occurring during construction activities. Threshold III.b demonstrates that no emissions thresholds will
be exceeded, so a less than significant impact would result during construction.
Regarding operations, the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan designates the Project site for Limited
Industrial uses such as manufacturing, assembly, electronics, warehousing, machine repair shops, and
other non- hazardous and low nuisance industrial uses are appropriate. The Project is proposed to
develop 94,665 square feet of general light industrial use within 12 buildings which is consistent with
the site’s land use designation. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the second criterion.
In conclusion, the Project would not have the potential to result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations.
Additionally, Project construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed the regional or
localized significance thresholds with mitigation. The Project is therefore considered to be consistent with
the AQMP.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by
Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (AQ Study, Appendix B1); and North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
(Appendix B2)
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
Construction
Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of carbon monoxide (CO),
volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter – 10 micrometers or less
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 43
(PM10), and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction
activities:
• Demolition;
• Site Preparation;
• Grading;
• Building Construction;
• Paving;
• Architectural Coating; and
• Construction Workers Commuting.
Construction of the Project is estimated to last approximately 14 months and end in late 2022. Construction
activities are expected to consist of demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and
architectural coating. The assessment assumes that construction phases will not overlap. It is anticipated
that the Project is expected to be operational by the end of 2022. Should any of these dates be delayed,
they still remain valid, as, due to air quality regulations, emissions continuously improve over time.
Demolition of the existing onsite structure would result in approximately 350 tons of demolished material.
In addition, grading for the Project would require 25,000 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site.
The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) was used to calculate criteria air
pollutants and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from the construction and operation of the Project.
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 air pollutant
and GHG emissions. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities
(including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from off-site energy
generation, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The model also
identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. The model was developed
for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the
California air districts.
The CalEEMod default construction equipment list is based on survey data and the size of the site. The
parameters used to estimate construction emissions, such as the worker and vendor trips and trip lengths,
utilize the CalEEMod defaults. The construction equipment list is shown in Appendix A of the AQ Study.
The quantity of fugitive dust estimated by CalEEMod is based on the number of equipment used during
site preparation and grading. CalEEMod estimates the worst-case fugitive dust impacts will occur during
the site preparation phase. The total disturbance footprint is assumed to be the entire 7.5 acres per 8-hour
day with all equipment in use as a conservative assumption.
Regulatory Compliance
The SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but
are not limited to:
• Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings);
• Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust);
• Rule 1186 / 1186.1 (Street Sweepers); and
• Rule 461 (Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing) – Operational.
Air Quality Regional Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has established air quality emissions thresholds for criteria air pollutants for the purposes
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 44
of determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment per Section 15002(g) of
the Guidelines for implementing CEQA. By complying with the thresholds of significance, the Project
would be in compliance with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the federal and
state air quality standards.
Construction Emissions
Regional air quality emissions include both onsite and off-site emissions associated with construction of
the Project. Regional daily emissions of criteria pollutants are compared to the SCAQMD regional
thresholds of significance. As shown in Table III-1, Project Construction Emissions, regional daily
emissions of criteria pollutants are expected to be below the allowable thresholds of significance.
Therefore, the Project’s short-term construction impacts to regional air resources will be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. However, the Project will be required to comply with applicable
SCAQMD regulations and implement standard conditions of approval from the City to control dust and
other air pollutants during construction.
Table III-1
Project Construction Emissions
Activity Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 41.29 74.55 23.79 0.16 12.93 6.69
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Exceeds Regional Thresholds? No No No No No No
1 See AQ Study Appendix A for modeling results. Numbers are maximum daily emissions during summer or winter, whichever is higher.
Operational Emissions
Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of VOC, NOx, CO,
SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources:
• Mobile Source Emissions;
• Area Source Emissions;
• Energy Source Emissions; and
• Onsite Equipment.
Mobile source emissions are from motor vehicles and are the largest single long-term source of air pollutants
from the operation of the Project. Emissions are also generated from area sources such as the consumption
of natural gas for heating, hearths, landscaping equipment, consumer product usage, and architectural
coatings (painting). Energy source emissions typically occur off-site at a power plant and are considered
an indirect source of emissions. Long-term operational air pollutant impacts from the Project are shown in
Table III-2, Project Operational Emissions. Project operations are not expected to exceed the allowable
daily emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants at the regional level. Therefore, the Project would not
conflict with the current air quality plan nor violate the established air quality standards, either directly or
cumulatively. The Project related long-term air quality impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 45
Table III-2
Project Operational Emissions
Activity Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 2.18 <0.1 0.07 0.00 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 0.08 0.70 0.59 <0.1 0.05 0.05
Mobile 1.36 9.11 14.55 0.07 5.42 1.54
Onsite Equipment 1.46 15.21 9.10 0.04 0.52 0.48
Project Emissions 5.03 25.02 22.54 0.11 5.99 2.08
SCAQMD Daily Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
1 See AQ Study Appendix A for modeling results. Numbers are maximum unmitigated emissions in summer or winter, whichever is
higher.
Table III-2 demonstrates the Project will not result in a significant increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Cumulative Emissions
As previously shown in Table III-2, the CAAQS designate the Project site as nonattainment for O3 PM10,
and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Project site as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5. The
SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper
on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report the
SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for
all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the
significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI)
significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance
threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is
only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA
analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of
which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for
project specific and cumulative impacts.
Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be
cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds
are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not
considered to be cumulatively significant.”
Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction
emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project- specific impacts would
also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which SCAB is in
nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact.
Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD
thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed
Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds.
Therefore, proposed Project construction-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a
project-specific and cumulative basis.
In addition, the Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 46
that proposed Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional
thresholds. Therefore, proposed Project operational-source emissions would be considered less than
significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis
Summary of Impacts
Table III-2 demonstrates the Project will not 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. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by
Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (AQ Study, Appendix B1); and North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
(Appendix B2)
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact
Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more sensitive to
air pollution exposure. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and
chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases. For CEQA purposes, the SCAQMD considers a
sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24-hours or longer, such as
residencies, hospitals, and schools (etc.). According to the AQ Study, the closest sensitive receptors (i.e.,
the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours) to the Project site are described below
and as shown in Figure III-1, Location of Sensitive Receptors:
R1 Location R1 represents Temescal Canyon High School at 28755 El Toro Road, approximately
1,570 feet north of the Project site. Receptor R1 is placed at the building façade.
R2 Location R2 represents the existing single-family residential home at 18065 Dexter Avenue,
approximately 509 feet northeast of the Project site. Receptor R2 is placed at the outdoor living
areas (backyards) facing the Project site.
R3 Location R3 represents the Elsinore Valley Cemetery at 18170 Collier Avenue, approximately
939 feet southeast of the Project site. Receptor R3 is placed at the cemetery boundary.
R4 Location R4 represents the existing single-family residential home on Baker Street,
approximately 1,893 feet southwest of the Project site. Since there are no outdoor living areas
(backyards) facing the Project site Receptor R4 is placed at the residential building façade.
R5 Location R5 represents the Penske Truck Rental facility located at 29151 Riverside Drive,
approximately 54 feet east of the Project site. Receptor R5 is placed at the building façade.
FIGURE III-1
LOCATION OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Source: Air Quality Report - (Appendix B1)
TPM 38124
Page 47
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 48
Construction Impacts
Table III-3, Localized Significance Thresholds - Construction, identifies the localized impacts at the
closest receptor location to the Project. For this analysis emissions associated with peak demolition, site
preparation, and grading activities are considered for purposes of the LSTs since these phases represents
when the maximum localized construction emissions would occur. Any other construction phases of
development would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than shown in Table III-3.
Table III-3
Localized Significance Thresholds - Construction
Activity Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 31.44 21.57 1.70 1.46
Site Preparation 60.79 21.85 12.71 6.63
Grading 39.95 16.38 7.02 3.11
SCAQMD Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) 371 2,781 79 24
Does Any Activity Exceed LSTs? No No No No
1 See AQ Study Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up precisely to the numbers indicated due to rounding.
Maximum onsite emissions are the highest emissions that would occur on the project site from onsite sources such as heavy construction
equipment and architectural coatings and excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips and haul truck
trips.
As shown in Table III-3, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD
LSTs for emissions of any criteria pollutant without mitigation.
Operational Impacts
The Project is located on an approximately 7.5-acre parcel and, as noted previously, the LST Methodology
provides look-up tables for sites with an area with daily disturbance of 5 acres or less. For projects that
exceed 5 acres, SCAQMD indicates the 5-acre LST look-up tables can be used as a screening tool to
determine whether pollutants require additional detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it
assumes that all onsite emissions associated with the Project would occur within a concentrated 5-acre area.
This screening method would therefore over-estimate potential localized impacts, because by assuming that
on-site operational activities are occurring over a smaller area, the resulting concentrations of air pollutants
are more highly concentrated once they reach the smaller site boundary than they would be for activities if
they were spread out over a larger surface area. On a larger site, the same amount of air pollutants generated
would disperse over a larger surface area and would result in a lower concentration once emissions reach
the project-site boundary. Therefore, LSTs for a 5-acre site during operations are used as a screening tool
to determine if further detailed analysis is required.
The LST analysis generally includes onsite sources (area, energy, mobile, and on-site cargo handling
equipment). However, it should be noted that the CalEEMod outputs do not separate on-site and off-site
emissions from mobile sources. In an effort to establish a maximum potential impact scenario for analytic
purposes, the emissions shown on Table III-4, Localized Significance Thresholds – Operation, represent
all onsite Project-related stationary (area) sources and 5% of the Project-related mobile sources. The trip
length used in CalEEMod for the Project is approximately 16.6 miles for passenger cars and 40.0 miles for
all trucks, and 5% of this total would represent an on-site travel distance of approximately 0.8 mile/4,382
feet for passenger cars and 2 miles/10,560 feet for trucks. It should be noted that the longest on- site
distance is roughly 0.5 miles for both trucks and passenger cars. Therefore, the 5% assumption is
conservative and would tend to over-estimate the actual impact because it is not likely that a passenger car
would drive 0.8 mile on the site or that a truck would drive 2 miles on the site. Modeling based on these
assumptions demonstrates that even within broad encompassing parameters, Project operational-source
emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 49
Table III-4
Localized Significance Thresholds - Operation
Activity Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Operational Emissions 16.37 10.48 0.85 0.61
SCAQMD Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) 371 2,781 19 6
Exceeds LSTs Thresholds? No No No No
1 See AQ Study Appendix A for modeling results.
As shown on Table III-4, operational emissions would not exceed the LST thresholds for the nearest
sensitive receptor. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant localized impact during
operational activity and no mitigation is required.
CO “Hot Spots” Analysis
An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour
standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. It has long been recognized that CO
hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response,
vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the
allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there
are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles,
introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions
control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment. To establish a more
accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted
in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. Based
on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide
(1992 CO Plan), peak CO concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological
and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular
intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 8.4 ppm 8-hr CO concentration measured at the
Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the
“hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this
intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003
AQMP was prepared. In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would
occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-
hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.
The ambient 1-hr and 8-hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 1.6 ppm and
0.7 ppm, respectively (data from Lake Elsinore station for 2019). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for
the proposed Project were to double or even triple, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO
“hot spot” at any study area intersections.
Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration
impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that
under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at
a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph) or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or
horizontal air does not mix in order to generate a significant CO impact. The 2003 AQMP estimated that
the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume
increase even to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4= 18.4 ppm) would still not
exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).
According to available evidence, the Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 50
a CO “hot spot” either in the context of the 2003 SCAQMD hot spot study or the BAAQMD CO thresholds.
Therefore, the Project would not result in any CO “hot spots” and the Project’s localized air quality impacts
related to mobile-source emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The Project is located in Riverside County, CA, which is not among the California counties that are found
to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring
asbestos during Project construction is small. However, in the event asbestos is found on the site, the project
will be required to comply with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Asbestos Program. An Asbestos NESHAP Notification Form shall be completed and submitted to the
California Air Resources Board immediately upon discovery of the contaminant. The Project will be
required to follow NESHAP standards for emissions control during site renovation, waste transport and
waste disposal. A person certified in asbestos removal procedures will be required to supervise on-site
activities. By following the required asbestos abatement protocols, the Project impact is less than
significant. These protocols are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
Potential Health Risks
In December 2018, in the case of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, California Supreme
Court held that an EIR's air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to
the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be
provided. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch case (April 6,
2015), SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation
capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on
how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes.
The SCAQMD has stated that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the
proposed Project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air
toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of
the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). The Brief states that it may not be feasible
to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building
that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenants). Even where a health risk
assessment can be prepared, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk - it does
not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the Project. It should also be noted that the
actual occurrence of specific health conditions in individuals is based on numerous other factors that are
infeasible to quantify, such as an individual’s genetic predisposition, diet, exercise regimen, stress, and
other behavioral characteristics. The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported
that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. Similarly,
SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone (O3) related health impacts
caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects due to photochemistry and regional model
limitations. The Brief concludes, with respect to the Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been
technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or
meaningful.
On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed Project), the SCAQMD states
that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their
rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds pe day (lbs./day) of NOX and 89,180 lbs./day of VOC were
expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to ozone.
The proposed Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 lbs/day of NOX or 89,190 lbs/day of VOC
emissions. The proposed Project would generate up to 74.55 lbs/day of NOX during construction and 25.02
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 51
lbs/day of NOX during operations (1.13% and 0.05% of 6,620 lbs/day, respectively). Additionally, the
proposed Project would also generate a maximum of 41.29 lbs/day of VOC emissions during construction
and 5.09 lbs/day of VOC emissions during operations (0.05% and 0.01% of 89,190 lbs/day, respectively).
Therefore, the proposed Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling
program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the AQ Study does evaluate the proposed Project’s localized impact to
air quality for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the Proposed Project’s onsite
emissions to the SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. As evaluated in this AQ Study, the proposed
Project would not result in emissions that exceeded the SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards
for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.
Impact Summary
The preceding analysis has demonstrated the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations including toxic air contaminants. The Project must follow all SCAQMD rules and
requirements with regards to fugitive dust control, but no mitigation measures are required. Impacts will
be less than significant.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by
Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (AQ Study, Appendix B1); and North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
(Appendix B2)
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people? Less Than Significant Impact
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally
associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment
plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, or
fiberglass molding facilities.
The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential
odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the
application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of
typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard
construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor
emissions would be temporary, short- term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of
the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-
generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with
the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule
402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project
construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by
Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (AQ Study, Appendix B1)
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 52
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
At present, the Project site consists of approximately 7.5 acres of land located approximately 250 feet north
of the northeast corner of intersection of Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive in the City of Lake Elsinore.
The site is comprised of four (4) contiguous Assessor’s parcels that are in a vacant, undeveloped condition.
It is further noted that the Project site has been repeatedly disked over the years in conjunction with weed
abatement efforts.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A single-family residence was constructed in the northeast corner of the site in 1965 along with two small
concrete- lined drainage ditches that were dug along the site’s south and east property lines. In 2019, the
structures and most of the paved areas were removed. Since that time, all of the structures and foundations
have been in the process of being demolished, and the associated rubble and accumulated trash removed
from the site. Most of the trees, windrows and retaining walls remain on the site and the sparse non-native
grasslands vegetation is periodically disced for weed abatement/fire prevention purposes. Most of the site
is relatively flat except for a small hill in the northeast corner. Onsite elevations range from 1,260 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL) in the southwest up to 1,280 feet AMSL in the northeast. The topography
of the Project site and surrounding area are depicted on Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, and Figure VII-1,
Surrounding Topography, included in Section III and Section VII, respectively, of this Initial Study.
Regulatory Constraints
The Project site is within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) which was prepared and is managed by the County of Riverside. An MSHCP Consistency
Analysis (MSHCP Analysis) was prepared for the Project by Principe and Associates in July 2021. The
MCHSP Analysis indicates that surveys for amphibians, burrowing owl, mammals, Narrow Endemic Plant
Species, or Criteria Area Plant Species are not required on the Project site. The MSHCP generally requires
assessments for riparian/riverine habitat, riparian/riverine species and vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat. The
MSHCP protects special-status species are native species within its boundaries that have been afforded
special legal or management protection because of concern for their continued existence. In addition to the
MSHCP, there are a number of federal and State laws and regulations that protect various biological
resources, including the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, Sections
3503 and 3511 of California Fish and Game Code, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The Project site is located within a proposed Conservation Planning (MSHCP) Criteria Area. It is entirely
within MSHCP Cell #4266 which is in an Independent Cell Group within the Elsinore Sub-Unit of the
Elsinore Area Plan.
Watershed, Drainages, and Drainage Features
The Project site is within the approximate 2,650-square mile Santa Ana River Watershed which spans from
portions of San Jacinto Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Santa Ana
Mountains, to the cities of Rialto, Lake Elsinore (of which the Project site is a part), Anaheim, Huntington
Beach, and Irvine. Two major rivers drain the Santa Ana River watershed, the Santa Ana River and the
San Jacinto River. There are no natural watercourses of any kind on the site (e.g., perennial or intermittent
blueline streams, ephemeral drainages, historical drainages, etc.) but there are two manmade drainage
features present - a concrete v-ditch is present along the entire length of the site’s west property line, and
an earthen drainage channel is present along the entire length of the site’s south property line.
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP describes the process to protect species associated with riparian/riverine areas
and vernal pools. As defined in the MSHCP, riparian/riverine areas are lands which contain habitat
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 53
dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or
depend on a nearby freshwater source or areas that contain a freshwater flow during all or a portion of the
year. These areas may support one or more species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depressions, typically have wetland indicators that
represent all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology), and are defined based on vernal pool
indicator plant species during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators
associated with vegetation and/or hydrology during the drier portion of the growing season.
The two onsite ditches observed within the Project site do not drain into areas designated for conservation
under the MSHCP. Further, these ditches do not provide wetland habitat, did not result from human actions
to create open waters, or from the alteration of natural stream courses, and does not contain habitat
dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, and is therefore excluded
from the definitions of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. Additionally, the ditches do not contain
suitable habitat for MSHCP-covered species that occur in riparian/riverine areas (e.g., least Bell’s vireo
[Vireo bellii pusillus], southwestern willow flycatcher [Empidonax traillii extimus], western yellow-billed
cuckoo [Coccyzus americanus occidentalis], etc.). For these reasons, the ditches do not provide any
function or value to MSHCP-covered species.
The MSHCP Analysis concluded the site has no drainage features or resources under the jurisdiction of any
state or federal agency (i.e., waters of the U.S. or waters of the State), no riparian/riverine areas, and no
vernal pools.
Existing Vegetation and Wildlife
The Project site is largely covered with non-native grasslands (5.92 acres) which are primarily composed
of annual grass and weed species introduced from the Mediterranean basin with a low abundance of native
species. The surface of the site also includes disturbed/developed land (2.35 acres) with large areas of bare
ground with exposed soils and gravel that are void of any vegetation. The site supports dozens of non-
native mainly landscaping tree species including Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), river red gum
(Eucalyptus camaldulensis), common fig (Ficus carica), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Mexican palo
verde (Parkinsonia aculeata), and Mediterranean tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) –weedy tree tobacco
(Nicotiana glauca) is also present. The Project site and surrounding area provide limited habitat for wildlife
species that commonly occur within urban communities in Riverside County that are tolerant of human
activity such as small mammals, songbirds, and small reptiles.
According to the MSHCP Analysis, the site is not providing a wildlife movement corridor for juvenile
animal dispersals, seasonal migrations, foraging movements for food or water, and/or for searching for
mates, breeding areas or cover through this portion of the City. The site also does not connect two or more
larger core habitat areas that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another. It does not
contain suitable cover, food or water for species to survive at the site and facilitate movement within a
corridor. According to the MSHCP, conservation within Cell #4266 will contribute to the assembly of
Proposed Linkage 2 (i.e., a planned wildlife movement corridor):
Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines
According to section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines are intended to
address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation
Area. The study area is not near a conservation area and therefore the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines
are not applicable.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 54
Other Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive biological resources not addressed by the MSHCP include USFWS critical habitat, nesting birds,
and protected trees as described below:
• Critical Habitat. As indicated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical habitat
portal 1, the CDFW BIOS website 2, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) website 3, there
are no listed species present and no critical habitat for any listed species on or in the immediate area of
the Project site. Based on the lack of critical habitat in the study area and lack of suitable habitat on or
adjacent to the site, the proposed Project is not expected to affect Critical Habitat for any listed species.
• Nesting Birds. California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) protect native birds and their nests from direct take. The Project site and surrounding area
contain many trees and large shrubs suitable for nesting birds.
• Protected Trees. There are no species on the Project site protected by the Lake Elsinore Significant
Palm Trees Ordinance (Chapter 5.116). The City requires a palm tree removal permit to remove palm
trees that exceed five feet in height plus an arborist report prepared to City standards pursuant to the
ordinance.
• Special-Status Plants. No special-status plant species were observed on the Project site or in the study
area during the survey. All species with recorded occurrences in the study area vicinity are associated
with habitats not found on the Project site.
In addition to the MSHCP, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (USC 703-711) is an
international treaty that makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird
listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by
implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). In addition, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the CDFG Code
prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.
Suitable nesting habitats for migratory birds are present on the site. The onsite non-native grasslands and
trees provide potential nesting habitats for ground dwelling and perching bird species. In addition, the trees
growing on the site and in the surrounding areas surrounding provide potential nesting habitats for predatory
bird species. The bird species observed at or have a probability of occurring on the site are bird species
governed by the MBTA and are listed in 50 CFR Part 10. The MBTA requires that project-related
disturbances at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Will the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the Lake Elsinore, California Quadrangle does
not include any occurrence records of plant and wildlife species identified as candidate, sensitive or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on this site. Suitable habitats for any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species are not present on the site.
1 https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html
2 https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/
3 https://www.cnps.org/
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 55
The Project site falls within the MSHCP fee area. Payment of any necessary development mitigation fees
(whether special-status species are present or not), as well as compliance with the requirements of Section
6.0 of the MSHCP, is intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA, the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Federal Endangered Species Act
(FESA) for impacts on species and habitats covered by the MSHCP, pursuant to agreements with the
USFWS and the CDFW, as set forth in the implementing agreement for the MSHCP (reference Mitigation
Measure MM-BIO-1).
The Project site is also located within the County’s Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee Area and will
pay the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee (Riverside County Ordinance 663.10) as outlined in
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2.
The following discussion documents the Project’s compliance with other applicable MSHCP sections:
• Habitat Assessment. The Project will not impact narrow endemic plant species (NEPS),
riparian/riverine habitat or species, vernal pools/fairy shrimp habitat, or conservation areas. Therefore,
the project will not conflict with Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. Under the requirements
of Section 6.3.1 of MSHCP, vegetation mapping is provided in the MSHCP Analysis to assess the
presence of suitable habitat for Criteria Area Plant Species.
• Riparian/Riverine and Jurisdictional Features. The Project site study area contains a single ditch;
however, the ditch is not consistent with the MSHCP definition of a riparian/riverine system. No
riparian/riverine species, pursuant to MSHCP guidelines, were observed. Therefore, no further actions
under the MSHCP are recommended. The ditch is also not under the jurisdiction of the USACE,
RWQCB, or CDFW.
• Nesting Birds. Migratory or other common bird species may nest in trees onsite or in the immediate
surrounding area. Therefore, construction of the Project has the potential to directly (by destroying a
nest) or indirectly (through construction noise, dust, and other human disturbances that may cause a
nest to fail) impact nesting birds protected under the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC)
and MBTA if construction occurs during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31).
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 would help assure avoidance and/or minimization
of potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors.
• Sensitive Plants. The Project site is not within a survey area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey
Areas (NEPSSA) species and no suitable habitat for NEPSSA occurs on the Project site. Therefore,
NEPSSA surveys are not required, and no impacts would occur.
• Small Mammals. The proposed Project is not located within the Mammal Species Survey Area (MSSA)
of the MSHCP, and the site does not provide suitable habitat for sensitive MSHCP mammal species.
Therefore, no impacts would occur to sensitive small mammals.
• Burrowing Owl. The MSHCP requires a habitat assessment and survey if burrowing owl habitat occurs
on site. As set forth in the MSHCP Analysis, a burrowing owl survey for the Project site is not required
as it is not in an area that requires a survey and due to the disturbed condition of the site caused by
repeated disking.
• Migratory/Nesting Birds. Development of the proposed Project could potentially disturb or destroy
active migratory bird nests including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird
eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and is, therefore,
considered to be a potentially significant impact. Therefore, MM-BIO-3 shall be implemented. With
incorporation of MM-BIO-3, any potential impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than
significant.
Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not 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. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 56
1 through MM-BIO-3, any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis,
Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by
Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C).
b) Would the Project 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? No Impact
As set forth in Section IV.a, above and as stated in the MSHCP Analysis, the two ditches identified on the
Project site are not consistent with the MSHCP definition of a riparian/riverine system and are not under
the jurisdiction of any state or federal agency (i.e., not waters of the U.S. or waters of the State). There are
also no riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools on the site. Therefore, no riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community occurs on the Project site so there would be no impacts.
Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis,
Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by
Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C).
c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact
According to the MSHCP Analysis, the two ditches identified on the Project site are not consistent with the
MSHCP definition of a riparian/riverine system and are not under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB,
or CDFW. In addition, other kinds of perennial or seasonal aquatic features that could be classified as
federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (e.g., rivers, open waters,
swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, etc.) are not present on the Project site.
Based on the above, implementation of the Project would not 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. There would be no impact.
Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis,
Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by
Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C).
d) Would the Project 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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The entire Project site is located within Cell #4266 which is part of an Independent Cell Group in the
Elsinore Sub-Unit (3) of the Elsinore Area Plan. Conservation within Cell #4266 will contribute to the
assembly of Proposed Linkage 2 as described below from the MSHCP:
“Proposed Linkage 2 is comprised of wetland Habitat associated with Collier Marsh in the City of Lake
Elsinore. It supports key populations of the following species: yellow-breasted chat, San Diego
ambrosia, downy woodpecker, least Bell's vireo, yellow warbler and southwestern willow flycatcher.
Maintenance of wetland functions and values and water quality of Collier Marsh is important for these
species. As shown below, areas not affected by edge within this Linkage total approximately 70 acres
of the total 160 acres occupied by this Linkage. Since this Linkage may be affected by edge, treatment
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 57
and management of edge conditions will be necessary to ensure that land uses adjacent to the Linkage
do not degrade water quality or inhibit floodplain processes. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands
Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic
predators are presented in Section 6.1 of this document.”
The proposed Project site is developed on three sides and there is no native habitat present. The site is
located in the northeast corner of the Cell approximately 0.3 mile east of the western portion of the Cell
that is targeted for conservation to support Linkage 2. It was concluded in the RCA JPR #: 09-06-09-01
case completed for a previous development project proposed at the site did not conflict with the Reserve
Assembly requirements of the MSHCP. Therefore, the Project site then has no direct or indirect relationship
to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2.
The non-native grasslands and trees present on the site provide suitable habitat for migratory birds. Nesting
activity typically occurs from February 15 to August 31. Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, nests and eggs are protected
under Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 3503. Therefore, construction of the Project has the potential
to directly (by destroying a nest) or indirectly (through construction noise, dust, and other human
disturbances that may cause a nest to fail) impact nesting birds protected under the California FGC and
MBTA if construction occurs during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31).
The MSHCP Analysis concluded the Project site does not function as or support a viable wildlife movement
corridor for migrations, foraging movements or for finding a mate for wildlife species through this portion
of the City. The site also does not connect two or more larger core habitat areas that would otherwise be
fragmented or isolated from one another. However, the MSHCP Analysis did recommend implementation
of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 to help assure avoidance and/or minimization of potential impacts to
nesting birds and raptors.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 would help assure avoidance and/or minimization of
potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors and the Project would not interfere with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. With incorporation of MM-BIO-3, any
potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis,
Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by
Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C).
e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact
The City’s General Plan Conservation Element contains a number of conservation goals and policies to
protect: (a) the ecological and lifecycle needs of threatened, endangered, or otherwise sensitive species and
their associated habitats; (b) the groundwater aquifer, water bodies, and water courses, including reservoirs,
rivers, streams, and their watersheds located throughout the City, and to conserve and efficiently use water;
(c) floodplain and riparian areas, wetlands, forest, vegetation, and environmentally sensitive lands; and (d)
native trees, specimen trees and trees with historical significance (heritage). In addition, there are no species
on the Project site protected by the Lake Elsinore Significant Palm Trees Ordinance (Municipal Code
Chapter 5.116). The City requires a palm tree removal permit to remove palm trees that exceed five feet in
height plus an arborist report prepared to City standards pursuant to the ordinance.
Therefore, important biological resources protected by local policies or ordinances are not present on the
Project site and any impacts will be less than significant.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 58
Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis,
Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by
Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C); and LEMC, Ord. 1256 § 1, 2008.
f) Would the Project 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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The Project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Planning Area. The MSHCP is a
comprehensive multi-jurisdictional effort that includes western Riverside County and multiple cities,
including the Project site and surrounding area. Rather than address sensitive species on an individual
basis, the MSHCP focuses on the conservation of 146 species, proposing a reserve system of approximately
500,000 acres and a mechanism to fund and implement the reserve system. Most importantly, the MSHCP
allows participating entities to issue take permits for listed species so that individual applicants need not
seek their own permits from the USFWS and/or CDFW.
The MSHCP consists of a Criteria Area that assists in facilitating the process by which individual properties
are evaluated for inclusion and subsequent conservation. In addition to Criteria Area requirements, the
MSHCP requires consistency with Sections 6.1.2 (Protection of Species within Riparian/Riverine Areas
and Vernal Pools), 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), 6.1.4 (Urban Wildlands Interface),
6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), and Section 6.4 (Fuels Management). The MSHCP serves
as a comprehensive, multijurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), pursuant to Section (a)(1)(B) of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under
the State NCCP Act of 2001.
The MSHCP establishes “Criteria Area” boundaries in order to facilitate the process by which properties
are evaluated for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation. The Criteria Area is an area significantly larger
than what may be needed for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area, within which property will be
evaluated using MSHCP Conservation Criteria. The Criteria Area is an analytical tool which assists in
determining which properties to evaluate for acquisition and conservation under the MSHCP.
The MSHCP Analysis evaluated the Project for consistency with the following MSHCP issue areas:
• MSHCP Reserve Assembly requirements;
• Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools);
• Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species);
• Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface);
• Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures); and
• Section 6.4 (Fuels Management).
A summary of the findings set forth in the MSHCP Analysis is included in Section IV and Threshold IV.a.
The MSHCP Analysis concluded the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP. The site is located within Conservation Planning Criteria Cell #4266 which is
an Independent Cell Group in the Elsinore Sub-Unit (3) of the Elsinore Area Plan. It appears that the
MSHCP Cell Criteria does not include conservation for the proposed Project site.
The proposed Project would be subject to the MSHCP Fee as required under Mitigation Measure MM
BIO 1. With payment of MSHCP Development Mitigation Fees (whether special-status species are present
or not), impacts to any special-status species covered under the “take” provisions of the MSHCP would be
less than significant. The proposed Project is not expected to result in any significant impacts to any
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 59
species-status plant or wildlife species that are not covered under the “take” provisions of the MSHCP.
Conserved Lands or Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands. The site is not located within or along the
boundaries of Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency (RCA) Conserved Lands or
Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands. The most proximate RCA Conserved Lands to the site are located
approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the site and approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the site.
Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands are located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the site.
Conservation Areas. The site is not located in the vicinity of a MSHCP Conservation Area. The closest
conservation area is Proposed Linkage 2 which is located approximately 0.3 miles west of the Project site,
but the site has no physical connectivity or any direct or indirect relationship to the assembly of Proposed
Linkage 2 (i.e., meadow, marsh, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitats along Alberhill Creek and
adjacent grassland habitat are not present on the site). There are also no viable native biological resources
present on the site that could be connected to meadow, marsh and grassland habitats located off the site.
The Project site is located in the northeast corner of the Cell while conservation in the Cell is focused in the
western portion of the Cell. In accordance with existing policies, brush management will not be required
for future development on the site. Plant communities with shrub species that create fuel loads are not
present along site property lines, but the onsite trees will be removed.
Proposed Linkage 2. Conservation within Cell #4266 will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage
2. However, the proposed Project site is developed on three sides and there are no native habitats present
on the site. The site is located in the northeast corner of the Cell approximately 0.2 miles east of areas
located in the western portion that are targeted for conservation. It was concluded in the RCA JPR #: 09-
06-09-01 case completed for the previous project proposed at the site did not conflict with the Reserve
Assembly requirements of the MSHCP (see below). The Project site would therefore have no direct or
indirect relationship to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2 and there would be no impacts in this regard.
Urban/Wildlands Interface. The site has no physical connectivity to Proposed Linkage 2, and therefore
has no direct or indirect relationship to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2. Also, it is not located within
the 250-foot buffer used in the MSHCP to complete an edge analysis for indirect effects of land uses located
adjacent to a MSHCP Conservation Area. As such, the treatment and management of edge conditions will
not be necessary to ensure that land uses adjacent to the Linkage do not degrade water quality or inhibit
floodplain processes. Therefore, the Project will not be subject to Guidelines Pertaining to the
Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge conditions such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics,
and domestic predators as presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.
Previous LEAP/JPR Approval. The Lake Elsinore Automotive Center project was previously proposed
on the site (2008). Since the site is located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell, a Property Owner Initiated
Application for a MSHCP Consistency Determination was filed on May 27, 2008 to initiate the Lake
Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP). LEAP Case Number 2008-02 was issued for the proposed project.
The LEAP process was then submitted to the RCA for a Joint Project Review (JPR) involving the RCA,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. JPR Case Number 09-06-09-
01 was issued to initiate the Criteria Consistency Review. In the transmittal from the RCA to the City of
Lake Elsinore on June 22, 2009, the Criteria Consistency Review concluded that the Project was consistent
with both the MSHCP Criteria and other Plan requirements.
Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pools. The biological functions and values of Riparian/Riverine Areas or
Vernal Pools that could provide suitable habitats for endangered and threatened species of fairy shrimp are
not present on the site per Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. In addition, the kinds of perennial or seasonal
aquatic features that could be classified as federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act are not present on the site.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 60
Additional Surveys. Based on the RCA MSHCP Information Map for this site, it is located in Roughstep
8(HMU-Santa Ana Mountains). The map’s Conservation Description for the site states that it is not located
in a Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Amphibian Species Survey Area, Burrowing Owl Survey Area, or
Mammal Species Survey Area where additional surveys are needed for certain species in conjunction with
MSHCP implementation in order to achieve coverage for these species.
Summary. As demonstrated above, the Project is consistent with all applicable sections of the MSHCP and
will have less than significant impacts relative to the MSHCP with implementation of Mitigation Measure
MM-BIO-1.
Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis,
Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by
Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C).
Mitigation Measures:
MM-BIO-1: MSHCP Fee. 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 for commercial development in effect at the time the permits are issued.
MM-BIO-2: SKR Fee. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall pay the
County’s Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee (Riverside County Ordinance 663.10) development
mitigation fee for commercial development in effect at the time the permits are issued.
MM-BIO-3: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey and Avoidance. Pror to removal of non-native
grassland vegetation and trees from the site, the developer/applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the City of Lake Elsinore that either of the following has been or will be accomplished:
• To the extent practical, non-native grasslands and tree removal activities shall be scheduled outside the
nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to
avoid potential impacts to nesting birds.
• Any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for
songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) in the non-native grasslands and trees will require that
all potential habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist
before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, then a buffer of at least 300 feet
(500 feet for raptors) will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as
determined by the biological monitor to minimize impacts. If no nests are observed, no further action
is required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 61
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? No Impact
The Project site is identified as consisting of approximately 7.2 acres of undeveloped land (Assessor’s
Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006) located southerly of the I-15 freeway, between Collier
Avenue and El Toro Road. The proposed Project will involve the construction of a neighborhood business
park. The proposed Project requires compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
including CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 entitled “Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological
and Historical Resources”.
The Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project (CRA) presents the results of a cultural
resources records search, Native American outreach, archival research, and field survey. The CRA has been
prepared according to the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (1990) Archaeological Resource
Management Reports guidelines. The findings of the CRA are summarized below:
• The records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center on November 16, 2021 identified 33
cultural resources within a 1-mile search radius of the Project site;
• No cultural resources have been previously documented within or immediately adjacent to the Project
site;
• A search of the Sacred Lands File housed at the Native American Heritage Commission on November
8, 2021 resulted in negative findings;
• A review of historical maps and aerial photographs indicates that the Project site has been partially
developed for residential uses since approximately 1956;
• Finally, no cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey (October 26, 2021) of the
Project site.
The CRA concluded there would be no impacts to historical resources. Based on the results of the CRA,
implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. There would be no impact.
Sources: A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean
A. Keller, 12-2021 (CRA, Appendix D).
b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Threshold V.b addresses the potential adverse change in significance of an archeological resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Please refer to the discussion set forth in Threshold V.a, for a summary of
the Project site, the proposed Project development plan, identification of the Project-specific CRA
performed, and the subsequent CRA findings and recommendations. As previously summarized with
respect to archeological resources, evidence of mining / rock processing, remnants of residential buildings
with associated landscaping and trash, a cemetery, and a small food processing site were identified within
0.5-mile of the Project site and documented in the CRA. No cultural resources have been previously
documented within or immediately adjacent to the Project site. A search of the Sacred Lands File housed
at the Native American Heritage Commission resulted in negative findings, and finally, no cultural
resources were identified during the pedestrian survey of the Project site.
While archeological resources are not anticipated to be found at the Project site, Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5 are recommended to ensure that any potential disturbance to buried
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 62
cultural resources during the grading and/or construction phases of the Project is reduced to a less than
significant level. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5,
listed below, implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5. Any impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
Sources: A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean
A. Keller, 12-2021 (CRA, Appendix D).
c) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Due in part to the Project site having been previously disturbed via prior residential development and
discing, no human remains or cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed Project. However,
previously unknown human remains may be located below the ground surface which could potentially be
encountered during construction excavations associated with the proposed Project. This conclusion is based
on the documented prehistoric occupation of the region, the identification of multiple surface archaeological
resources within one mile of the Project site, and favorable natural conditions that would have attracted
prehistoric inhabitants to the area.
In order to ensure that implementation of the Project would not disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries, Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-6 and MM-CUL-7, listed below,
will be incorporated. With incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-6 and MM-CUL-7, any
impact would be less than significant.
Sources: A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean
A. Keller, 12-2021 (CRA, Appendix D).
Mitigation Measures:
MM CUL 1: Unanticipated Resources. The developer/permit holder or any successor in interest shall
comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated
cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed:
1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted
until a meeting is convened between the developer, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American
tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group
representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the
significance of the find.
2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon
discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting.
3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be
discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development
Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance,
etc.) for the cultural resource.
4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until a meeting has
been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made, with the concurrence of the
Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures.
5. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural
Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This
may include avoidance of cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of
cultural resources located in native soils, and/or re-burial on the Project property so they are not
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 63
subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location
measure.
6. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase
III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the
Tribe(s), and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation
of the said plan.
7. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation
for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant and the Tribe(s) cannot
agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues
will be presented to the Community Development Director for decision. The Community
Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the
project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and
practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the
decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning
Commission and/or City Council.” Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a
significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to City of Lake Elsinore upon the
completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding.
MM CUL 2: Archaeologist/CRMP. 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 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
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 64
Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community
Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction
activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed
to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using
professional archaeological methods.
Phase IV Report - A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and
submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The
report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion
of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including
any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites
affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog
and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant,
the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe.
MM CUL 3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are
discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried
out for final disposition of the discoveries:
One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence
of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department:
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 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 preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in the culturally
sensitive matter at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department of
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. Evidence of compliance with this
mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to the City
of Lake Elsinore upon completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and
treatment of finding.
MM CUL 4: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, at least 30 days prior to the
issuance, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested
monitoring through consultation with the City during the AB 52 and/or the SB 18 process (“Monitoring
Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring
Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 65
Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement
shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project’s approved
mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of
professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading
and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition
of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the
Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal
Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to
evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist.
MM CUL 5: Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural
Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning
Department's requirements for such reports for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading
permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources
(Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall
include results of any feature relocation as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for
the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting. Once the report is determined to be
adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of
California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Monitoring Tribes.
MM-Cul-6: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be
human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors,
project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities
within 100 feet of the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the
City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be
permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b).
Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no
further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state
law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC
(PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the
determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations
and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code
Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition
of the remains, State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see
PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).
According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a
cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).
MM-CUL-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise
required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall
not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public
Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code
6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to
such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 66
VI. ENERGY
Any Tables or Figures in this Section are from the Energy Analysis unless stated otherwise.
a) Would the Project 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 Project proposes development of 94,665 square feet (sf) of general light industrial use within 12
buildings. It is anticipated that the Project will be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening
Year of 2022. This analysis is intended to describe energy usage associated with the expected operational
activities at the Project site. It is assumed the Project will operate 24-hours daily for seven days per week.
Although the future tenants of the proposed Project are unknown at this time, it is assumed their operations
would be consistent with warehouse uses.
Implementation of the proposed Project would commit approximately 7.5 acres of largely vacant land to
light industrial use. Former use of the site included a single family residence and contractor’s storage yard.
Utility services including electricity and natural gas connections are being requested in conjunction with
the Project. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would contribute to the incremental
depletion of renewable and non-renewable energy resources.
Electricity
Electricity consumption during construction and operation phases would incrementally increase the
consumption of fossil fuels like natural gas used at power plants located outside the City of Lake Elsinore.
Accordingly, this represents a long-term commitment to the continued consumption of these resources.
Currently, there is not an electricity connection in place serving the Project site in its vacant and
undeveloped condition. The Project site development plan which proposes construction of a light industrial
center will require electrical service.
The electrical service provider for the Project site, the City of Lake Elsinore, and the greater Southwest
Riverside County region is Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE maintains substations and distribution
lines in the Lake Elsinore area including the Dryden and Elsinore substations. Overhead service lines
adjacent to the Project site are located along Collier Avenue to the southwest, Riverside Drive to the
southeast, and El Toro Road to the northeast.
In 2019, California’s energy sources included renewables at 35.1%, geothermal resources at 5.9%, wind
power at 11.5%, large hydroelectric sources at 7.9%, solar energy at 16.0%, and coal at 0%. According to
the CalEEMod output provided in the Energy Analysis, the Project would demand an estimated 95,305 kWh
for all construction activities and 819,653 kWh per year (or 0.82 GWh per year) of electricity to serve the
operational needs of proposed warehousing-related uses. In terms of operation this is equivalent to 2,796.6
million British Thermal Units (Btu) assuming 3,412 Btu per kWh. This increased energy demand would
amount to slightly more than 0.001 percent of SCE’s annual demand in 2019. This nominal increase in
energy demand attributed to the proposed Project is not anticipated to require additional electricity
substations or transmission facilities beyond those currently serving the Lake Elsinore area. Impacts with
respect to new or expanded electric power facilities would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
Currently, there is not a natural gas connection in place serving the Project site in its vacant condition. The
natural gas provider for the Project site, the City of Lake Elsinore, and the greater Southwest Riverside
County region is the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), also known as The Gas Company.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 67
SoCal Gas provides natural gas service to approximately six million residential and business customers
across 20,000 square miles of southern California, including Lake Elsinore (SCG 2019). The Project site
is located in SoCal Gas’s Southern Zone. In 2018, California consumed approximately 12,600 million U.S.
therms (MMthm) of natural gas (1 therm is equal to approximately 100 cubic feet of natural gas). In 2018,
SoCal Gas provided approximately 40.9 percent (±40.9%) of the total natural gas used in California.
According to the CalEEMod output, the Project would demand an estimated 2,600 MBTU per year of
natural gas to serve the proposed light industrial uses. This increased energy demand would amount to less
than 0.0003 percent of SoCal Gas’s annual demand in 2019.
This nominal increase in energy demand attributed to the proposed Project is not anticipated to require
additional natural gas storage or transmission facilities beyond those currently serving the Lake Elsinore
area. Impacts with respect to new or expanded natural gas facilities would be less than significant.
Petroleum Consumption
California’s on-road transportation system includes 394,383 land miles, more than 25.5 million passenger
vehicles and light trucks, and almost 8.7 million medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. While gasoline
consumption has been declining since 2008 it is still by far the dominant fuel. Petroleum comprises about
88% of all transportation energy use, excluding fuel consumed for aviation and most marine vessels. In
2020, about 123.49 billion gallons (or about 2.94 billion barrels1) of finished motor gasoline were
consumed in the U.S., an average of about 337 million gallons per day (or about 8.03 million barrels per
day). This was the lowest level of annual consumption since 1997 and about 16% less than the record level
of consumption of nearly 392 million gallons per day in 2018. In 2020, Californians also used 2,154,030
million cubic feet of natural gas as a transportation fuel.
Project construction activities would consume an estimated 61,070 gallons of diesel fuel plus 16,128 gallons
of gasoline for worker transportation. In addition, vendor trips to and from the site would consume an
additional 14,344 gallons of diesel fuel and 3,467 gallons of gasoline. All of these construction-related
activities would consume a total of 75,414 gallons of diesel fuel and 19,595 gallons of gasoline. Assuming
137,381 British Thermal Units (Btu) per gallon of diesel fuel and 120,429 Btu per gallon of gasoline, all
construction activities would consume a total of 12,720.3 million Btu (MBtu). The Energy Analysis also
calculated that Project operation would consume 120,950 gallons of vehicle fuels (primarily gasoline) each
year at buildout which is equal to 14,565.9 MBtu.
Total Consumption and Conclusion
The Energy Analysis concluded the Project would consume a total of 12,720.3 MBtu for construction which
is scheduled to last 14 months and ongoing Project operations would consume a total of 19,356.8 MBtu
each year from electrical and natural gas use as well as consumption of vehicle fuel (which represents 75%
of the total estimated consumption). Table VI-1, Total Project Energy Consumption summarizes the
anticipated energy consumption of the Project for both construction and operation.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 68
Table VI-1
Total Project Energy Consumption
Activity Total Energy
Consumption (MBtu/yr.)1
Annual Energy
Consumption (MBtu/yr.)1
Construction2
Diesel-Fueled Equipment
Gasoline-Fueled Vehicles
Total
10,360.5
2,359.8
12,720.3
--
--
--
Operation
Electricity
Natural Gas
Petroleum Fuels
Total
--
--
--
--
2,796.6
1,994.3
14,565.9
19,356.8
1 Millions of British thermal units per year
2 Construction activities are expected to last for 14 months and include both on-road and off-road activities
As supported by the preceding analyses, Project construction and operations would not result in the
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project would therefore not cause or result
in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in
wasteful or inefficient uses of energy to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Energy Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (Energy Analysis, Appendix E); North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
(Appendix B2); General Plan EIR, Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems; Project Plans (Appendix
L); and Google Earth.
b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the site’s demand for energy in comparison with its
existing vacant, undeveloped condition. Specifically, the proposed Project would increase consumption of
energy for space and water heating, air conditioning, lighting, and operation of miscellaneous equipment
and appliances associated with the light industrial uses.
SB 100. The Project will purchase electricity through Southern California Edison which is subject to the
requirements of California Senate Bill 100 (SB 100). SB 100 is the most stringent and current energy 5-3
legislation in California; requiring that renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100%
of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all
state agencies by December 31, 2045.
Title 24. The Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards, were developed by the California
Energy Commission and apply to energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and
lighting in new residential and non-residential buildings (inclusive of light industrial uses). The 2019
version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and became effective on January 1, 2020. It should be noted
that the analysis herein assumes compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Standards. The CEC anticipates that
nonresidential buildings will use approximately 30% less energy compared to the prior code (18). As such,
the CalEEMod defaults for Title 24 – Electricity and Lighting Energy were reduced by 30% in order to
reflect consistency with the 2019 Title 24 standard. The Project would also comply with all Title 24 energy
conservation requirements, and adherence to these efficiency standards would result in a “maximum
feasible” reduction in unnecessary energy consumption.
ISTEA. Transportation and access to the Project site is provided by the local and regional roadway systems.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 69
The Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that
may be realized pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) because
SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project site.
TEA-21. The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the
Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles
traveled, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through
collocation of similar uses. The Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA‐21). The Project is therefore consistent with, and
would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA‐21.
IEPR. Electricity would be provided to the Project by SCE. SCE’s Clean Power and Electrification Pathway
(CPEP) white paper builds on existing state programs and policies. As such, the Project is consistent with,
and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation the goals presented in the 2020
Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) under Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002).
Additionally, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the
Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. As such,
development of the proposed Project would support the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR.
California Energy Plan. The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate
access to the Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access and takes advantage
of existing infrastructure systems. The Project therefore supports urban design and planning processes
identified under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere
with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan.
AB 1493. Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493) is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure
establishing vehicle emissions standards. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of
the requirements under AB 1493.
RPS. California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide
measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project would interfere with
implementation of the requirements under RPS.
SB 350. The proposed Project would use energy from SCE, which have committed to diversify their
portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project
would interfere with implementation of Senate Bill 350 (SB 350). Additionally, the Project would be
designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new industrial developments
and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption.
SUMMARY. As shown above, the Project would not conflict with any of the applicable state or local plans.
As such, a less than significant impact is expected, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Energy Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (Energy Analysis, Appendix E); North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
(Appendix B2); General Plan EIR, Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems; and Project Plans
(Appendix L).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 70
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor are any faults mapped or
inferred through the Project site. However, the Project site is identified in Map My County as being within
a County Fault Zone.
The City of Lake Elsinore is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province and includes
parts of two structural blocks (structural subdivisions) of the province. The Peninsular Ranges Province
extends from the Santa Monica Mountains approximately 900 miles south to the tip of Baja California. It
is located on the Pacific Plate (crustal/tectonic) which is moving to the northwest relative to the adjacent
North American Plate. The San Andreas Fault forms the boundary between the Pacific and the North
American Plates. As a result, the Southern California area contains numerous regional and local faults, and
experiences substantial ground movement during relatively frequent seismic events.
The active Elsinore fault zone diagonally crosses the southwest corner of the Elsinore 7.5’ quadrangle and
is a major element of the right-lateral strike-slip San Andreas fault-system. The Elsinore Fault Zone forms
a complex series of pull-apart basins:
• The closest faults to the Project site are associated with the Elsinore Fault system. Strands of the
Elsinore fault zone within Riverside County include the Whittier, Glen Ivy, Temecula, and Julian
segments. In the City of Lake Elsinore, the majority of the Elsinore fault zone is located under the lake;
• The closest fault to the Project site is identified as the Glen Ivy North fault located approximately 500
feet southwest of the Project site across Lakeshore Drive, followed by the Willard fault approximately
1.5 miles southwest of the Project site.
According to the GP-EIR, the last recorded ground rupture on the Elsinore fault occurred in 2010 in vicinity
of the Laguna Salada segment in Baja California. The last earthquake over magnitude 5.2 along the main
trace of the Elsinore fault was a Mw 6 quake near the Temescal Valley in 1910 that produced no known
surface rupture. Lesser magnitude earthquakes have occurred along the Elsinore fault zone in 1890, 1918,
1923, 1937, 1954, 1968, and 1982. Although the Elsinore fault complex is active, it is unlikely that the
City and Sphere of Influence would be subject to surface rupture during a seismic event.
Based on the above, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the Project site
during the design life of the proposed Project is considered low.
Furthermore, all structures constructed as a part of the proposed Project will be subject to seismic design
criteria in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), which would reduce potential impacts
related to the rupture of an earthquake fault. Adherence to the CBC is a standard condition and is not
considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
In conclusion, impacts associated with rupture of a fault would be less than significant.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 71
Sources: Map My County (Appendix A); Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN
389-220-003 through APN 389-220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical
Feasibility Study, Appendix F); General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.11, Geology and Soils.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact
The Geotechnical Feasibility Study used the USGS web-based application US Seismic Design Maps to
estimate the peak ground acceleration modified for site class effects (PGAM). Because of the proximity to
the Project site and the maximum probable events for faults, it appears that a maximum probable event
along the fault zones could produce a peak horizontal acceleration of approximately 0.945g.
While the PGAM is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a region, other
considerations are important in seismic design, including frequency and duration of motion, and soil
conditions underlying the site.
The Geotechnical Feasibility Study concluded:
Faults in proximity of the proposed Project have the potential to cause moderate to strong ground shaking.
However, the proposed Project would be required to implement all applicable seismic design elements of
the current edition of the CBC. Adherence to the CBC is a standard condition and is not considered unique
mitigation under CEQA. Any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389-
220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Appendix F).
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear
strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include:
• intensity and duration of ground motion;
• gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils;
• in-situ stress conditions; and
• the depth to groundwater (typically, less than 50 feet).
Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore
water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. Buildings can be damaged or destroyed liquefaction
in underlying soils due to a loss of load bearing strength.
The current standard of practice, as outlined in the “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG
Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California” and “Special
Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California” requires
liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of a proposed structure.
Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils above the water table are composed of poorly
consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the
ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction.
As set forth in the Project sites’ Geotechnical Feasibility Study, the potential for liquefaction of the site is
considered to be high due to the following conditions:
1) The existence of nearby major active faults may cause exceptionally high ground accelerations at
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 72
the site.
2) The fine-grained nature (fine- to medium-grained silty sands of the earth materials encountered
make them susceptible to liquefaction.
3) Low to medium relative densities of some of the in-situ soils above and below the groundwater
table.
4) Relatively shallow (up to 9-feet below ground surface) groundwater was detected.
Based on the above information, the total potential settlement in the event of liquefaction has been
calculated at 10.8- inches, assuming a groundwater maximum elevation of 9-feet below ground surface,
and no mitigation measures are undertaken. The proposed 10-foot minimum blanket of engineered fill in
the alluvial areas with the addition of geogrid reinforcement is expected to aid in mitigating the potential
effects of liquefaction to within tolerable limits from a life safety standpoint in accordance with California
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117. Any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389-
220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Appendix F).
iv) Landslides? No Impact
Landslides are large movements of the underlying ground that include rock falls, shallow slumping and
sliding of soil, and deep rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock.
Development along hillsides is particularly susceptible to landslides, as they are considered to be a basic
geologic hazard for such development. Seismically induced landsliding and rock falls can be expected to
occur throughout Riverside County, including the City of Lake Elsinore, in a major earthquake. In addition
to seismic shaking, landslides may also be triggered by soil saturation during periods of heavy rains which
can cause soils to lose cohesion and fall down the slope. Factors controlling the stability of slopes include:
1) the slope height and inclination, 2) the engineering characteristics of the earth materials comprising the
slope, and 3) the intensity of ground shaking. Landslides can compromise the integrity of structures and
infrastructure existing on or just above the slope and inundate areas below the slope.
The entire Project site is a part of a very gentle descending southwest facing slope.
According to the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, the average elevation of the site is about 1,270 feet above
mean sea level (AMSL), and further describes the topography at the Project site as follows:
• The Project site is relatively flat, with several remnants of the previous development on the property
(concrete slabs, woods posts, retaining walls, underground septic system etc), along undocumented fill
and deposits exposed throughout the site;
• A southwest sheet flow towards Collier Avenue crosses the Project site;
Map My County reports the Project site elevation at approximately 1,265 feet AMSL; minimum and
maximum elevations are not reported.
Collier Avenue and the Project site are relatively flat at this location, with no noticeable topography or
hillsides visible from this location. In the current “as is” condition, the Project site topography generally
rises approximately twelve (12) feet in elevation from its Collier Avenue frontage to El Toro / Interstate
15.
The Project site elevation along its Lakeshore Drive frontage varies from approximately 1,260’ AMSL at
the northwest corner of the site, to ±1,266’ AMSL at the southwest corner;
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 73
The Project site’s flat topography is depicted on Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, provided in Section II of
this Initial Study, and Figure VII-1, Surrounding Topography.
FIGURE VII-1
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY
Source: Map My County – Riverside County https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public
TPM 38124
Page 74
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 75
Upon completion of grading activities, the improved Project site will generally be at or up to three feet
above Collier Avenue street grade.
Both the Riverside County General Plan and the Lake Elsinore General Plan include maps showing areas
of general slope failure hazard. A ground acceleration of at least 0.10 g in steep terrain is necessary to
induce earthquake-related rock falls, although exceeding this value does not guarantee that rock falls will
occur. Since there are several faults capable of generating peak ground accelerations of over 0.10 g in the
vicinity of Lake Elsinore, there is a high potential for seismically induced rock falls and landslides to occur.
According to the City GP-EIR, landslide impacts would be concentrated in districts with steep slopes of
more than 30 percent and Hillside Residential land use designations. This includes portions of the
Northwest Sphere, Lake View Sphere, Lakeland Village, Alberhill, North Central Sphere, Meadowbrook,
Lake Elsinore Hills, and Riverview districts. General Plan policies for these districts include measures to
respect the natural topography of the area and require building practices suitable to the natural environment
to reduce landslide risks.
Based on the above, the Project site is not located in an area identified as having “susceptibility to
seismically induced landslides and rockfalls.” Therefore, there is no impact from landslides.
Sources: Map My County (Appendix A); Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN
389-220-003 through APN 389-220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical
Feasibility Study, Appendix F); Project Plans (Appendix L); General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.11,
Geology and Soils; General Plan, Country Club Heights District; Riverside County General Plan, Elsinore
Area Plan, Figure 13, Steep Slope; and Figure 14, Slope Instability; and Google Earth.
b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant
Impact
Construction activities have the potential to result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. However, erosion
will be addressed through the implementation of existing State and Federal requirements and minimized
through compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general construction permit
which requires that a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) be prepared prior to construction
activities and implemented during construction activities. The preparation of an SWPPP will identify Best
Management Practices to address soil erosion. Upon compliance with these standard regulatory
requirements, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Sources: Project Plans (Appendix L).
c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impacts related to landslides are addressed in the response to Threshold VII.a.iv and impacts related to
liquefaction are addressed in response to Threshold VII.a.iii. This analysis addresses impacts related to
unstable soils, as a result of lateral spreading, subsidence, and/or collapse.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soils move laterally during seismic shaking and is often associated
with liquefaction. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength, duration and intensity of seismic
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 76
shaking, topography, and free face geometry. According to the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, the potential
for liquefaction susceptibility is high, primarily due to high groundwater. However, the proposed 10-foot
minimum blanket of engineered fill in the alluvial areas with the addition of geogrid reinforcement is
expected to aid in mitigating liquefaction and lateral spreading and no further mitigation is required.
Subsidence
According to Map My County, the Project site is located in an area susceptible to subsidence. Seismic ground
subsidence (not related to liquefaction induced settlement) occurs when strong earthquake shaking results in
the densification of loose to medium density sandy soils above groundwater. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM-GEO-1, requiring the proposed Project to comply with all recommendations contained in
the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, will reduce impacts related to subsidence to a less than significant level.
Collapse
Similar to the risk associated with liquefaction and lateral spreading, collapse risk is typically associated a
combination of seismic activity and soil characteristics. The Project site is located in a seismically active
region, although not specifically within an earthquake zone. However, the depth to groundwater are
characteristics conducive to a high risk of collapse. Nevertheless, in order to further reduce the risk
exposure to construction in terms of possible post-construction movement of the foundations and floor
systems, implementation of MM-GEO-1 is applied to further reduce anticipated expansion and collapse
potential. Implementation of MM-GEO-1, requiring the proposed Project to comply with all recommendations
contained in the Soil and Foundation Report, will reduce impacts related to collapse to a less than significant
level.
In addition, to lessen the potential impacts of subsidence and collapsible soils at the Project site, the
proposed Project will also be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the CBC. Adherence to
the CBC is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
Sources: Map My County (Appendix A); Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN
389-220-003 through APN 389-220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical
Feasibility Study, Appendix F); Project Plans (Appendix L); General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.11,
Geology and Soils; General Plan, Country Club Heights District; Riverside County General Plan, Elsinore
Area Plan, Figure 13, Steep Slope; and Figure 14, Slope Instability; and Google Earth.
d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than
Significant Impact
Expansive soils are composed of a significant amount of clay particles which can expand (absorb water) or
contract (release water). These shrink and swell characteristics can result in structural stress and place other
loads on these soils.
As set forth in the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, an expansion index test was performed on a
representative sample of on-site soils at the Project site’s proposed grade in accordance with the
California Building Code. The soil expansion potential at proposed building areas was determined to
be very low or null (El=0).
Based on the above, impacts related to expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Any impacts would be
less than significant.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 77
Sources: Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389-
220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Appendix F).
e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater? No Impact
The Project proposes to connect to the existing Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District sewer system and
will not require use of septic tanks. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. No
impact would occur.
Sources: Project Plans (Appendix L).
f) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Map My County which states that the Project site is located in an area classified as having a low potential
for paleontological sensitivity.
Further paleontological resources management is not required by at this time; however, Mitigation
Measure MM-PALEO-1 is recommended in the case of unanticipated fossil discoveries during any project
ground-disturbing activities within Holocene alluvial deposits. This measure would apply to all phases of
Project construction and would provide that any unanticipated fossils present on site are preserved and that
potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant by arranging for the recovery,
identification and curation of previously unrecovered fossils.
Sources: Map My County (Appendix A).
Mitigation Measures:
MM-GEO-1 Compliance with Recommendations from the Soil and Foundation Evaluation
Report Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the proposed Project
applicant/developer shall comply with all recommendations contained within the
Soil and Foundation Report.
MM-PALEO-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources In the event an
unanticipated fossil discovery is made during the course of Project development,
then in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) guidelines, it
is the responsibility of any worker who observes fossils within the Project site to
stop work in the immediate vicinity of the find and notify a qualified professional
paleontologist who shall be retained to evaluate the discovery, determine its
significance and if additional mitigation or treatment is warranted. Work in the
area of the discovery will resume once the find is properly documented and
authorization is given to resume construction work. Any significant
paleontological resources found during construction monitoring will be prepared,
identified, analyzed, and permanently curated in an approved regional museum
repository.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 78
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Any Tables or Figures in this Section are from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study, unless stated
otherwise.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions for the Project were analyzed in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study
(GHG Study) to determine if the Project could have a significant impact related to GHG emissions. These
impacts are analyzed on a cumulative basis, utilizing Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e), measured in
metric tons (MT) or MTCO2e. They are analyzed for both the construction and operational phases of the
Project. The SCAQMD Tier 3 significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e emission threshold was utilized.
The SCAQMD has published interim significance thresholds for greenhouse gases where the AQMD is the
lead agency, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds.
This document describes a five-tiered draft GHG threshold which includes a 3,000-metric ton of CO2e per
year significance threshold for residential/commercial projects. Tier 3 consists of screening values, which
the lead agency can choose. The City has an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), and the City’s CAP
measures were also utilized to evaluate the Project.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities are short-term and will cease have any GHG emissions upon completion. In contrast,
operational emissions are continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. Because of this
difference, SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year operational lifetime.
This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions to generate
a precise project-based GHG inventory.
The construction analysis included modeling of the projected construction equipment that would be used
during each construction activity. Construction activities include site preparation, grading, underground
utilities, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. For modeling purposes, it was assumed
construction activity would last approximately 14 months. The GHG Study calculated construction of the
Project would generate a total of 927.8 MTCO2e would be generated during construction activities.
Amortized over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 30.9
MTCO2e emissions per year.
Operational Emissions
Operational sources of GHG emissions include: (1) energy use (electricity and natural gas); (2) area sources
(landscaping equipment); (3) vehicle use; (4) solid waste generation; and (5) water conveyance and
treatment. As shown in Table VIII-1, Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, with reductions
associated with implementation of the Project including design features such as compliance with State
Green Building Code including energy conservation standards associated with the CAP (see discussion in
VII.b.). This regulatory compliance is not considered mitigation under CEQA.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 79
Table VIII-1
Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Sources Emissions (MTCO2e)
Area Source <0.1
Energy Source 350.3
Mobile Source 1,102.9
Onsite Equipment 614.4
Waste 58.2
Water Usage 101.5
Operational Subtotal 2,227.3
Construction (Annualized over 30 years) 30.9
TOTAL EMISSIONS 2,258.2
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000.0
Project emissions exceed threshold? No
Note: Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding.
Table VIII-1 shows the combined construction and operational GHG emissions associated with
development of the Project. It is estimated the annual emissions from the proposed Project would be 2,258.2
MTCO2e or approximately 0.2 percent of Lake Elsinore’s 2020 GHG emissions (1,064,565 MTCO2e) as
projected in the City’s CAP. Project GHG emissions are well below the 3,000 CO2e per year interim
threshold suggested by the SCAQMD for residential/commercial projects.
The City of Lake Elsinore has not adopted its own numeric threshold of significance for determining
impacts with respect to GHG emissions. A screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year to determine if
additional analysis is required is an acceptable approach for small projects. This approach is a widely
accepted screening threshold used by the County of Riverside and numerous cities in the SCAQMD staff’s
proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for non-industrial projects, as described
in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans
(“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”). The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening
threshold to determine whether additional analysis is required.
The Project will result in approximately 1,155.33 MTCO2e/year from construction, area, energy, waste,
and water usage. In addition, the Project has the potential to result in an additional 1,102.89 MTCO2e/year
from mobile sources if the assumption is made that all of the vehicle trips to and from the Project are “new”
trips resulting from the development of the Project. As shown on Table VIII-1, the Project has the potential
to generate a total of approximately 2,258.22 MTCO2e/year. As such, the Project would not exceed the
SCAQMD’s recommended numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year if it were applied. Therefore,
Project-related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change
and no mitigation or further analysis is required.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (GHG Study, Appendix G); and North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
(Appendix B2)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project’s consistency with SB 32 (CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan) and the City’s CAP is discussed below.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 80
SB 32/2017 Scoping Plan Consistency
The principal state plan and policy adopted to reduce GHG emissions is AB 32, the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and the follow up, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030. The 2017 Scoping Plan, which outlines a framework to achieve SB 32’s 2030
target, emphasizes innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its
strategies. Statewide plans and regulations in support of these strategies, such as GHG emissions standards
for vehicles (AB 1493), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of
electricity to be generated from renewable sources, are being implemented at the statewide level so
compliance at a project level would occur as implementation continues statewide.
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by
Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Table VIII-2, 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency
Summary, summarizes the Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan. As summarized, the project
will not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action
categories
Table VIII-2
2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary
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 would use 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 Project would be constructed in
compliance with current California Building
Code requirements. Specifically, new buildings
must achieve compliance with 2019 Building and
Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2019
California Green Building Standards
requirements. The proposed Project includes
energy efficient field lighting and fixtures that
meet the current Title 24 Standards throughout
the Project Site and would be a modern
development with energy efficient boilers,
heaters, and air conditioning systems.
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.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 81
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels)
At least 1.5 million zero emission and
plug- in hybrid light-duty EVs by 2025.
CARB,
California State
Transportation
Agency
(CalSTA),
Strategic Growth
Council (SGC),
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans),
CEC,
OPR,
Local
Agencies
CARB,
California State
Transportation
Agency
(CalSTA),
Strategic Growth
Council (SGC),
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans),
CEC,
OPR,
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. As this is a
CARB enforced standard, vehicles that access
the Project are required to comply with the
standards and will therefore comply with the
strategy.
At least 4.2 million zero emission and
plug- in hybrid light-duty EVs 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. As this is a
CARB enforced standard, vehicles that access
the Project are required to comply with the
standards and will therefore comply with the
strategy.
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 Advanced Clean cars
regulations. As this is a CARB enforced
standard, vehicles that access the Project are
required to comply with the standards and will
therefore comply with the strategy.
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. As this
is a CARB enforced standard, vehicles that
access the Project are required to comply with the
standards and will therefore comply with the
strategy.
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.
Not applicable. This measure is not within the
purview of this Project.
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%
Not applicable. This Project is not responsible
for implementation of SB 375 and would
therefore not conflict with this measure.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 82
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030. Local
Agencies
Further reduce 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. This Project would not obstruct or
interfere with implementation of SB 375 and
would therefore not conflict with this measure.
Increase stringency of SB 375
Sustainable Communities Strategy (2035
targets).
CARB Not applicable. The Project is not within the
purview of SB 375 and would therefore not
conflict with this measure.
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 sites, 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.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 83
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles
and equipment capable of zero
emission operation and maximize both
zero and
near-zero emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable
energy by 2030.
Not applicable. This measure is not within the
purview of this Project.
Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard
with a Carbon Intensity reduction of
18%.
CARB
Consistent. When adopted, this measure would
apply to all fuel purchased and used by the
Project in the state. 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,
California State
Water Resource
Control Board
(SWRCB),
Local Air Districts
Not applicable. This measure is not within the
purview of this Project.
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,
CalRecycl
e, CDFA,
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
Not applicable. This measure is not within the
purview of this Project.
Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-
Trade Program with declining annual
caps.
CARB
Consistent. The Project would be required to
comply with any applicable Cap-and- Trade
Program provisions. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
implement 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
CNRA,
Departments Within
Not applicable. This measure is not within the
purview of this Project. However, the Project
site is not an identified property that needs to be
conserved.
Increase the long-term resilience of
carbon storage in the land base and
enhance sequestration capacity.
Consistent. The Project site is vacant disturbed
property and does not comprise an area that
would effectively provide for carbon
sequestration. 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.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 84
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Utilize wood and agricultural products
to increase the amount of carbon stored
in the natural and built environments.
CDFA, CalEPA,
CARB
Consistent. To the extent appropriate for the
proposed industrial buildings, wood products
would be used in construction, including for the
roof structure.
Establish scenario projections to serve
as the foundation for the
Implementation Plan.
Not applicable. This measure is not within the
purview of this Project.
Implement Forest Carbon Plan. CNRA,
California
Department of
Forestry and Fire
Protection
(CAL FIRE),
CalEPA
Not applicable. This measure is not within the
purview of this Project.
Identify and expand funding and
financing mechanisms to support GHG
reductions across all sectors.
State Agencies &
Local Agencies
Not applicable. This measure is not within the
purview of this Project.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 and CARB, Climate Change Scoping Plan 2008.
As shown in Table VIII-2, the Project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as
any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the Project. Further, recent studies show that
the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions
level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
City Climate Action Plan (CAP)
The City’s CAP was adopted in 2011 and certified that the City’s target is consistent with AB 32’s 2020
goals. Although the Project will be completed post-2020, at the time this analysis was prepared, an updated
CAP has not been formally adopted. Table VIII-3, Project Consistency with City of Lake Elsinore CAP,
demonstrates the Project’s consistency with the applicable policies in the CAP.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 85
Table VIII-3
Project Consistency with City of Lake Elsinore CAP
CAP Measure Consistency Analysis
Measure T-1.2: Pedestrian
Infrastructure
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 be required to provide sidewalks
along Lake Street and Mountain Street, and all internal streets. This measure is
implemented by the Department of Public Works and Building Department through
policy development, development review, and conditions of approval. The proposed
Project elements would be required to comply with conditions of approval imposed by
the City. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-1.4: Bicycle
Infrastructure
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 and
Specific Plan a Class II bicycle lane is required along Lakeshore Drive within the study
area. 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. The proposed Project elements would
be required to comply with conditions of approval imposed by the City. As such, the
proposed Project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-1.5: Bicycle
Parking Standards
Consistent. This measure requires the City to enforce short-term and long-term bicycle
parking standards for new non- residential developments. This measure is implemented
by the Department of Public Works and Building Department through development
review and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required
to comply with conditions of approval imposed by the City. As such, the proposed
Project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-2.1:
Designated Parking for
Fuel Efficient Vehicles
Consistent. This measure requires new non- residential developments to designate
10% of total parking spaces for low- emitting, fuel-efficient vehicles. This measure is
implemented by the Department of Planning, Public Works and Building through
development review and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would
be required to comply with conditions of approval imposed by the City. As such, the
proposed Project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-4.1: Commute
Trip Reduction Program
Consistent. This measure requires the City to institute a commute trip reduction
program for employers with fewer than 100 employees. This measure is implemented
by the Department of Planning through amendment to the Municipal Code. The Project
would be comprised of various project-specific actions, some of which may be subject
to this measure. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with the
City’s Municipal Code. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure E-1.1: Tree
Planting Requirements
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. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Planning, Public
Works, and Parks and Recreation through City ordinance, development review process,
and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required to
comply with the City ordinances and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed
Project would not conflict with this measure.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 86
CAP Measure Consistency Analysis
Measure E-1.2: Cool Roof
Requirements
Consistent. 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 implemented by the
Departments of Planning and Building through City ordinance, development review
process, and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required
to comply with the City ordinances and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed
Project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure E-1.3: Energy
Efficient Building
Standards
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 City ordinance,
development review process, and conditions of approval. The proposed Project
elements would be required to comply with the City ordinances 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
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. The Planning Department obtains compliance through Municipal Code
amendment, the development and review process, and conditions of approval.
This measure would apply to any traffic lights replaced or installed as part of the
Project. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with the
municipal code and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed Project would not
conflict with this measure.
Measure E-4.1:
Landscaping Ordinance
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. This measure is implemented by the Departments of
Building and Planning through City ordinance, development and review process, and
conditions of approval.
The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with these landscape
requirements. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure E-4.2: Indoor
Water Conservation
Requirements
Consistent. This measure requires that development projects reduce indoor water
consumption. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Building and
Planning through amendments to the Municipal Code and conditions of approval. The
proposed Project elements would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal
Code and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with
this measure. The proposed Project was analyzed with this measure, and no conflicts
were identified.
Measure E-5.1:
Renewable Energy
Incentives
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. No elements of the proposed Project would
conflict with this measure.
Measure S-1.4:
Construction and
Demolition Waste
Diversion
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 project-specific
elements would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and conditions
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 87
CAP Measure Consistency Analysis
of approval. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure.
Source: City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan, 2011
Tables VIII-2 and VIII-3 demonstrate that the Project does not conflict with any applicable plan, policy
or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Any impacts will
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (GHG Study, Appendix G); ); and North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
(Appendix B2).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 88
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project could result in a significant hazard to the public if it includes the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility which routinely transports, uses, or
disposes of hazardous materials. The following discussion includes an analysis of both construction and
operational impacts.
The Project site is located in the suburban City of Lake Elsinore, situated adjacent northeast of the lake on
the northeast side of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 250 feet northwest of SR-74 (at the Collier Avenue
and Riverside Drive intersection) and adjacent to I-15.
The Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) by the City of Lake Elsinore. Furthermore, the
Project site’s General Plan land use designation is Limited Industrial. The Project is therefore consistent
with the site’s zoning and general plan land use designation.
The proposed Project has been designed in accordance with the existing M1 zoning and general plan land
use designations. The proposed Project does not entail a request for a change in land use.
The Project proposes the development of a twelve-building business park consisting of 94,665 square feet
of flexible building space, concrete walkways, asphalt paved parking for 275 vehicles, and 66,889 square
feet (20.4%) of landscaping. In addition, the proposed Project requires street modifications along Collier
Avenue and El Toro Avenue and wet and dry utility connections.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not place housing near any hazardous materials facilities as
the Project does not include a housing component.
The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial uses
that require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of
production applications. The proposed Project does not, at present, propose or facilitate any activity
involving significant use, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous substances as part of the proposed
commercial retail and restaurant use. Should a future tenant of the business park be involved in activities
that involve hazardous materials (an auto repair establishment, for example), those activities will be
reviewed at the time of tenant improvement. Further regulations and inspections by the County Department
of Environmental Health and/or the Fire Department may be required.
Construction Impact Analysis
During construction, there would be a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials
and wastes that are typical of construction projects. This would include fuels and lubricants for construction
machinery, coating materials, etc. Routine construction control measures and best management practices
for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up, etc. would
be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
It is anticipated that the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the proposed Project
would reduce such hazards to a less than significant level through best management practices incorporated
into the SWPPP design. The City of Lake Elsinore Building and Safety Department has placed conditions
of approval on the Project, as they pertain to Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
The requirement for preparation of an SWPPP is a standard condition for the City of Lake Elsinore and it
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 89
is not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. With the inclusion of this standard
condition, any impacts from implementation of the proposed Project construction related to significant
hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials, would be less than significant.
Operational Impact Analysis
With regard to Project operation, the Project’s proposed business park improvements include twelve
buildings in six (6) structures for flexible business park uses.
It is common for small amounts of materials that may be considered hazardous to be used daily in the
operation of a business park. Widely used hazardous materials used in the operation of similar business
parks include cleaners, pesticides, etc. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of as
commercial hazardous waste that are prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills.
Regular operation and cleaning of the business park type of uses would not result in significant impacts
involving use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes and substances.
The use of these common commercial hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial
health risk to the community and impacts associated with the routine transport and use of these
aforementioned hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant.
Hazardous materials regulations are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations,
and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, were
established at the state level to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to reduce the risk to human
health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. Compliance with these
regulations is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
In addition, businesses that sell and store hazardous materials are regulated by the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) as a part of its role as the Certified Unified Program
Agency. This program requires the preparation of a document that provides an inventory of hazardous
materials on-site, emergency plans and procedures in the event of an accidental release, and training for
employees and safety procedures for handling hazardous materials and what to do in the event of a release
or threatened release. These plans are routine documents that are intended to disclose the presence of
hazardous materials and provide information on actions to be taken if materials are inadvertently released.
The RCDEH require that all businesses in the county file a Hazardous Material Business Plan which
includes a Business Emergency Plan with the RCDEH (Riverside County 2015).
Based on the business park uses that would be a part of the proposed Project, the proposed Project would
not cause a threat to public safety during its construction or operation phases.
Therefore, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials pertaining to the proposed Project
would be relatively minor and subject to extensive regulatory oversight so its impacts would be less than
significant.
Sources: Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map, and Figure 9, Zoning
Map, provided in Sections II and III of this Initial Study; Project Plans (Appendix L), General Plan EIR
(GP-EIR), and Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
b) Would the Project 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
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 90
The Project site is not on the state’s Cortese List which is a compilation of various sites throughout
California with soil or groundwater contamination from past uses. The Project site is vacant, undeveloped
land and there would not be any impacts related to demolition of structures with asbestos containing
materials or lead-based paint.
A Phase I ESA for the Project site was conducted by Engen Corporation in conjunction with the proposed
Project. Engen performed a reconnaissance of the Project site on May 7, 2020. The purpose of the
reconnaissance was to observe existing conditions and to obtain information indicating the presence of
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Project site. During the site reconnaissance,
Engen did not note any environmental concerns at the Project site.
Engen contracted with Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to provide a database search of public
lists of sites that generate, store, treat or dispose of hazardous materials or sites for which a release or
incident has occurred. The EDR search was conducted for the Project site and included data from
surrounding sites within a specified radius of the property. The Project site and adjacent properties were
not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. One property within one mile of the Project site was
listed as a plugged oil well.
Historical sources reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA included aerial photographs and topographic maps.
The aerial photographs reviewed indicate that the Project site has been undeveloped land since at least 1938.
The historical topographic maps depict the Project site as undeveloped land from at least 1901.
Engen concluded there are no recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Project site.
As discussed in Threshold IX.a, implementation of the Project’s proposed business park development may
entail the limited use of common commercial hazardous materials during both the construction and
operational phases. However, their use and disposal would not present a substantial hazard or public health
risk to the community due to extensive regulatory oversight and the relatively minor amount of hazardous
materials associated with these business park uses.
Based on the above information, the proposed Project would not 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. Any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s):
389-220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020 (Phase I ESA, Appendix H);
and Project Plans (Appendix L).
c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No
Impact.
There are no existing or proposed, public or private, schools located within one-quarter (¼) mile of the
Project site.
The Project site is located within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD):
• The closest public school is identified as LEUSD’s Temescal Valley High School located
approximately 410 feet away on the north side of Interstate 15. It should be noted that there is no direct
access between the Project and the High School;
• The next two closest public schools are located approximately 1.6 miles southeast and east of the Project
site and are identified as:
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 91
1) LEUSD’s Earl Warren Elementary School at 41221 Rosetta Canyon Avenue, and
2) LEUSD’s Elsinore Elementary School at 1203 W. Graham Avenue.
No private charter or parochial schools were identified within a half-mile of the Project site.
Based on the above information, Threshold IX.c is not applicable to the proposed Project. There would be
no impact.
Sources: Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD); City of Lake Elsinore Website – Schools; and
Google Earth.
d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact
According to the Phase I ESA, the Project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (i.e., the Cortese List). As a result, the proposed
Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment as it pertains to this criterion.
There would be no impact.
Reference Figure IX-1, GeoTracker and Figure IX -2, EnviroStor.
Sources: Figure IX-1, GeoTracker; Figure IX -2, EnviroStor; and Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 389-220-003, 004, 005 and 006,
prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020 (Phase I ESA, 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 an airport land use plan nor is it located within two miles of a public
use airport. The closest airport is the Perris Valley Airport located approximately 8 1/2 miles northeast of
the Project site. The closest private airstrip is the Skylark Field Airport (CA89) located approximately 4
3/4 miles to the southeast of the Project site
Based on the above information, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any airport
related safety hazard impacts for people residing or working in the project area. There would be no impact.
Sources: General Plan, Figure 2.7, Airport Influence Areas; and Google Earth.
FIGURE IX-1
GEOTRACKER
Source: GEOTRACKER https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov
2 SITES FOUND IN SEARCH RADIUS
SITE
Page 91
TPM 38124
FIGURE IX-2
ENVIROSTOR
Source: ENVIROSTOR https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
NO SITES FOUND IN SEARCH RADIUS
SITE
Page 92
TPM 38124
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 94
f) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact
Implementation of the proposed Project would replace vacant, undeveloped land with a twelve-building
Business Park. Primary and secondary access would be provided to the proposed Project via three
driveways along the Collier Avenue frontage, and a single driveway along El Toro Road.
A limited potential exists to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan during the Project’s
construction phase. Construction work in the street associated with the Project will include widening and
additional pavement along Collier Avenue and El Toro Road, and lateral utility connections (i.e., water,
sewer) that will require a modest level of potential traffic diversion. Control of access will ensure
emergency access to the site and Project area during construction through the submittal and approval of a
traffic control plan (TCP).
The TCP is designed to alleviate any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a standard condition
and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Following construction, emergency access to the
Project site and area will remain as it was prior to the proposed Project.
All Project elements, including landscaping, will be sited with sufficient clearance from the proposed
buildings so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from the site. The proposed Project
is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or evacuation plan, because no permanent public street or lane closures are
proposed. Any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Project Plans (Appendix L); General Plan-EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials; and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Chapter 15.56, Fire Code.
g) Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact
As depicted in the City’s GP-EIR, Figure 3.10-2, Wildfire Susceptibility, the Project site, along with areas
southeast along Collier Avenue is classified as being outside of any wildfire susceptibility zones.
Increased development throughout the City and Sphere of Influence in accordance with the Land Use Plan
within each District Plan could expose people and future development to potentially significant hazards
from wildfires. Goal 4 and its associated policies under the Wildland Hazards section of the Public Safety
and Welfare chapter include measures that must be implemented to reduce the potential impact from
wildfires.
However, since the project is outside of wildfire susceptibility area, no further mitigation is required.
Sources: General Plan, Section 3.4 Wildland Hazards; General Plan-EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.10, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials; and General Plan-EIR (GP-EIR), Figure 3.10-2, Wildfire Susceptibility.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 95
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the framework for regulating municipal storm water
discharges (construction and operational impacts) via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. A project would have an impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with
the project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code Section 13050, or
that cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable NPDES storm water permit or
Water Quality Control Plan for a receiving water body.
Relative to this specific issue, a significant impact could occur if the Project discharges water that does not
meet the quality standards of the agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into
storm water drainage systems. Significant impacts could also occur if the project does not comply with all
applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) to reduce potential post-construction water quality impacts.
On January 29, 2010, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) issued the 4th-
term area wide NPDES and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (MS4 Permit) to the City of
Lake Elsinore and other applicable Permittees. All new development in the City of Lake Elsinore is
required to comply with provisions of the NPDES program, including Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDR), and the City’s Municipal Separate Sewer Permit (MS4), Order No. R8-2010-0033, NPDES Permit
No. CAS618033, as enforced by the SARWQCB.
A Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and a Preliminary Hydrology Report
(Hydrology Report) have been prepared in conjunction with the Project site’s development application. The
Project site is located in the Lake Mathews Hydrologic Sub-Area (HSA 801.30) of the larger Santa Ana
Region Watershed (SARW). The SARW is one of nine watershed basins within the state and encompasses
an area of approximately 2,800 square miles. The SARW includes much of Orange County, the
northwestern corner of Riverside County, part of southwestern San Bernardino County, and a small portion
of Los Angeles County. Although the Project site is only 1.3 miles northeast of Lake Elsinore, runoff from
the site actually flows north and northwest into Temescal Creek (Reaches 6 through 1) to its confluence
with the Santa Ana River at the Prado Dam (adjacent to the northwest side of the City of Corona), and then
west/southwest within the Santa Ana River across the Orange County coastal plain approximately 26 miles
into the Pacific Ocean northerly of the Newport Bay. Table X-1, Downstream Receiving Waters, shows
the characteristics of these downstream water bodies relative to water quality.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 96
Table X-1
Downstream Receiving Waters
Receiving Waters
EPA Approved
303(d) List
Impairments
Designated
Beneficial Uses1
Proximity to RARE
Beneficial Use
Temescal Creek – Reach 6 NA GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD Not a RARE-designated water body
Temescal Creek – Reach 5 NA AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD,
RARE
1,690 feet from the Project site
Temescal Creek – Reach 4 NA AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD,
RARE
1.68 miles from the Project site
Temescal Creek – Reach 3 (Lee Lake) NA AGR, IND, GWR, REC1, REC2, COMM, WARM,
WILD
Not a RARE-designated water body
Temescal Creek – Reach 2
NA AGR, IND, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM,
WILD, RARE
3.13 miles from the Project site
Temescal Creek – Reach 1B pH
REC2, WARM, WILD Not a RARE-designated water body
Temescal Creek – Reach 1A pH
REC2, WARM, WILD Not a RARE-designated water body
Santa Ana River – Reach 3 Indicator Bacteria
(Bacteria &
Viruses); Copper,
Lead (Metals)
AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE,
SPWN
25.20 miles from the Project site
Prado Dam
Nutrients,
Indicator Bacteria
(Bacteria and
Viruses)
REC1, REC2, COMM, WARM, WILD, RARE 25.20 miles from the Project site
Santa Ana River – Reach 2 Indicator Bacteria
(Bacteria & Viruses)
AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE,
SPWN
30.78 miles from the Project site
Santa Ana River – Reach 1 NA REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD Not a RARE-designated water body
Source: Table A.1, Identification of Receiving Waters, WQMP 2021 N/A = not applicable
1 Beneficial Uses as listed in the 2019 Santa Ana Regional Basin Plan: AGR=agricultural supply, IND=industrial service supply,
GWR=groundwater recharge, RARE=support habitat for rare, threatened or endangered species.REC1=recreation, contact, REC2=recreation, non-
contact, SPWN=aquatic spawning, reproduction and development, WARM=warm freshwater habitat, WILD=wildlife habitat.
Saddleback Industrial is proposing to construct commercial buildings, parking lot area, subsurface storm
drain, 4 modular wetlands and 4 subsurface basins that will convey and treat flows for water quality
purposes. The Project site is approximately 7.3 acres and roughly bounded by Interstate 215 to the north,
the Lake Elsinore Outlets to the west, Lake Elsinore Self-Storage to the east, and Collier Avenue to the
south. The Hydrology Study indicates approximately 450 cubic feet per second (cfs) discharges onto the
site from the culverts crossing under Interstate 15 and runoff will sheet flow across the Project site. An
existing concrete trapezoidal channel is located adjacent to Collier Avenue to collect these flows as well as
flows from Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue for a total of potentially 550.2 cfs tributary to the channel.
These flows are then conveyed to an existing reinforced concrete box (RCB) structure that discharges into
Temescal Canyon Wash on the opposite side of Collier Avenue. The improvement plans for the RCB
structure and the existing storm drain infrastructure adjacent to Collier Avenue indicate a flow rate of 124.5
cfs which is approximately 25 percent of the potentially tributary flow rate to this system.
The methodology for the Project Hydrology Study was based on the County’s guidelines for hydrological
modeling and calculations. Table X-2, Hydrological Impacts, shows the pre- and post-Project runoff from
five identified onsite inlet points. Table X-2 demonstrates the Project will not substantially increase runoff
onto offsite downstream properties.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 97
Table X-2
Hydrological Impacts
Location/
Inlet #
100-Year Flow Rate
Pre-Development
100-Year Flow Rate
Pre-Development
1 6.46 cfs 5.85 cfs
2 3.40 cfs 3.50 cfs
3 1.98 cfs 1.98 cfs
4 5.25 cfs 5.25 cfs
5 5.81 cfs 5.81 cfs
Total
22.90 cfs
22.39 cfs
Source: Page 4, Hydrology Study 2021
Construction Impacts
Three general sources of potential short-term, construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the
proposed Project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing
pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth-moving activities
which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment.
Implementation of the proposed Project would include mass grading the entire Project site. The Preliminary
Grading Plan indicate the proposed Project will require 17,000 cubic yards of raw cut, 10,000 cubic yards
of raw fill, and 7,000 cubic yards of raw export. Upon completion of grading activities, the improved
Project site will have several pads to support the proposed 12 commercial buildings.
Since the Project involves more than one acre of ground disturbance, it is subject to NPDES permit
requirements for the preparation and implementation of a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP). Adherence to NPDES permit requirements and the measures established in the SWPPP are
routine actions conditioned by the City of Lake Elsinore and will ensure applicable water quality standards
are appropriately maintained during construction of the proposed Project. The WQMP indicates the Project
will require coverage by the Statewide Construction General Permit. Compliance with these permitting
requirements is typically included as standard conditions of approval and are not considered project specific
mitigation under CEQA.
Operational Impacts
Construction of the proposed Project (commercial development) would increase the impervious area at the
Project site by replacing vacant land with associated paving and the rooftops. Landscaping is proposed as
part of Project design in the form of landscaped planters containing various trees, shrubs, and ground covers.
The site currently has 100% pervious surfaces and the WQMP indicates the site will have approximately
80% impervious surfaces in its post-development condition. Consequently, the Project would reduce
infiltration potential and increase surface runoff on the Project site. Post-Development conditions would
maintain site drainage to the southwest toward Collier Avenue, similar to existing conditions, and the
increased runoff would be treated and controlled pursuant to the WQMP.
Both the Hydrology Study and WQMP demonstrate the Project will treat the anticipated runoff volumes via
four onsite subsurface modular “wetlands” systems then into three subsurface detention basins. Water
quality flow rates were calculated using the Santa Ana Watershed BMP Design Volume and Design Flow
Rate Spreadsheet. These values were then compared to the modular wetlands fact sheets to determine the
preliminary sizes required to treat the project site. The rainfall depth for the Project site is 0.70 inches.
The Hydrology Study identified four (4) drainage management areas (DMAs) on the Project site (A, B1,
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 98
B2, and C). DMA A will drain to Modular Wetlands “A” which will be located subsurface with the
exception of the planted area, which will be located in the landscaped median. Flows will be intercepted
by a series of grate inlets located along the ditch in the center isle. Due to the vertical constraint of the site,
a subsurface system had to be provided for DMA A since the subsurface systems for DMA B or C could
not provide enough volume for DMA A. Due to the location of Subsurface Basin A, the only feasible
treatment system is a subsurface modular wetlands. DMAs B1 and B2 will drain to Modular Wetlands B1
and B2, respectively. DMA B1 will have two collection points, one within the ribbon gutter (similar to
DMA A) and one at a low point in the parking stalls. A curb opening will be provided at the low point and
grate inlets will be provided within the ribbon gutter. The flows from the grate inlets will be conveyed to
a side opening within the modular wetlands that will allow the flows to be treated in Modular Wetlands B1.
DMA B2 will drain to a low point in the west corner of the Project site and enter through a curb opening
modular wetlands. Both DMAs B1 and B2 will discharge into Subsurface Basin B.
DMA C drains to a low point in the parking area just south of the main entrance driveway. The flows will
enter the Modular Wetlands via a curb opening. The entrance driveway slopes towards Collier Avenue,
therefore a trench drain will be constructed at the right-of- way in order to intercept the flows and convey
them to Modular Wetlands C. Flows are then conveyed to Subsurface Basin C.
The modular wetlands were sized using the Santa Ana Watershed BMP Design Flow Rate Spreadsheet and
the Modular Wetlands Brochure. The design flow rate is based upon a design rainfall intensity of 0.20
inches per hour and assumes 90 percent impervious for commercial area. The design flow rate was then
compared to the Modular Wetlands brochure to determine the size of the modular wetlands needed to
address water quality. Figure X-1, WQMP Site Plan, shows the water quality-related improvements
proposed for the Project. It should also be noted the Project will keep the offsite flows separate from the
onsite flows via the RCB storm drain traversing the site.
In addition, the WQMP recommended a number of operational best management practices (BMPs) as
shown in Table X-3, Operational BMPs.
The proposed Project development plan has been reviewed and conditioned by the City of Lake Elsinore
Engineering Department and Building & Safety Department, among others, to mitigate any potential long-
term water quality impacts through site design, the preparation of a WQMP, and adherence to the
requirements of the NPDES. These are standard conditions for the City and are not considered mitigation
for CEQA implementation purposes.
Upon completion, the Project site would be covered with twelve (12) commercial buildings, concrete
walkways, asphalt paved access drives and automobile parking areas, an onsite biotreatment/biofiltration
basin system, and landscaping. This would also ensure that there would be no erosion or siltation on- or
off-site. In addition, all wastewater associated with the Project’s interior plumbing systems will be
discharged into the local sewer system for treatment at the regional wastewater treatment plant.
Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Any
impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L.
Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); Project-
Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and
Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2); General Plan-DEIR, Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality; 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8), Updated June 2019.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 99
Table X-3
Operational BMPs
Potential Sources of Runoff
Pollutants
Permanent Structural
Source Control BMPs
Operational Source
Control BMPs
A. On-site storm drain
inlets
Mark “Only Rain Down the Storm Drain” or similar. Catch
Basin Markers may be available from the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, call
951.955.1200 to verify.
Maintain and periodically repaint or replace
markers.
Provide stormwater pollution
prevention information to new site owners, lessees,
or operators.
Include the following in lease agreements: “Tenant shall
not allow anyone to discharge anything to
bioretention planter or to store or deposit materials
so as to create a potential discharge to storm
drains.”
D1. Need for future indoor
& structural
pest control
Note building design features that discourage entry of pests. Provide Integrated Pest Management information
to owners, lessees, and operators.
D2. Landscape/Outdoor
Pesticide Use
Where landscaped areas are used to retain or detain stormwater,
specify plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions.
Consider using pest-resistant plants, especially adjacent to
hardscape.
To insure successful establishment, select plants appropriate to
site soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, land use, air
movement, ecological consistency, and plant interactions.
Maintain landscaping using minimum or no
pesticides.
See applicable operational BMPs in “What you
should know for…… Landscape and Gardening”
Provide IPM information to new owners, lessees
and operators.
G. Refuse Areas Trash receptacles will be covered or closed at all times.
Signs will be posted on dumpsters stating “Do not dump
hazardous materials here” or similar.
Provide adequate number of receptacles. Inspect
receptacles regularly; repair or replace leaky
receptacles. Keep receptacles covered.
Prohibit/prevent dumping or liquid or hazardous
wastes. Post “no hazardous materials” signs.
Inspect and pick up litter daily and clean up spills
immediately. Keep spill control materials available
on-site. See Fact Sheet SC-34, “Waste Handling
and Disposal” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality
Handbook at www.cabmphandbooks.com
H. Industrial Processes If industrial processes are to be located on site, state: “All process
activities to be performed indoors. No processes to drain to
exterior or to storm drain system.”
See Fact Sheet SC-10, “Non-Stormwater
Discharges” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality
Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com
See the brochure “Industrial & Commercial
Facilities Best Management Practices for
Industrial, Commercial Facilities” at
http://rcflood.org/stormwater
N. Fire Sprinkler Test
Water
Provide a means to drain fire sprinkler test water to the sanitary
sewer.
See the note in Fact Sheet SC-41, “Building and
Grounds Maintenance,” in the CASQA Stormwater
Quality Handbooks at
www.cabmphandbooks.com
O. Roofing, gutters and trim Avoid roofing, gutters, and trim made of copper or other
unprotected metals that may leach into runoff.
P. Sidewalks Sweep sidewalks regularly to prevent accumulation
of litter and debris. Collect debris from pressure
washing to prevent entry into storm drain system.
Source: WQMP Table G.1 Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures
FIGURE X-4
WQMP SITE PLAN
Source: WQMP - (Appendix I2
TPM 38124
Page 99
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 101
b) Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site is located within the water service boundary of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
(EVMWD) which is a public water agency formed in 1950 and annexed into the service area of the Western
Municipal Water District (WMWD), one of the 26 member agencies of the Southern California
Metropolitan Water District (MWD). In 2018, the 96-square mile EVMWD service area had a population
of more than 155,000 people. EVMWD’s water supply is a blend of local groundwater, surface water from
Canyon Lake, and imported water. EVMWD owns Canyon Lake which impounds local runoff from the
750-square-mile San Jacinto River watershed. Canyon Lake holds nearly 12,000 AF of water behind
Railroad Canyon Dam. EVMWD also imports treated water from Metropolitan’s Skinner Water Treatment
Plan (WTP) and Mills WTP, located in Temecula and Riverside, respectively. Approximately 59 percent
of EVMWD’s supply was met with imported water in 2015. In 2015, EVMWD purchased 15,318 AF of
water from MWD. Ninety three percent (93%) of the service connections within EVMWD are single-
family residential connections. There are no large commercial or industrial water consumers within
EVMWD, and therefore the demand is almost entirely dependent on residential connections. EVMWD has
three primary sources of potable water supply:
1) Imported Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and State Water Project (SWP) water purchased from
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) through Western Municipal Water
District (WMWD) (generally 57-65 percent of total supply);
2) Groundwater pumped from the Elsinore, Coldwater, Lee Lake, and Bedford groundwater basins
(generally 25-33 percent of total supply); and
3) Surface water stored in Canyon Lake Reservoir (generally 10 percent of total supply).
The Elsinore Basin (of which Project site is a part) is the major source of potable groundwater supply for
EVMWD and other private groundwater producers. The Elsinore Basin was created by two major fault
zones, the Glen Ivy Fault Zone to the northeast and the Wildomar Fault Zone to the southeast. The
groundwater basin encompasses approximately 25 square miles of valley fill including Lake Elsinore which
covers about 5.6 square miles (3,600 acres) of the basin. The surface water drainage area tributary to the
basin consists of 42 square miles of mountain and valley area. Major streams include McVicker Canyon,
Leach Canyon, Dickey Canyon, and the San Jacinto River, which drain into Lake Elsinore and provide a
portion of the basin recharge.
Water rights for the Elsinore Basin are not currently adjudicated. According to EVMWD’s Elsinore Basin
Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP), approximately 99 percent of groundwater produced by the basin
is pumped by EVMWD which serves a 96 square mile area in western Riverside County. Local pumpers
with private wells only account for less than one percent of basin production. As stated above, groundwater
production generally accounts for 25-33 percent (25-33%) of EVMWD’s total supplies. In the Elsinore
Basin, EVMWD has 12 operating potable groundwater wells with a total production capacity of 20,808
acre-ft./yr.
According to the EVMWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the Elsinore Basin and
Coldwater Basin are well managed to limit withdrawals to the safe-yield of the basin. The State Department
of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118 does not identify the Elsinore Basin to be in a state of overdraft.
This follows several years where water levels in the Elsinore Basin and Coldwater Basin were declining
due to over pumping in the late 1990s and early 2000s but remedied after the 2005 Ground Water Master
Plan (GWMP) and an agreement with the City of Corona were secured.
The Project site is located in the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone (GMG) as depicted in the
General Plan DEIR, Figure 3.9-2, Groundwater Management Zones. Beneficial uses have been identified
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 102
for the Elsinore GMZ including Municipal, Agriculture and Industrial Process Supply, as described in Table
3.9-2 of the GP-DEIR. The WQMP states… “the Project site has at least one DMA with a seasonal high
groundwater mark shallower than 10 feet…Per the Geotechnical Report, groundwater was encountered
approximately 9 to 18 feet below the existing ground surface, which, per the report, correspond to elevations
1250 through 1254. The subsurface system bottoms are at elevations 1259.02, 1258.49, and 1258.93 for
Basins A, B, and C, respectively. This is less than the minimum required 10 feet between historical
groundwater and the infiltrating surface, therefore infiltration is not feasible. Furthermore, since infiltration
is not a viable treatment mechanism due to the location of ground water, infiltration testing was not
performed, as even an infiltrating surface at the FS of the project (1260.00 adjacent to Collier Avenue)
would not be feasible. Per the geotechnical engineer’s recommendation, infiltration was not utilized.”
To treat onsite runoff so that it will not contaminate either local surface or groundwater, the Project proposes
to use a Bio Clean “Modular Wetlands” biofiltration system for 1) Pretreatment, 2) Biofiltration, and 3)
Discharge (to associated subsurface basins), as summarized in Section X.a above. The proposed system
includes a series of catch basins, subsurface piping, and surface drainage swales that will direct drainage
flows from impervious areas to four (4) pre-manufactured biofiltration basins with a surface area of 74
square feet that will be placed underground within the Project site (see Figure X-1, WQMP Site Plan).
The WQMP provides details and specifications for the biofiltration system.
As set forth in the Hydrology Report, the onsite hydrology analyses and offsite street areas utilized
commercial land use for the calculations. The rational method hydrology analysis was performed for the
pre-Project and post-Project conditions for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events. Peak flows
were determined using the Rational Method as described in the Riverside County Flood Control Manual.
Based on the above, 1) The Project’s proposed biotreatment/biofiltration system will adequately treat the
required BMP Design Volume (Flow Rate), 2) the proposed on- and off-site storm drain systems will
adequately convey the peak 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year flow rates; 3) implementation of the proposed
Project will not alter the drainage pattern of the Project site or surrounding area. and 4) the proposed Project
will not deplete groundwater supplies.
Based on this analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted). Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L.
Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); Project-
Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and
Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2); and Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue
Project, prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Appendix F).
c.i) Would the Project 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less
Than Significant Impact
Please reference the discussion set forth in Threshold X.b, relative to the Project design which would not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or the area. There are no streams or rivers within,
contiguous to, or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is located approximately 1.3 miles northeast
of Lake Elsinore (“the lake”). However, runoff from the site does not flow directly into Lake Elsinore but
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 103
rather north and northwest into Temescal Canyon Wash then to the Santa Ana River. Potential drainage-
related impacts include both construction and operational phases of the Project.
The Hydrology Study indicates approximately 450 cubic feet per second (cfs) discharges onto the site from
the culverts crossing under Interstate 15 and runoff will sheet flow across the Project site. An existing
concrete trapezoidal channel is located adjacent to Collier Avenue to collect these flows as well as flows
from Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue for a total of potentially 550.2 cfs tributary to the channel. These
flows are then conveyed to an existing reinforced concrete box (RCB) structure that discharges into
Temescal Canyon Wash on the opposite site of Collier Avenue. The improvement plans for the RCB
structure and the existing storm drain infrastructure adjacent to Collier Avenue indicate a flow rate of 124.5
cfs which is approximately 25 percent of the potentially tributary flow rate to this system.
Due to the lack of capacity of this system, a new RCB structure will be constructed to collect flows north
of the project site discharging from the Interstate 15 Culvert, and convey those flows through the project
site to the same downstream terminus within Temescal Canyon Wash. The existing RCB structure will be
removed.
Currently, an existing 36” storm drain crosses Riverside Drive at Collier Avenue and continues north
westerly along Collier Avenue and discharges into the existing concrete trapezoidal channel. The Project
will remove the majority of the existing concrete trapezoidal channel and construct a 36” pipe (or elliptical
equivalent where cover is limited) that extends to the project limits. Since this is the size pipe that currently
conveys flows across Riverside Drive, and the project is intercepting the bulk of the flow north of the
project, the Project will not be adversely impacting the flooding along Collier Avenue.
The previous Table X-2, Hydrological Impacts, shows the pre- and post-Project runoff from the five onsite
inlet points and demonstrates the Project will not substantially increase runoff onto offsite downstream
properties.
The WQMP states… Area of Impervious Project Footprint equals 315,810 square feet and the Total Area
of Proposed Impervious Surfaces within the Project Limits equals 284,229 square feet or 89 percent of the
7.3-acre site.
During construction activities, the following potential impacts may occur: 1) soil would be exposed and
disturbed; 2) drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction
activities; and 3) there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing
conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate.
In comparison with existing conditions, the proposed Project development plan would cause the Project
site surface area to be more impervious than the current site condition. Under current conditions, the Project
site consists of 100% pervious surfaces. Implementation of the Project’s proposed commercial
development would reduce the pervious surface area from 100% to 20% of the Project site area. Any
decrease in pervious area would increase the volume of runoff during a storm, which would more effectively
transport pollutants to receiving waters.
On-site stormwater runoff currently surface flows in a southwest direction towards Collier Avene then
northwest toward Temescal Canyon Wash. As discussed in detail under Threshold X.b, the Project requires
significant grading of the entire site (total 17,000 cubic feet of earthwork) to create a single super pad which
would generally preserve the current flow patterns. Furthermore, the Project would provide drainage
facility improvements that would minimize on- and off-site erosion and siltation since no such facilities
currently exist on the Project site.
There are no streams or rivers within, contiguous to, or adjacent to the Project site, and through
implementation of the Project WQMP, which provides for an on-site biotreatment/biofiltration system, and
alternative compliance treatment control catch basins for off-site flows within the adjacent streets, the
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 104
proposed Project would not substantially increase runoff that could contribute to downstream erosion or
siltation.
Therefore, implementation of the Project would not 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Any
impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L.
Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); and
Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering
and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2).
c.ii) Would the Project 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? Less Than Significant Impact
According to the Hydrology Study, implementation of the proposed Project would increase the Project site’s
impervious surface area from 0% at present up to 89% upon completion of construction. As set forth in the
WQMP, the four (4) Biotreatment/Biofiltration Basins meet the Minimum Design Capture Volume for
stormwater runoff associated with the Project site. The WQMP demonstrates that the Proposed Capture
Volume exceeds the Required Capture Volume and has been designed to accommodate post-Project
conditions for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events. With implementation of the
biotreatment/biofiltration system as part of the Project design, impacts related to the alteration of the
existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required. Implementation of the Project would also result in a benefit to
water quality, as no such facilities currently exist on the Project site.
Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L.
Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); and
Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering
and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2).
c.iii) Would the Project 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 create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site drains into the Temescal Canyon Wash north of Lake Elsinore and flows north toward
Corona and the Santa Ana River. The Hydrology Study and the WQMP indicate the proposed “Modular
Wetlands” Biotreatment/Biofiltration system designed for the Project will adequately control the amount
and rate of flow of the treated stormwater discharging from the Project site in the Post-Development
condition.
While development of the proposed Project would increase the impervious area on the Project site from 0%
to 89%, the Project has been designed so that it would not 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 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. Any impacts would be less than significant.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 105
Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L.
Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); and
Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering
and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2).
c.iv) Would the Project 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 impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant
Impact
In the existing Pre-Development condition, stormwater on the Project site currently flows from the northeast
boundary toward Collier Avenue along the southwest boundary of the site. The Project site drains into the
Temescal Canyon Wash north of Lake Elsinore and flows north toward Corona and the Santa Ana River.
The Hydrology Study and the WQMP indicate that in the proposed Post-Development condition (upon
completion of the Project site development plan in accordance with the WQMP), the stormwater drainage
pattern would be similar to the Pre-Development condition with the majority of the Project site’s stormwater
directed via a system of catch basins, subsurface piping, and surface swales toward the four (4) proposed
Biotreatment/Biofiltration Basins where it would be treated and the flow rate reduced before discharging
into a subsurface storm drain extending under Collier Avenue. Similarly, an off-site drainage system of
treatment control catch basins would direct surface flows toward Collier Avenue, then northwest to curb
and gutter improvements within the Collier Avenue right-of-way. ‘The previous Table X-2 demonstrates
that post-development storm water run-off does not exceed pre-development storm water runoff, nor does
it impede or redirect flood flows. Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L.
Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); and
Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering
and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2).
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site is within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
No. 060652 Panel 2028G with an effective date of August 28, 2008. The site is within the following three
FEMA identified flood zones:
• Zone X (5.5 acres or 75%): Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain (i.e.,
500-year flood);
• Shaded Zone X (1.5 acres or 20%): Areas of 1.0% annual chance flood (100-year flood) with average
depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and
• Zone AE (0.3 acres or 5%): Areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood)
with base flood level determined to be at elevation 1,261 feet.
The majority of the site (central, eastern, and northern portions) have no flood potential, while the
southeastern quarter of the site, adjacent to Collier Avenue, is within the 100-year flood zone. The proposed
site plan for the Project indicates the entire site will be raised at least one foot above the 1,261-foot elevation
to remove tne entire site from identified flooding hazards. The City and County General Plans also indicate
the site is not located within a local City/County designated “Flood Hazard Area.”
The Project site is located 24.5 miles northeast of the nearest coastline (Pacific Ocean); therefore, there is
no risk associated with tsunamis. The Project site is located 1.3 miles northeast of Lake Elsinore and
approximately 4.0 miles west of Canyon Lake. A seiche is a standing wave of water within a lake or
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 106
enclosed water body triggered by an earthquake or landslide. The Geotechnical Report for the Project site
indicates that, due to the distance and elevation differential between the Project site and the surface level
of the lake, the probability of flooding caused by a seiche is considered to be low.
Based on the above, the risk of pollutant release due to Project inundation caused by a flood, tsunami, or
seiche is negligible. Any impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L.
Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); Project-
Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and
Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2); General Plan-DEIR, Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality; and Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project, prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-
2021 (Appendix F).
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project WQMP has been prepared specifically to comply with the requirements of the City of Lake
Elsinore. The Project site is located in the Santa Ana Region Watershed, within the jurisdiction of the Santa
Ana Regional Board, where discharges from Riverside County’s Phase I MS4s are regulated through the
Riverside County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0033 NPDES No. CAS618033, as amended by Order
No. R8-2013-0024) pursuant to section 402(p) of the Federal Clean Water Act. The underlying Elsinore
groundwater Basin is not adjudicated although the EMWD does have a Ground Water Management Plan
(GWMP) in place. In addition, the analysis in Section X.a demonstrates the Project does not conflict with
the Santa Ana River Basin Plan which addresses surface water quality for the entire Santa Ana River Basin
within which the Project site is located.
With adherence to, and implementation of the conclusions and recommendations set forth in the WQMP,
the Project site development plan will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Any impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Sources: Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC
Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 107
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? No Impact
As shown on Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses, included in Section II of this Initial Study, the proposed
Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and has a General Plan land use designated of Limited
Industrial. The proposed Project is consistent with both the General Plan land use and zoning designations
on the site. The Project site is bounded to the north by El Toro Road and the parking lot for the Lake
Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier Avenue, to the east by
self-storage facilities zoned as General Manufacturing (M-2), and vacant land to the immediate west zoned
as M-1.
The Zoning Code divides the City into districts, or zones, and regulates land use activity in each district by
specifying the permitted uses of land and buildings, density, bulk, and other regulations. The proposed
Project is consistent with the surrounding zoning and General Plan land use designations.
The Project site represents an infill property that is surrounded by mainly developed commercial and
industrial uses. Development of the site would allow for workers and visitors to circulate more freely
among the various adjacent properties. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not
physically divide an established community so there would be no impact in that regard.
Sources: Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure 9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of
this Initial Study.
b) Would the Project 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? No
Impact
As shown on Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses, included in Section II of this Initial Study, the proposed
Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M1) and has a General Plan land use designated of Limited
Industrial. The proposed Project is consistent with both the General Plan land use and zoning designations
on the site. The Project site is bounded to the north by El Toro Road and the parking lot for the Lake
Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier Avenue, to the east by
self-storage facilities zoned as General Manufacturing (M-2), and vacant land to the immediate west zoned
as M-1. The proposed Project is consistent with these and surrounding zoning and land use designations.
The Project site is not within a Specific Plan or Historic Preservation District, nor is it within a General
Plan Policy Overlay Area. Furthermore, the Project is not within an Airport Compatibility Zone or an
Airport Influence Area.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation. There would be no impact.
Sources: Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure 9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of
this Initial Study.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 108
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the state? Less Than Significant Impact
Principal mineral resources within the County of Riverside include clay, limestone, iron ore, sand, and
construction aggregate. As of 2010, six mines were active in the Lake Elsinore area, producing clay,
stone/rock, and sand and gravel. Decomposed granite has also been mined in the Lake Elsinore area in
recent years.
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires that general plans classify,
and map mineral resources designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board. SMARA seeks
to promote conservation and protection of valuable lands within the State subject to urban expansion.
Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, adopted by the State Mining and Geology
Board, require that the State Geologist classify areas into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ).
According to Figure 3.12-1 of the City’s General Plan EIR, the Project site, along with most all of the City
of Lake Elsinore, is located in Mineral Resource Zone 3 Area (MRZ-3). MRZ-3 applies to areas containing
known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance.
The Project site is currently in a vacant, undeveloped condition. Historical activities at the Project site are
documented in the Phase I ESA, based on aerial photographs and topographic maps. The Phase I ESA
indicates the site supported various residential and agricultural uses from at least 1938 to 2018. The most
recent residential structure located at 29033 El Toro Road was demolished sometime between October 2018
and April of 2019. There have not been any documented mineral extraction activities at the Project site.
Given the size, location, and configuration of the Project site in relationship to surrounding land uses, it is
highly unlikely that any surface mining or mineral recovery operation could feasibly take place at the
Project site.
It is further noted that mining operation areas within the City are delineated as such on the City’s General
Plan Land Use Map with an Extractive Overlay. The Project site is not located in or adjacent to an
Extractive Overlay area.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region or residents of the state. Any potential impacts would
be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan, Chapter 4.5, Mineral Resources; General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Chapter 3.12,
Mineral Resources; Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study;
and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 389-
220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020 (Phase I ESA, Appendix H).
b) Would the Project 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 discussed in Threshold XII.a, the City’s General Plan Land Use Map delineates mining operation
areas by applying an Extractive Overlay. The Project site is not in or adjacent to an Extractive Overlay
area as depicted on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not 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. There would be no impact.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 109
Sources: General Plan, Chapter 4.5, Mineral Resources; General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Chapter 3.12,
Mineral Resources; Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study;
and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 389-
220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020 (Phase I ESA, Appendix H).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 110
XIII. NOISE
a) Would the Project result in the 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
Overview
The proposed Project consists of the development of 94,665 square feet of general light industrial use within
12 buildings. The Noise Study analyzes the Project’s noise and vibration impacts related to both temporary
construction activity and long-term operation of the Project. Construction of the proposed Project is
anticipated to take 14 months and would involve site preparation, grading, building construction, paving,
and architectural coating.
Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the Noise Study, unless otherwise noted.
Fundamentals of Sound and Vibration
Overview of Sound. Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is
capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant,
unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. According to
Caltrans, the effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech
communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment. Noise levels are commonly
measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted (dBA) sound pressure level (SPL). The A-weighting scale
is an adjustment to the actual SPLs to be consistent with that of human hearing response. Decibels are
measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used
for earthquake magnitudes. Thus, a doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic
volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB while a halving of the energy would result in a 3 dB
decrease.
Sound levels generally decrease as the distance from the source increases. Noise levels from a point source
typically attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery,
ventilation units, etc.) while noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad, etc.) typically
attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels may be reduced by intervening structures
and the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the
frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features such as hills and dense woods, as well as man-made
features such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure
blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5 dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver.
Structures also can substantially reduce exposure to noise. Based on the Federal Highway Administration’s
(FHWA) modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of
20 – 35 dBA with closed windows.
Since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day,
community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn or DNL), which is a 24-hour
average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5
dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring
from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Overview of Vibration. Groundborne vibration consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source
through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 111
vibration frequency, described in terms of hertz (Hz). The frequency of a vibrating object describes how
rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by the
human body starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz and goes to a high of about 200 Hz. While people
have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low
frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause
windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. The primary concern from vibration is that it
can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.
Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (ppv) and are normally described in
inches per second (in./sec.). Damage to structures occurs when vibration levels range from 2 to 6 in./sec.
ppv. One half this minimum threshold, or 1 in./sec. ppv is considered a safe criterion that would protect
modern structures (i.e., post 1975 construction in California) against structural damage. As stated in the
Caltrans Vibration manual, the human response to transient vibration is 0.24 in./sec ppv, which is
considered “distinctly perceptible to a human.” This is approximately equal to 96 vibration decibels (VdB).
According to the FTA, more continuous vibration sources such as train pass byes are considered annoying
at 72 VdB. The 96 VdB is used in the assessment of transient sources of vibration and 72 VdB is used to
assess permanent and continuous sources associated with operation of projects.
Sensitive Receivers
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with
those uses. Sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence
of noise could adversely affect the use of the land. The City’s General Plan list of noise sensitive uses
includes schools, hospitals, residences, libraries, and recreation areas. Vibration sensitive receivers are
similar to noise sensitive receivers, such as residences and institutional uses (e.g., schools, libraries, and
religious facilities) but also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration sensitive
equipment, affected by levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance.
General Plan and Environmental Impact Report
To protect City of Lake Elsinore residents from excessive noise, the Noise Element of the General Plan
contains goals and policies that set noise compatibility standards for land uses, require buffers to protect
certain uses, and consider noise impacts when making land use decisions As set forth in Section 3.5, Noise,
of the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR), “noise” is generally
defined as unwanted sound, or audible energy waves received by people and animals. As is the case with
most developed and urbanized areas, the chief source of ambient noise in the City and SOI is vehicular
traffic. The I-15 Freeway is considered the primary source of noise in the immediate Project area.
City of Lake Elsinore - Municipal Code
According to Section 17.176, Noise Control, of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), in order to
control unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise and vibration in the City, it is hereby declared to be the
policy of the City to prohibit such noise and vibration generated from or by all sources as specified in this
chapter. It shall be the policy of the City to maintain quiet in those areas which exhibit low noise levels
and to implement programs aimed at reducing noise in those areas within the City where noise levels are
above acceptable values. As set forth in LEMC Section 17.176.010 (Purpose), certain noise levels and
vibrations are considered detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety [Ord. 772 § 17.78.010, 1986.
Code 1987 § 17.78.010].
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 112
Significance Criteria
The Noise Study identified a number of thresholds to determine the significance of Project noise and
vibration impacts which are shown in Table XIII-1, Significance Criteria Summary.
Table XIII-1
Significance Criteria Summary
Analysis
Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site1
If ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase
If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase
If ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase
Operational2 Exterior Noise Level Standards 90 dBA
Construction Noise Level Threshold3 80 dBA Leq NA
Vibration Level Threshold4 0.01 in/sec
1 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992. NA = not applicable
2 City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Chapter 17.176 Noise Control (Appendix 3.1). Criteria for light industrial uses
3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
4 City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Section 17.176.080(G) (Appendix 3.1). "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime"
= 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Noise and Vibration Study
The dominant source of noise in the Project site vicinity is vehicular traffic on the I-15 Freeway
approximately 160 feet northeast of the site (at its closest point). Other local noise sources include traffic
along Collier Street to the southwest and Riverside Drive to the southeast. All land uses immediately
surrounding the Project site are commercial or industrial in nature and are not considered particularly
sensitive to urban noise levels. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are described below and
their locations shown in Figure XIII-1, Sensitive Receiver Locations:
R1 represents Temescal Canyon High School at 28755 El Toro Road, approximately 1,570 feet north
of the Project site. Receiver R1 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken
near this location (L1) to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R2 represents the existing single-family residential home at 18065 Dexter Avenue, approximately 509
feet northeast of the Project site. Receiver R2 is placed at the outdoor living areas (backyards) facing
the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location (L2) to describe the existing
ambient noise environment.
R3 represents the Elsinore Valley Cemetery at 18170 Collier Avenue, approximately 939 feet southeast
of the Project site. Receiver R3 is placed at the cemetery boundary. A 24-hour noise measurement was
taken near this location (L3) to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R4 represents the existing single-family residential home on Baker Street, approximately 1,893 feet
southwest of the Project site. Since there are no outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site
Receiver R4 is placed at the residential building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near
this location (L4) to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Traffic Noise
The Noise Study included an analysis of existing and future traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated
by the proposed Project to fully analyze potential noise impacts from Project-generated traffic (with traffic
data from the Project TIA). Scenarios studied included existing (ambient), ambient growth, and cumulative
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 113
conditions for both without and with Project traffic. Under “worst case” conditions (i.e., Existing plus
Ambient Growth plus Cumulative), exterior noise levels without Project traffic are expected to range from
42.5 to 69.2 dBA CNEL without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or
topography. Table XIII-2, Noise Impacts from Project Traffic, shows worst case conditions with Project
traffic will range from 46.5 to 69.2 dBA CNEL. The table also shows the off-site noise levels from Project
traffic will increase from 0.0 to 4.0 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise
presented in Table XIII-2, land uses adjacent to the Project area roadway segments would have less than
significant noise level increases on adjacent land uses due to Project-related traffic. This means that noise
impacts on sensitive uses which are further away from the Project site would similarly experience less than
significant noise impacts from Project traffic.
FIGURE XIII-1 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOACATIONSSource: Noise Study - (Appendix J1)Page 113 TPM 38124
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 115
Table XIII-2
Noise Impacts from Project Traffic
Road
Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition
Limit
Exceeded
?
Riverside Drive South of El Toro Road 51.5 51.9 0.4
5.0
dBA
No
Riverside Drive South of Collier Avenue 69.2 69.2 0.0 No
El Toro Road West of Riverside Drive 42.5 46.5 4.0 No
Collier Avenue West of Driveway 1 68.0 68.1 0.1 No
Collier Avenue West of Riverside Drive 68.0 68.0 0.0 No
Source: Noise Study Table 7-9, EAC with Project Traffic Noise Increases.
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses.
2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use.
3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table VIII-1)?
As shown in Table XIII-2, noise impacts from Project-related traffic will be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Construction Noise
Noise generated by Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools,
concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix
of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages: demolition; site preparation;
grading; building construction; paving; and architectural coatings. To assess the worst-case construction
noise levels, the Noise Study used the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest
reference noise level was operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity
(Project site boundary) to each of the four sensitive receiver locations (R1 to R4). As shown on Table
XIII-3, Construction Noise Impacts, the Project construction noise levels are expected to range from 42.8
to 63.0 dBA Leq. In addition, the highest construction levels are expected to range from 54.8 to 63.0 dBA
Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor locations.
Table XIII-3
Construction Noise Impacts
Sensitive
Receptor
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Demolition Site
Preparation
Grading Building
Construction
Paving Architectural
Coating
Highest
Levels2
R1 47.8 53.8 55.8 48.8 46.8 43.8 55.8
R2 55.0 61.0 63.0 56.0 54.0 51.0 63.0
R3 50.7 56.7 58.7 51.7 49.7 46.7 58.7
R4 46.8 52.8 54.8 47.8 45.8 42.8 54.8
1 Sensitive Receptor locations are shown in Figure XIII-1.
2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project site boundaries (construction activity area) to nearby receptor locations.
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest
receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq was used as a
reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts per Table XIII-1. The Noise
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 116
Study concluded that noise levels at the nearest receiver locations will not exceed the 80 dBA Leq
significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown on Table XIII-4, Construction Noise
Level Compliance. Therefore, noise impacts from Project construction will be less than significant at all
receiver locations and no mitigation is required.
Table XIII-4
Construction Noise Level Compliance
Sensitive
Receptor
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest
Construction
Noise Levels2
Threshold3 Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 55.8 80 No
R2 63.0 80 No
R3 58.7 80 No
R4 54.8 80 No
1 Sensitive Receptor locations are shown on Figure XIII-1.
2 Highest construction noise level operating at the Project site boundary to nearby receiver locations (Table XIII-3).
3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold?
Operational Noise Sources
As set forth in the Noise Study, the proposed Project operations include roof- top air conditioning units,
parking lot vehicle movements and trash enclosure activity. The Noise Study calculated the operational
source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level
increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Table XIII-5, Operational
Noise Impacts, shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 32.7 to
41.2 dBA Leq. Table XIII-5 also shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to
range from 31.3 to 39.9 dBA Leq.
Table XIII-6, Operational Noise Level Compliance, demonstrates the operational noise levels associated
with the Project will satisfy the City of Lake Elsinore daytime and nighttime hourly exterior noise level
standards at all nearby receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less
than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 117
Table XIII-5
Operational Noise Impacts
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq)1
R1 R2 R3 R4
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 28.2 35.6 30.9 28.7
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 30.4 39.6 36.3 31.6
Trash Enclosure Activity 20.3 25.4 23.8 13.8
Daytime Total (all noise sources) 32.7 41.2 37.6 33.4
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 25.8 33.2 28.5 26.3
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 29.4 38.7 35.3 30.6
Trash Enclosure Activity 19.3 24.4 22.8 12.8
Total (All Noise Sources) 31.3 39.9 36.3 32.0
Source: Noise Study Tables 9-2 and 9-3
1 Sensitive Receptor locations shown in Figure XIII-1
Table XIII-6
Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Operational Noise
Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level
Standards (dBA Leq)3
Noise Level
Standards Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 32.7 31.3 50 40 No No
R2 41.2 39.9 50 40 No No
R3 37.6 36.3 50 40 No No
R4 33.4 32.0 50 40 No No
1 See Figure XIII-1 for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown in Table XIII-5.
3 Exterior noise level standards as shown in Table XIII-1.
4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards?
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
The Noise Study also evaluated the Project’s operational noise level increases for consistency with the
City’s standards. The Project operational noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels
measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources
then compared to the City standards. As indicated on Table XIII-7, Operational Noise Level Increases,
the Project will generate daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.1
dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the
operational noise level increase significance criteria presented previously in Table XIII-1. Therefore, the
incremental Project operational noise level increases are less than significant at all receiver locations.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 118
Table XIII-7
Operational Noise Level Increases
Sensitive
Receptor
Location1
Total Project
Operational Noise
Level2
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels3
Combined
Project
and
Ambient4
Project
Increase5
Increase
Criteria6
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
R1 32.7 58.1 58.1 0.0 5.0 No
R2 41.2 64.5 64.5 0.0 3.0 No
R3 37.6 68.7 68.7 0.0 1.5 No
R4 33.4 52.5 52.6 0.1 5.0 No
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
R1 32.7 58.1 58.1 0.0 5.0 No
R2 41.2 64.5 64.5 0.0 3.0 No
R3 37.6 68.7 68.7 0.0 1.5 No
R4 33.4 52.5 52.6 0.1 5.0 No
1 See Figure XIII-1 for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table XIII-6.
3 Observed daytime ambient noise levels.
4 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities.
5 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities.
6 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table VIII-1.
In summary, implementation of the proposed Project would generate both temporary construction-related
noise and long-term noise associated with operation of the Project. Construction noise associated with
mobile sources would not exceed Lake Elsinore Municipal Code daytime noise standards at the nearby
residential land uses and impacts from mobile construction equipment would be less than significant. It
would not result in the 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 applicable standards of other agencies. All noise impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation
is required.
Sources: Saddleback/Elsinore Business Park Noise Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by
Urban Crossroads, 2-19-2021 (Noise Study, Appendix J1); North Elsinore Business Park Noise Analysis
Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-21 (Appendix J2); North Elsinore Business Park
Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 6-10-2021 (TIA, Appendix K1),
City of Lake Elsinore General Plan - Draft Environmental Impact Report (GP-DEIR), Section 3.5, Noise;
and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Section 17.176, Noise Control.
b) Would the Project generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and
methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration
from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Based on the
representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate
the potential Project construction vibration levels using the following vibration assessment methods defined
by the Federal Transit Agency (FTA).
The Noise Study concluded that at distances ranging from 509 feet to 1,893 feet from typical Project
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 119
construction activities (at the Project site boundary), construction vibration levels would range from 0.000
to 0.001 inches per second (in/sec) at the nearest receiver locations. As shown in Table XIII-8,
Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, the Project construction is not expected to generate vibration
levels exceeding the City of Lake Elsinore maximum acceptable vibration standard of 0.01 in/sec. Further,
impacts at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction
period, but will occur only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating proximate to
the Project site perimeter.
Table XIII-8
Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Sensitive
Receptor
Location1
Land Use Distance to
Property Line
(In Feet)
Highest
Velocity
Levels3
(in/sec)
Threshold
(in/sec)4
Potential
Significant
Impact?5
R1 School 1,570' 0.0001 0.01 No
R2 Residential 509' 0.0007 0.01 No
R3 Cemetery 939' 0.0003 0.01 No
R4 Residential 1,893' 0.0001 0.01 No
1 Typical construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Figure XIII-1.
2 Based on typical vibration source levels of construction equipment.
3 Vibration levels in PPV converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans
Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2020.
4 City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Section 17.176.080(G).
5 Does the peak vibration exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold?
In addition, construction at the Project site will be restricted to daytime hours consistent with City
requirements thereby eliminating potential vibration impact during the sensitive nighttime hours (as
restricted by the City’s Municipal Code). Therefore, the potential for the Project to result in exposure of
persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration during construction is determined to be less
than significant.
The proposed Project will involve truck and passenger vehicle traffic onsite and on the surrounding
roadways, including the I-15 Freeway. However, operation of the Project does not include any substantial
sources of vibration. Therefore, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the above, implementation of the Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. The Noise Study concluded that both short-term impacts during construction and
long-term impacts during Project occupancy would be less than significant.
Sources: Saddleback/Elsinore Business Park Noise Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by
Urban Crossroads, 2-19-2021 (Noise Study, Appendix J1); North Elsinore Business Park Noise Analysis
Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-21 (Appendix J2); and North Elsinore Business Park
Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 6-10-2021 (TIA, Appendix K1).
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 Perris Airport is the closest public airport, located approximately 8.4 miles to the northeast of the
Project site. The Skylark Airport is a private airport located approximately 4.7 miles to the southeast of the
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 120
Project site. According to the noise compatibility contours figure for the Perris Airport in the Riverside
County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document (Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission 2004), the Project site is located outside the airport’s 60 CNEL noise contour. The Skylark
airport does is not included in the County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document; however,
the airport is primarily used for recreational skydiving and has limited flights as it is not open to the public.
Both airports are located over 2 miles from the Project site.
Based on the above, no substantial noise exposure from airport noise would occur to construction workers,
users, or employees of the Project. There would be no impact.
Sources: Saddleback/Elsinore Business Park Noise Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by
Urban Crossroads, 2-19-2021 (Noise Study, Appendix J1); and Google Earth.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 121
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Would the Project 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
According to State Department of Finance, the City of Lake Elsinore’s population was 62,949 as of January
1, 2019. The City’s population is projected to increase to 111,600 persons in 2045, according to the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Adopted Growth Forecast. According to the 2020-
2045 SCAG RTP/SCS, Lake Elsinore had an employment base of 14,000 workers in 2016 and is projected
to increase to 24,900 workers by 2045. Table XIV-1, SCAG Demographic Forecasts, shows the growth
in population, housing, and employment for the City from 2016 to 2045 or approximately the next 30 years
(SCAG 2020).
Table XIV-1
SCAG Demographic Forecasts
Demographic 2016 2045 Average Annual Change1
Population (persons) 61,500 111,600 +6.0%
Housing (units) 16,900 37,800 +7.5%
Employment (workers) 14,000 24,900 +5.9%
Jobs/Housing Ratio2 0.83 0.66 -2.7%
Source: SCAG 2022-2045 RTP/SCS, Table 14, Jurisdiction-Level Growth Forecast. 1 2045 value divided by 2016 value divided by 30 (years); 2
Calculated by dividing employment by housing (not included in SCAG table but calculated from the SCAG data)
Any modest indirect increase in population as a result of the proposed Project is accounted for in the growth
assumptions estimated by SCAG which are based in part on the City’s General Plan land uses. It is noted
the proposed Project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation (Limited Industrial)
and Zoning classification (Limited Manufacturing). No new expanded infrastructure is proposed in
conjunction with the proposed Project that could accommodate additional growth in the area that is not
already possible with existing infrastructure. Any potential impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State — January 1, 2018, and 2019; and Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045
Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS), Demographics &
Growth Forecasts Appendix.
b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact
The Project site is currently vacant but previously supported a single family residence which is no longer
present onsite. There are no housing units or residents on the Project site.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. There would be no impact.
Sources: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS),
Adopted Growth Forecast, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Table 14, Jurisdiction-
Level Growth Forecast, prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 9-3/2020;
Project Site Visit – November 19, 2021, by Matthew Fagan; and Google Earth.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 122
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 City of Lake Elsinore contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) for fire prevention,
suppression, and paramedic services. RCFD, in turn, operates under contract with the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) for assistance with wildfire protection and
suppression. There are currently four (4) RCFD fire stations serving the City within the City limits (Station
#10, #85, #94 & #97), plus (1) within the City SOI (Station #11), and a proposed future fire station site at
the northwest end of the City proximate to Lake Street.
The closest fire station serving the Project site is Fire Station #57 located at 41725 Rosetta Canyon Drive
approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the Project site. CALFIRE and Lake Elsinore jointly operate three
fire engines and a squad from this facility through their cooperative-integrated system. This facility is a
three-apparatus bay, nine-person fire station that can expand to house 12 firefighters.
The RCFD currently serves the Project site so construction of the proposed Project as a business park center
would represent an incremental increase in RCFD fire services within the City. In recognition of the
increased demands new development places on the City’s existing capital improvements and operational
services, Chapter 16.74 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) establishes a program for the
adoption and administration of development impact fees (DIF) by the City. The purpose of the DIF program
is to defray the cost of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent
allowed by law) of which new development including the proposed Project is a beneficiary. Specifically,
LEMC, Section 16.74.049, “Fire facilities fee” has been established to mitigate the additional burdens
created by new development for City fire facilities [Ord. 1181 § 2, 2006]. This is a standard requirement
and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
Any incremental increase in fire protection services would be offset through the payment of the appropriate
DIFs. In addition, the proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable City fire codes for
construction and access to the site and will be reviewed by the City’s Fire Department to determine the
specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance.
Based on the above, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related
to fire protection. Any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services, and Figure 3.14-1, Police and Fire
Stations; City of Lake Elsinore, On-Line Services, Public Safety, Fire; LEMC, Chapter 16.74, Development
Impact Fees, and Section 16.74.049, Fire facilities fee; and Google Earth.
b) Police protection? Less than Significant Impact
Police protection services within the City of Lake Elsinore are provided by the Lake Elsinore Police
Department (LEPD) under contract by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD). The Lake
Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff's Station is located at 333 West Limited Street approximately 1.6 miles
southeast of the Project site.
In recognition of the increased demands new development places on the City’s existing capital
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 123
improvements and operational services, Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption
and administration of DIFs by the City. The purpose of the DIF program is to defray the cost of public
expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which
benefits new development including the proposed Project. The proposed Project would participate in the
DIF program to mitigate impacts to police protection resources. Any potential impacts would be
incremental and offset through payment of the DIF. This is a standard requirement and not considered
unique mitigation under CEQA.
Based on the above, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related
to police protection. Any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services, and Figure 3.14-1, Police and Fire
Stations; City of Lake Elsinore, On-Line Services, Public Safety, Police; LEMC, Chapter 16.74,
Development Impact Fees; and Google Earth.
c) Schools? Less than Significant Impact
The proposed Project site is located within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD). The Project
would be required to pay school impact fees as levied by the LEUSD which would provide funding for school
facilities.
The proposed Project does not propose new housing which could generate new students who would require
LEUSD facilities and services. Therefore, any potential impacts would be considered incremental and
would be offset through the payment of the appropriate development impact fees for schools. This is a
standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
Based on the above, the proposed Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to
schools. Any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: LEUSD website.
d) Parks? Less than Significant Impact
The proposed Project does not propose residential uses so it would not generate additional residents who
would need park facilities or services. Therefore, a direct increase in park usage is not expected as a result
of Project implementation. New commercial development may cause incremental indirect impacts to park
facilities from the occasional use of a park by employees during a lunch or dinner break.
Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) of the LEMC requires that prior to the
issuance of a building permit, the applicant pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section:
• Paragraph D of Section 16.34.060 pertains to the City’s Park Capital Improvement Fund and describes
how the City Council has the option to request dedication for park purposes or in lieu thereof, request
that the applicant pay a fee for the purpose of purchasing the land and developing and maintaining the
City park system.
As a commercial project, the proposed Project would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose
of establishing, improving and maintaining park land within the City.
Since the Project does not propose new housing so any potential impacts would be considered incremental
and would be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. This is a standard requirement and
not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 124
Based on the above, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related
to parks. Any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services; and LEMC Chapter 16.34, Required
Improvements.
e) Other public services/facilities? Less than Significant Impact
Libraries
The City of Lake Elsinore is part of the Riverside County Library System. The closest City of Lake Elsinore
library to the Project site is the Lake Elsinore Branch Library at 600 West Graham Avenue, approximately
1.5 miles southeast of the Project site.
Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34, Required Improvements, of the LEMC requires that prior to the
issuance of a building permit, the applicant pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section:
• Paragraph B of Section 16.34.060 describes the City’s Library Mitigation Fee and states that an in-lieu
fee for future construction of library improvements shall be paid to the City to assure the necessary
library facilities are provided the community.
The proposed Project does not include any housing that could generate additional residents who would use
library services. Therefore, any impacts to library services would be incremental and would be offset
through the payment of the appropriate library mitigation fee. This is a standard requirement and not
considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
Therefore, impacts related to libraries would be less than significant.
Other Public Services
Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of DIFs by the City
for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements and operational
services to the extent allowed by law which will benefit such new development:
• Section 16.74.048 includes an “Animal Shelter Facilities Fee” to mitigate the additional burdens created
by new development for animal facilities.
• In addition, the proposed Project will be required to pay City Hall & Public Works fees, Community
Center Fees, and Marina Facilities Fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Payment of the above
fees is a standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
Based on the above, any impacts related to other public services and facilities would be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services; LEMC, Chapter 16.34, Required
Improvements, and Chapter 16.74, Development Impact Fees; and Google Earth.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 125
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
The City of Lake Elsinore Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008 – 2030 establishes a goal of providing
five acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The proposed Project does not include residential development
that would add residents who would substantially increase demands for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities. Indirect impacts to park facilities from commercial development would be the
occasional use of a park during a lunch or dinner break. Based on a review of Google Maps, there are no
parks located within a half mile of the Project site. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed Project would
substantially increase the use of existing parks.
As previously described in Threshold XV.d, the proposed Project would be required to pay park fees to the
City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining park land within the City (LEMC, Sec.
16.34.060). Since the proposed Project does not include a housing component, any impacts would be
incremental and would be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. This is a standard
requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services; City of Lake Elsinore, Parks and
Recreation Master Plan 2008-2030; LEMC, Chapter 16.34, Required Improvements; Project Plans
(Appendix L); and Google Earth.
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
The Project proposes the development of a 94,665 square foot twelve-building business park and does not
include any recreational facilities.
As set forth in Threshold XV.d and Threshold XVI.a, the proposed Project would be required to pay park
fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining park land within the City. This
is a standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA.
The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities and does not require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Any
impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services; City of Lake Elsinore, Parks and
Recreation Master Plan 2008-2030; LEMC, Chapter 16.34, Required Improvements; and Project Plans
(Appendix L).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 126
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Any Tables or Figures in this Section are from the Traffic Impact Analysis, unless stated otherwise.
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact
Overview
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the proposed Project) development. The TIA focuses on
Level of Service (LOS) changes at local intersections and on local roadways as a result of Project-generated
traffic. However, the CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation and traffic impacts have changed
in recent years. In the past, the CEQA analysis focused on LOS which measures congestion at local
intersections and roadway segments. The emphasis of these past studies was to assure the street grid
network functioned well and allowed for efficient movement of vehicles. The current focus is to encourage
active transportation (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.) and transit, and to limit increases in Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT). A key part of this analysis is to determine if a proposed action is consistent with both
the vehicular and non-vehicular aspects of the General Plan.
The Project proposes to develop 94,665 square feet of general light industrial use within 12 Buildings. All
buildings are proposed to accommodate ground level, roll‐up garage doors (no dock‐high doors). It is
anticipated that the Project will be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2022.
Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017) for General Light Industrial
(ITE Land Use Code 110). The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 464 two-way trips per
day with 69 AM peak hour trips and 61 PM peak hour trips. The City Guidelines require that truck intensive
uses translate heavy truck trips to passenger car equivalents (PCE) for the purposes of any operations
analyses. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to generate 498 PCE two-way trips per day, with 71 PCE AM
peak hour trips and 63 PCE PM peak hour trips. This results in a net reduction of 24 PCE two-way trips per
day with a net increase of 3 PCE AM peak hour trips and 4 PCE PM peak hour trips.
The major roadways within the Project area are identified in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan
Circulation Element. In the vicinity of the Project, Collier Avenue (SR‐74), east of Riverside Drive and
Riverside Drive (SR‐74) are classified as Urban Arterials which are identified as having six lanes of travel.
Also within the Project area is Collier Avenue, west of Riverside Drive, which is classified as a Major
Highway and identified as having four lanes of travel.
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trail Facilities
There is an existing Lake Elsinore Lake, River, Levee Regional Trail that runs parallel to and just southwest
of Collier Avenue in the Project area. There are also proposed Class II bike paths along Collier Avenue
and Riverside Drive (SR‐74). When the bike paths are completed the Project area will have adequate
bicycle circulation for future Project workers and visitors.
There are existing sidewalks on both sides of Collier Avenue but none on Riverside Drive or El Toro Road.
However, workers or pedestrians wanting to access the Project can utilize the sidewalks on Collier Avenue
to access the surrounding area. According to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Collier Avenue is
currently built out to its ultimate roadway half‐section, so no additional roadway improvements are needed.
However, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements will be made to accommodate site
access along the Project’s frontage for three driveways consistent with the City’s standards. Therefore, the
Project will have adequate pedestrian access.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 127
Public Transit Services
The Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) currently serves the City of Lake Elsinore. Transit service is
reviewed and updated by RTA periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs.
RTA Route 8 runs along Riverside Drive (SR‐74) and Collier Avenue while RTA Routes 9 and 205/206
run along Collier Avenue only. These routes currently provide adequate transit service to the Project area.
Growth or changes in land uses can trigger adjustments in transit service/routes where necessary. As part
of the City’s development review process, the applicant will contact RTA to determine if any bus-related
improvements are needed on the Project site.
The preceding analysis demonstrates the Project does not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore,
impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 6-10-2021 (TIA, Appendix K1); North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Screening Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (VMT Memo,
Appendix K4); North Elsinore Business Park Trip Generation Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore,
prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-9-2021 (Appendix K3); and Project Plans (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 adopted in 2013 requiring the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For land use projects, OPR has identified Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) as the new metric for transportation analysis under CEQA. The regulatory changes to the CEQA
guidelines that implement SB 743 were approved on December 28th, 2018, with an implementation date of
July 1st, 2020, as the new metric. The City of Lake Elsinore adopted its revised Traffic Impact Analysis
Guide on June 23, 2020. The document outlines guidelines for CEQA analysis including screening criteria
and requirements for VMT assessment of land use projects based on the Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG) Implementation Pathway Study issued in March 2019.
To aid in the transition to VMT analysis, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released
a Technical Advisory and the City of Lake Elsinore recently adopted new City Guidelines which document
the City’s VMT analysis methodology and approved impact thresholds. The following VMT analysis was
prepared for the Project based on the newly adopted City Guidelines. The City Guidelines provides details
on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is
anticipated to result in a less than significant impact. City Guidelines list the screening thresholds in the
following three steps:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
• Small Project/Low GHG Emissions Screening
A land use project need only to meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant
impact. For the purposes of this analysis, the initial VMT screening process has been conducted with using
the WRCOG VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool), which uses screening criteria consistent with the
screening thresholds recommended in the Technical Advisory and City Guidelines.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 128
TPA Screening Criteria
Consistent with guidance identified in the Technical Advisory and City Guidelines, projects located within a
Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within a half-mile of an existing “major transit stop 4” or an existing stop
along a “high-quality transit corridor”5) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent
substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required
by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking);
• Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead
agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or
• Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential
units.
The Project site is not located within a half-mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality
transit corridor. Therefore, the TPA Screening Criteria is not met.
Low VMT Area Screening Criteria
As noted in the City Guidelines, residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area
may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The
Screening Tool uses the Riverside sub-regional travel demand model (RIVTAM) to estimate VMT for
individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs) for areas throughout the Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG) region. A low VMT area is defined as an individual TAZ where total daily VMT per service
population (SP) is lower than the City average total daily VMT per SP. The Project’s physical location based
on parcel number was selected in the Screening Tool to determine the VMT per SP for the TAZ containing
the Project. The Project boundary is located in TAZ 3511 and is not within a low VMT generating TAZ
based on VMT per SP. Therefore, the Low VMT Screening Criteria is not met.
Project Type Screening Criteria
The City Guidelines describe that projects consisting of local-serving retail less than 50,000 square feet
may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In
addition to local serving retail, other types of local serving uses (e.g., day care centers, non-destination
hotels, affordable housing, places of worship, etc.) may also be presumed to have a less than significant
impact as their uses are local serving in nature and would tend to shorten vehicle trips. The proposed Project
is not expected to necessarily include local serving uses. Therefore, the Project Type Screening Criteria is
not met.
4 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a
bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the
morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”).
5 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with
service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”).
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 129
Small Project/Low GHG Emissions Screening Criteria
Through consultation of City Staff, the City of Lake Elsinore will be adopting screening thresholds that
identify those projects forecasted to generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 3,000 Metric Tons of
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) per year are also assumed to cause a less than significant VMT
impact, similar to the County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service
Vehicle Miles Traveled (December of 2020) (County Guidelines) Based on the Project’s GHG Analysis,
the Project is anticipated to generate 2,258.22 MTCO2e which does not exceed the City’s impact threshold.
Therefore, the Small Project/Low GHG Emissions Screening Criteria is met.
Conclusion
In summary, the Project meets the City’s Small Project/Low GHG Emissions Screening Criteria and is
therefore presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT, and no further analysis is required. Based
on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1). Any impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 6-10-2021 (TIA, Appendix K1); North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Screening, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 10-18-2021 (VMT Analysis, Appendix
K2); North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memorandum, City of Lake
Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (VMT Memo, Appendix K4); Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
(OPR), 12-2018 (Technical Advisory). Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, prepared by the City of
Lake Elsinore, 6-2020 (City Guidelines), Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle
Miles Traveled, prepared by the County of Riverside, 12-2020 (County Guidelines); North Elsinore
Business Park Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021
(GHG Study, Appendix G); North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake
Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (AQ Study, Appendix B1); and North Elsinore
Business Park Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads,
11-12-2021 (Appendix B2).
c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than
Significant Impact
The Project TIA determined the traffic study area intersections were currently operating at an acceptable
LOS during the peak hours under Existing (2020) traffic conditions. Therefore, no improvements were
identified in terms of area congestion or safe vehicular travel. It should be noted the site plan was revised
during review of the draft TIA to remove “Driveway 4” along El Toro Road which was determined to be
too close to an acute curve in the roadway for safe turning movements of vehicles and trucks. The remaining
area intersections and roadways are arranged in a grid pattern parallel to the nearby I-15 Freeway and would
not result in geometric design hazards. Reference Figure 3, Aerial Photo, provided in Section II of this IS.
The Project has been reviewed by City Traffic Engineering Staff, and as designed will not substantially
increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment). The Project site development plan proposes three driveway access points along
Collier Avenue and one on El Toro Road. Project driveway intersections and internal circulation have been
designed pursuant to City standards and adequate sight distance has been provided. Driveway widths will
accommodate Project traffic, and traffic control devices (signals and stop signs) are provided where
necessary for entering and exiting the site. No incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) are located in
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 130
proximity to the Project site. Reference Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses, provided in Section III of this
IS.
In addition, detailed street improvement plans will be subject to further City review and approval which
will ensure that Project driveway intersections and internal circulation meet the City’s strict safety
requirements, with adequate sight distance, driveway widths and stop signs where necessary for entering
and exiting the site. This will eliminate any Project impacts due to a design feature. Any impacts would
be less than significant.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 6-10-2021 (TIA, Appendix K1); Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses and Figure 5, Aerial Photo,
provided in the IS Project Description; and Project Plans (Appendix L).
d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact
The Project site has adequate emergency access at present via Collier Avenue to the southwest and
secondary emergency access via El Toro Road to the northeast. A limited potential exists for the Project
to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction. Construction work in the
street associated with the Project includes paving and street frontage improvements (i.e. concrete curb,
gutter and sidewalk) along the Project site’s Collier Avenue frontage, and realignment and street
improvements along the Project site’s El Toro Road frontage. Construction of these site-adjacent street and
related improvements presents a modest potential for traffic diversion along El Toro Road but minimal
potential for diversion along Collier Avenue due to the roadway width and planned improvements (i.e.,
roadway is already at its ultimate width). Control of access would ensure emergency access to the Project
site and surrounding area during construction through the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan
(TCP). The TCP is designed to mitigate any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a standard
condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Following construction, emergency access
to the Project site and area will remain as it was prior to the proposed Project.
The proposed Project is required to comply with Fire Department requirements for adequate access both
during construction and operation. Project site access and circulation will provide adequate access and
turning radius for emergency vehicles, consistent with the Fire Department’s requirements. Any impacts
during construction would be less than significant.
Sources: General Plan DEIR; and Project Plans (Appendix L).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 131
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). Less than
Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
A Project-specific Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) including a records search, Sacred Land File
search, Native American outreach, historic archival research, and a field survey was conducted for the
Project area. The CRA details the methods and results of the cultural resources survey and has been
prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California,
Riverside on November 16, 2021 indicated that 55 previously identified cultural resource studies completed
within 1.0 mile of the Project site. None of these previous studies include portions of the current Project
site. The EIC records search identified 33 previously recorded resources situated within a 1-mile radius of
the project site. These resources include evidence of mining / rock processing, remnants of residential
buildings with associated landscaping and trash, a cemetery, and a small food processing site. None of
these previously documented cultural resources are located within or immediately adjacent to the Project
site.
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on November 4, 2021 to request a
Sacred Lands File search of the Project site and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it. The NAHC responded on
November 8, 2021; the results of the Sacred Lands File search were negative.
On October 26, 2021, Dr. Jean Keller conducted a cultural resources field survey of the Project site. The
archaeologist surveyed the area using transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart. The survey transects
were oriented generally in a north-south direction. The archaeologist examined all exposed ground surface.
Results of the field survey identified no evidence of archaeological remains or historic built environment
resources within the Project site. Ground visibility was excellent (approximately 75 percent) with
vegetation consisting of small patches of ground cover and leaf fall.
Results of the CRA identified no cultural resource within the Project site. Although the findings of the CRA
were negative, cultural resources have been identified within the general vicinity of the Project Based on
these findings, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources and less than significant
impact with mitigation for archaeological resources under CEQA.
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), signed into law in 2014, amended CEQA and established new requirements for
tribal notification and consultation. AB 52 applies to all projects for which a notice of preparation or notice of
intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is issued after July 1, 2015. AB 52 also
broadly defines a new resource category of tribal cultural resources and established a more robust process for
meaningful consultation that includes:
• Prescribed notification and response timelines;
• Consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact
evaluation, and mitigation measures; and
• Documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 132
On June 29, 2021, the City provided written notification of the Project in accordance with AB 52 to the
following Native American tribes:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians;
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians;
• Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians;
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians;
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians; and,
• Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
Of the tribes notified, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and the
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested formal government-to-government consultation under AB 52.
Meetings were held with Soboba August 16, 2021, with Rincon on September 1, 2021, and with Pechanga
on September 16, 2021. The City concluded consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on
September 9, 2021 and with the Pechanga of Luiseño Indians on February 28, 2022. The City has not yet
concluded consultation with 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.
With the incorporation of mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-7, the Project will not 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: 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). Impacts
will be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.
Sources: A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean
A. Keller, 12-2021 (CRA, Appendix D).
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
Please reference the discussion in Item XVIII.a. With the incorporation of mitigation measures MM-CUL-
1 through MM-CUL-7, the Project will not 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 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. Impacts will be
less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.
Sources: A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean
A. Keller, 12-2021 (CRA, Appendix D).
Mitigation Measures:
MM CUL 1: Unanticipated Resources. The developer/permit holder or any successor in interest shall
comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated
cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed:
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 133
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.
5. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural
Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This
may include avoidance of cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of
cultural resources located in native soils, and/or re-burial on the Project property so they are not
subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location
measure.
6. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase
III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the
Tribe(s), and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation
of the said plan.
7. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation
for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant and the Tribe(s) cannot
agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues
will be presented to the Community Development Director for decision. The Community
Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the
project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and
practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the
decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning
Commission and/or City Council.” Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a
significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to City of Lake Elsinore upon the
completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding.
MM CUL 2: Archaeologist/CRMP. 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 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
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 134
to be monitored including off-site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of
excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The
frequency and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in
consultation with the Tribal monitor.
Cultural Sensitivity Training - The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the
consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural
Sensitivity Training for all Construction Personnel. Training will include a brief review of the
cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be
identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols
that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and
appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other
appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training and all construction personnel must attend prior
to beginning work on the project site. A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included
in the Phase IV Monitoring Report.
Unanticipated Resources - In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural
resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to
divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation
of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the
Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community
Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction
activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed
to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using
professional archaeological methods.
Phase IV Report - A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and
submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The
report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion
of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including
any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites
affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog
and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant,
the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe.
MM CUL 3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are
discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried
out for final disposition of the discoveries:
One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence
of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department:
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 Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be
filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 135
3. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in the culturally
sensitive matter at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department of
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. Evidence of compliance with this
mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to the City
of Lake Elsinore upon completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and
treatment of finding.
MM CUL 4: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, at least 30 days prior to the
issuance, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested
monitoring through consultation with the City during the AB 52 and/or the SB 18 process (“Monitoring
Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring
Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community
Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement
shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project’s approved
mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of
professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading
and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition
of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the
Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal
Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to
evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist.
MM CUL 5: Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural
Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning
Department's requirements for such reports for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading
permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources
(Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall
include results of any feature relocation as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for
the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting. Once the report is determined to be
adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of
California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Monitoring Tribes.
MM-Cul-6: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be
human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors,
project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities
within 100 feet of the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the
City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be
permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b).
Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no
further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state
law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC
(PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the
determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 136
and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code
Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition
of the remains, State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see
PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).
According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a
cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).
MM-CUL-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise
required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall
not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public
Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code
6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to
such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 137
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
The Project site, along with the entire City of Lake Elsinore, is located within the water service district
boundary of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). The Project site is not currently
connected to the EVMWD water supply system given its vacant condition; however, as shown on the
Project Plans (Appendix L), EVMWD has an existing 12” water service line southwest of the Project site
in Collier Avenue and an existing 8” water line northeast of the site in El Toro Road.
The Project site’s development plan proposes to connect to the EVMWD water supply system. In
conjunction with the Project site engineering effort to date, the Project proponent had a due diligence
meeting with EVMWD and received a letter dated December 8, 2020, with a list of requirements the Project
would have to meet to receive water and sewer service from EVMWD. In addition, on May 18, 2021,
EMWD responded to a Planning Application request from the Project applicant that reiterated its service
requirements and indicated the next step would be a formal request for a Will Serve Letter for the Project
for water service.
EVMWD indicated the Project must create a looped Zone 1434 onsite water system connecting to the two
existing local water mains. This work will involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts
that will occur in conjunction with other on-site improvements. In addition, the Project will be required to
pay water connection fees and comply with Water Efficient Guidelines.
According to EVMWD, implementation of the proposed Project will not require, or result in, the
construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
would cause significant environmental effects. Given the proposed Project’s relatively small size, any
impacts are considered nominally incremental and less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Wastewater/Sewer
The Project site is located within the wastewater/sewer service boundary of the EVMWD. The Project site
is not currently connected to the EVMWD wastewater/sewer system given its vacant condition. However,
as shown on the Project Plans, EVMWD has an existing 8” sanitary sewer line located adjacent to the
Project site in Collier Avenue and an existing 12” sewer line in El Toro Road.
The Project site’s development plan proposes to connect to the EVMWD wastewater/sewer system. In
conjunction with the Project site engineering effort to date, the Project proponent had a due diligence
meeting with EVMWD and received a letter dated December 8, 2020, with a list of requirements the Project
would have to meet to receive water and sewer service from EVMWD. In addition, on May 18, 2021,
EMWD responded to a Planning Application request from the Project applicant that reiterated its service
requirements and indicated the next step would be a formal request for a Will Serve Letter for the Project
for sewer service.
The Project will meet the requirements of EVMWD to the District can provide water & sewer services to
the Project site subject to its standard conditions and fees. The EVMWD usually notes that its ability to
serve new development is subject to limiting conditions, such as regulatory requirements, legal issues, or
conditions beyond EVMWD’s control and any formal “will serve” determination for the Project would
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 138
expire two years from the date of issue (no issue date as yet).
Connections to local sewer mains will involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts that
will occur in conjunction with other on-site improvements. In addition, the Project will be required to pay
sewer connection fees.
Implementation of the proposed Project will not require, or result in, the construction of new wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Stormwater/Drainage
As set forth in Section X of this Initial Study (Hydrology and Water Quality), all new development in the
City of Lake Elsinore is required to comply with provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program, including Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and the 2010 Santa Ana
Municipal Separate Sewer Permit (MS4) Permit, as enforced by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Board (SARWQCB).
In its current condition, the Project site has a relatively steady slope up from the southwest to the north,
rising from an elevation of 1,259’ to 1,281’ above sea level or a slope of 3.9 percent 6.
At present, the Project site is vacant land with a 100% pervious earthen surface. On-site stormwater runoff
currently surface flows in a south-southwest direction toward Collier Avenue where an on-site trapezoidal
channel carries flows north and northwest of the site.
The Project will construct 12 commercial buildings, parking lots, and utility infrastructure. Ultimately, the
Project site will discharge into pipes within Collier Avenue.
Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, all construction projects shall apply Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to be contained in the Project applicants submitted Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The proposed Project will also be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) in identifying post-construction BMPs that include drainage controls such as infiltration pits,
detention ponds, bioswales, berms, rain gardens, and pervious pavement. Also, the proposed Project will
be required to submit a drainage study to ensure onsite and offsite drainage is accurately assessed and
sufficient infrastructure is required for construction of the Project. During the grading and construction
phase, the applicant will need to comply with the conditions of approval placed on the Project.
With adherence to the Project-specific WQMP, the proposed Project will not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, nor will it require new or expanded off-site storm drain facilities the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Electricity
There is no electricity connection currently serving the Project site in its vacant condition. The Project site
development plan which proposes construction of a commercial center that will require electrical service.
The electrical service provider for the Project site and the greater City of Lake Elsinore is Southern
California Edison (SCE). Overhead electrical service lines are currently in place adjacent to the Project
site along El Toro Road at the north end of the Project site. SCE is responsible for providing power supply
6 Elevation change of 22 feet over a distance 560 linear feet
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 139
to the City of Lake Elsinore and the greater Riverside County area while complying with county, state, and
federal regulations. SCE’s power system is one of the nation’s largest electric and gas utilities and serves
approximately 15 million people in 180 incorporated cities and 15 counties, in a service area of
approximately 50,000 square miles in size. SCE maintains 12,635 miles of transmission lines, 91,375 miles
of distribution lines, 1,433,336 electric poles, 720,800 distribution transformers, and 2,959 substation
transformers. The Project plans show an onsite transformer will be installed to provide electrical service to
the proposed commercial buildings.
In 2020, SCE’s power mix consisted of 32% renewable resources, including wind, geothermal, biomass,
solar, and small hydro, 20% natural gas, 8% large hydroelectric facilities, and 6% nuclear. An estimated
34% of SCE’s power mix consisted of unspecified sources of power in 2020, which is referred to by SCE as
electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.
Operation of the proposed Project would consume electricity for building power, lighting, and water
conveyance, among other operational requirements. The Project has been designed to comply with various
federal, state and local energy use regulations including Title 24.
Because the Project has been designed to meet all applicable local and state requirements and represents an
incremental and relatively nominal increase in area wide electrical consumption, the Project would not
result in potentially significant environmental effects from wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy.
Adequate commercial electricity supplies are presently available in Southern California to meet the
incremental increase in demand attributed to the Project. The proposed Project will not require new or
expanded electric power facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects. Impacts will be less than significant.
Natural Gas
There is no natural gas connection currently in place serving the Project site in its vacant and undeveloped
condition. The natural gas provider for the Project site and the greater City of Lake Elsinore is the Southern
California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), also known as The Gas Company.
The proposed Project will be connected to The Gas Company’s natural gas distribution system.
Connections are available in the vicinity to natural gas service lines in Collier Avenue.
Adequate natural gas supplies are available to meet the incremental increase in demand attributed to the
Project. The proposed Project will not require new or expanded natural gas facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts will be less than significant.
Telecommunications
Telephone and cable TV service to the Project site and the greater City of Lake Elsinore is provided by
Frontier which is a private company that provides connection to the communication system on an as needed
basis. No expansion of facilities will be necessary to connect the Project to the communication system
located adjacent to the Project site. The proposed Project will not require new or expanded
telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 140
Conclusion
Based on the above data and analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not 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. Any impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L.
Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); Project-
Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and
Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2); Sheet 5, Utility Plan, prepared by IE Survey and
Engineering, Inc., 8-3-2021 (Project Plans, Appendix L); Southern California Edison website; Southern
California Gas Company website; and EVMWD Service Requirement Letters, prepared by EVMWD, 5-18-
2021 and 12-8-2020 (Appendix M).
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
As previously discussed in Section XIX.a, the Project site is located within the water service district
boundary of the EVMWD which has an existing 12” water line located southwest of the Project site in
Collier Avenue and an existing 8” water line northeast of the site in El Toro Road. The Project’s water
service plan proposes to connect to the existing main lines adjacent to the site. The proposed on-site water
distribution system includes a series of lines ranging from 2” to 8” serving the proposed commercial uses.
In addition to potable water demand of employees and visitors, the Project must also provide a fire hydrant
system capable of delivering fire flows as required by the California Fire Code and Fire Department
standards. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance with the California Fire Code. Based on current
standards, the required fire flow is estimated to be 1,500 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 pounds per square
inch (PSI) for a duration of 2 hours based on the buildings having fire sprinkler systems per the 2019
California Fire Code. No additional off-site water infrastructure is anticipated in conjunction with the
Project site development, as proposed.
EVMWD provides water service to the City of Lake Elsinore, and beyond. The water agency prepares an
Urban Water Management Plan every five years, which identifies historical and projected water usage and
existing and future water supply sources, describes purveyors’ demand management programs, and sets
forth a program to meet water demands during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
The EVMWD water supply/demand analysis within its service area is set forth in the EVMWD 2020 UWMP
which assesses the District’s ability to satisfy demands during three (3) hydrologic scenarios, including: 1)
a normal water year, 2) single-dry water year, and 3) multiple-dry water years. The supply-demand balance
for each of the hydrologic scenarios within the EVMWD service area was projected for the 20-year planning
period 2020 to 2045. Based on the analysis and conclusions set forth in the EVMWD 2020 UWMP (Sec. 6
System Supplies and Sec. 9 Demand Management Measures), EVMWD will be able to meet 100% of its
demand under all three hydrologic scenarios through the year 2045. The proposed Project is consistent
with both the existing General Plan land use designation (Limited Industrial) and the existing Limited
Manufacturing zoning (M1) for the site. Since the EVMWD 2020 UWMP is based on the land uses outlined
in the City’s General Plan, and the Project is consistent with that designation, the Project’s future water
demand has been taken into account by the UWMP.
Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Any impacts are considered less than significant.
Sources: Sheet 5, Utility Plan, prepared by IE Survey and Engineering, Inc., 8-3-21 (Project Plans,
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 141
Appendix L); and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan,
prepared by WSC, 5-21-2021.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact
As previously discussed in Section XIX.a, the Project site is located within the wastewater/sewer service
district boundary of the EVMWD. According to the Will Serve Letter for the Project site EVMWD is
willing to provide water and sewer services to the subject project.
Wastewater from the Project site would be delivered through EVMWD sewer lines to Western Municipal
Water District (WMWD)’s Western Riverside County Wastewater Treatment Plant in Corona.
Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the Project from existing resources and
EVMWD has issued a signed Will Serve Letter for the Project site. As the existing wastewater treatment
provider, EVMWD has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to serving its
existing commitments. Connections to local sewer mains will involve temporary and less than significant
construction impacts that will occur in conjunction with other on-site improvements. Impacts will be less
than significant.
Sources: EVMWD Service Requirement Letters, prepared by EVMWD, 5-18-2021 and 12-8-2020
(Appendix M).
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
Municipal waste collection services in the City of Lake Elsinore, inclusive of the proposed Project, is
provided by Waste Management, Inc. In addition, the Riverside County Waste Management Department
(RCWMD) is responsible for the efficient and effective landfill disposal of non-hazardous county waste.
To accomplish this, the RCWMD operates six active landfills and administers a contract agreement for
waste disposal at the private El Sobrante Landfill. The Department also oversees several transfer station
leases, as well as a number of recycling and other special waste diversion programs.
As set forth in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan DEIR (December 2011), the solid waste generated
within the City during 2011 was deposited in two landfills: The El Sobrante Landfill in unincorporated
Riverside County south of the City of Corona, and the Badlands Sanitary Landfill near the City of Moreno
Valley. The El Sobrante Landfill is significantly larger than the Badlands Landfill in terms of size and
capacity. A summary of the two landfill facilities is included in Table XIX-1, Landfills Serving Lake
Elsinore.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 142
Table XIX-1
Landfills Serving Lake Elsinore
Landfill Location
Permitted
Throughput
Capacity, Tons
per Day
Average
Disposal,
Tons per Day1
Remaining
Capacity, Cubic
Yards [Tons]
Estimated
Closing
Date
El Sobrante Corona 16,054 7,260 145,530,000
[77,567,490] 2045
Badlands Sanitary Moreno Valley 4,000 1,651 14,730,025
[7,851,103] 2024
1 Calculated from annual totals (from CalRecycle 2012d) based on 300 operating days per year. Badlands Sanitary Landfill and El Sobrante
Landfill are each open six days per week, Monday through Saturday, except certain holidays.
El Sobrante Landfill
The Project site is located within the service area of the El Sobrante Landfill (ESL) which includes the
cities/communities within southwestern Riverside County, as well as multiple jurisdictions within the
counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego. The ESL is located approximately twenty
(20) miles west/northwest of the Project site in the unincorporated Temescal Canyon area of Riverside
County between the City of Lake Elsinore and the City of Corona, east of Interstate 15 and Temescal
Canyon Road, and south of Cajalco Road, at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The landfill, which is owned
and operated by USA Waste of California (a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.) started disposal
operations in 1986. At present, the ESL has a disposal capacity of approximately 196.11 million cubic
yards or approximately 109 million tons of municipal solid waste. It also has a daily disposal capacity up
to 70,000 tons per week but cannot exceed 16,054 tons per day which is limited in part due to the number
of vehicle trips per day. The ESL facility currently comprises a total area of 1,322 acres which includes a
495-acre footprint permitted for landfill operations, and a 688-acre wildlife preserve. The landfill is open
24 hours per day, six days a week (closed Sundays and Major Holidays). Commercial customers have
access 4:00 am to 6:00 pm, while the general public hours are 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. Based on 2016 figures,
there was 141,192,896 tons of remaining capacity, indicating an approximate 54-year remaining life before
the facility reaches capacity. According to the City GPEIR, the El Sobrante facility is estimated to have
sufficient capacity until 2045. At this time, wastes from the Lake Elsinore area are primarily disposed of
at ESL although the Badlands Landfill is also used at times as needed.
Project Impacts
The State of California evaluates solid waste generation for proposed development projects based on per
capita (resident or employee) generation rates. Accordingly, there are four generation categories depending
on land use; Residential (including both single-family and multi-family projects), Commercial (Retail and
Non-Retail), Industrial/Manufacturing Land Use (Light and Heavy), and Service Sector. The generation
factor for non-retail commercial uses is 2.5 pounds per day per person (employee) as outlined in the
CAlRecycle website. The Project is proposing 94,665 square feet of commercial uses. Assuming 500
square feet per commercial employee, the Project could support approximately 200 new employees. Based
on the CalRecycle generation factor, the Project site development plan is projected to produce an average
of 500 pounds of solid waste per day, or 182,500 pounds of solid waste per year.
Individual development projects within the City of Lake Elsinore are required to comply with applicable
State and local regulations reducing landfill waste by at least 50%; therefore, the Project site is forecast to
contribute 250 pounds (0.125 ton) of solid waste per day for disposal at the El Sobrante Landfill or at the
Badlands Sanitary Landfill if needed. This represents a nominal amount of approximately 0.0001% (0.125
ton ÷ 16,054 tons) of the estimated average daily solid waste capacity of the El Sobrante Landfill.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 143
Therefore, development of the Project site, as proposed, would not 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. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Environmental Impact Report, (Section 3.16), December
2011; and CalRecycle website.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact
All land uses within the City of Lake Elsinore that generate waste are required to coordinate with the City’s
contracted waste hauler (CR&R, Inc.) to collect solid waste on a common schedule as established in
applicable local, regional, and state programs. Additionally, all development within the City of Lake
Elsinore is required to comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste
Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991), AB 939 (CalRecycle), and other local, state, and federal solid
waste disposal standards.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires every city and county in the
state to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to its Solid Waste Management Plan,
that identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state diversion goal of 50% by and after the
year 2000. The purpose of AB 939 is to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the state to
the maximum extent feasible.”
All solid waste disposals within the City of Lake Elsinore are subject to the requirements set forth in Title
8, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 8.28 Litter, and County Ordinance 657, Solid Waste Collection (by
adoption) as provided in the City’s Municipal Code. Ordinance 657 provides integrated waste management
guidelines for service, prohibitions, and provisions of service. The provisions of service require that the
City of Lake Elsinore shall provide for or furnish integrated waste management services relating to the
collection, transfer, and disposal of refuse, recyclables, and compostables within and throughout the city.
The Project site’s development plan would be required to comply with applicable elements of AB 1327,
Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991), AB 939, County Ordinance
657 (by adoption), and other applicable local, state, and federal solid waste disposal standards as a matter
of regulatory policy, thereby ensuring that the solid waste stream to the waste disposal facilities is reduced
in accordance with existing regulations.
The proposed Project is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste as a standard Project condition of approval. Impacts
will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 144
XX. WILDFIRE
a) Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, posing dangers to life and property.
Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where structures and other human
development are more concentrated. Much of the area around the lake is within the City of Lake Elsinore
Sphere of Influence (SOI). These areas support coastal shrub and chamise redshank chaparral which are
prime fuel sources for wildfire. However, the Project site is located in the suburban portion of the City of
Lake Elsinore between the lake and the I-15 Freeway. As depicted in the City’s General Plan DEIR, Figure
3.10-2, Wildfire Susceptibility, the wildfire susceptibility of the City and its SOI ranges from moderate to
very high. However, Figure 3.10-2 indicates the Project site is not within a high fire hazard zone. This is
consistent with the findings set forth in the County of Riverside’s Map My County which states the Project
site is not located in a state identified Fire Responsibility Area.
The City of Lake Elsinore contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) for fire prevention,
suppression, and paramedic services. RCFD, in turn, operates under contract with the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). The closest fire station serving the Project site is
RCFD’s Rosetta Canyon Station #97 located at 41725 Rosetta Canyon Drive approximately two miles east
of the site across the I-15 Freeway. Other local stations include CALFIRE Elsinore Station #10 southeast
of the site and RCFD’s McVicker Park Station #85 west of the site.
The City of Lake Elsinore is responsible for developing emergency plans and actions in response to actual
or potential disasters which may impact residents and businesses in the City including but not limited to
earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, and hazardous material spills. The City has recently updated both its
Emergency Preparedness Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to deal with various emergency situations.
Construction of the proposed Project has a limited potential to interfere with an emergency response or
evacuation plan during construction. Control of access will ensure emergency access to the site and Project
area during construction through the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan (TCP). The TCP is
designed provide appropriate measures to reduce any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a
standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Following construction,
emergency access to the Project site and area would remain as it is in the pre-Project condition.
Once the Project is constructed, permanent emergency access to the Project site will be maintained via three
driveways along Collier Avenue along the southwestern boundary of the site. A second access is available
off of El Toro Road in the northern portion of the site. Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with
the City’s General Plan land use designation of Limited Industrial and zoning requirements for Limited
Manufacturing (M1). Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on
implementation of the adopted emergency response plan.
All Project elements, including landscaping, will be located with sufficient clearance from the proposed
buildings so as not to interfere with emergency access to, and evacuation from, the site. The proposed
Project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code.
The Project will comply with all applicable state, regional, and local wildfire safety regulations inclusive
of the California Fire Code, the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, and the City’s Emergency
Preparedness Plan, and will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or evacuation plan, because no permanent public street or lane closures are proposed.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 145
Sources: Map My County (Appendix A); Project Plans (Appendix L); General Plan, Section 3.4 Wildland
Hazards; General Plan-DEIR, Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; General Plan-DEIR, Figure
3.10-2, Wildfire Susceptibility; City of Lake Elsinore Website – Public Safety, Emergency Preparedness;
and City of Lake Elsinore Website – Public Safety, Fire.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire? Less than Significant Impact
As set forth in Threshold XX.a, the Project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard area or
recognized as a State Responsibility Area for fire management. The Project site development plan has been
designed in compliance with the existing Limited Manufacturing (M1) zoning and underlying general plan
Limited Industrial land use designation. A change in land use is not being requested or applicable and is
not in a designated high fire risk area. To protect new structures, the proposed Project will be required to
comply with all applicable City fire codes (inclusive of Title 24) for construction and access to the site, and
as such, will be reviewed by the City’s Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements
applicable to ensure compliance. Since the site is not in a high fire risk area, impacts in this regard would
be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Sources: General Plan, Section 3.4 Wildland Hazards; and Project Plans (Appendix L).
c) 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? Less Than Significant
Impact
The proposed Project would have direct access off of Collier Avenue with three driveways. The
surrounding area also has access to the nearby I-15 Freeway for regional access. The Project will provide
new fire-service lines and install fire hydrants at locations within the Project area per City Fire requirements.
These improvements would provide increased fire suppression and would not exacerbate fire risk compared
to the existing conditions. The Project would include the installation of electric power to serve the Project,
as well as other utilities (sewer, water, gas, cable), which would be underground and installed pursuant to
the City and utility provider regulations. Underground utilities would not exacerbate fire risk. Based on
this information, impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Project Plans (Appendix L).
d) 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? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site is located in a relatively flat area between Lake Elsinore and the I-15 Freeway. Lake
Elsinore is the largest natural lake (i.e., it does not have a dam) in Southern California with a surface area
varying from approximately 2,790 to 3,000 acres. The lake’s primary water source includes the San Jacinto
River and underground springs, and it is drained by the Temescal Wash and Temescal Creek to the north.
As set forth in the Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the City’s General Plan, FEMA prepared
a study in 1980 (revised in 1987) that identified potential flood sources in the City including Lake Elsinore,
the Elsinore Spillway Channel, and Temescal Wash. The Riverside County General Plan-Elsinore Area
Plan (RivCo GP-EAP) states that Temescal Wash, Murrieta Creek, the San Jacinto River, and Lake Elsinore
pose significant flood hazards within the Elsinore Area Plan, however, the Project site is not proximate to
any of these water features. Dam failure of the Railroad Canyon Dam at Canyon Lake would cause flooding
in the plan area.
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 146
The Project site’s finished elevation would average a minimum of 1,265 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
after grading operations are completed. This compares to an optimum surface level elevation of 1,240 feet
AMSL for the lake under the Lake Elsinore Management Project. This is also the minimum lake elevation
goal under a comprehensive supplemental water agreement between Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District and the City. At 1,255 feet AMSL, the lake begins to discharge through the outflow channel
(located downtown along Spring Street), where it reaches the Temescal Wash, a tributary of the Santa Ana
River Basin. No permanent development (including fences) is permitted below this elevation. Based on
the above figures, the Project site’s minimum proposed finished pad elevation of 1,265 feet AMSL) would
be approximately twenty-five feet above the lake’s optimum surface level of 1,240 feet AMSL, and
approximately ten feet above the level where the lake begins to discharge into the outlet channel and
Temescal Wash (1,255 feet).
As depicted on Figure 3.9-1, City of Lake Elsinore – Hydrologic Resources, of the City’s General Plan and
Figure 10, Flood Hazards, of the RivCo GP-EAP, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Firmette Map 7, the Project site is not in a Dam Inundation Area and most of the site (80%)
is located in Flood Zone X which is not in the 100-year or 500-year FEMA flood zones. At present,
approximately 18% of the site is within FEMA flood zone “Shaded X” which means it is within the 100-
year but not the 500-year flood zone, while the far northwest corner of the site (2%) next to Collier Avenue
is within FEMA flood zone AE which is within the 100-year flood zone. The Project plans demonstrate
onsite grading will raise the level of the site so all improved pads are at least one foot above the established
100-year flood zone limit. This is a regulatory requirement which is not considered mitigation under
CEQA.
Construction of the Project would reduce the overall risk of wildfires and related hazards to the site by
improving the property, eliminating weedy vegetation, and installing fire protection improvements
including water lines and emergency vehicle access to all portions of the site.
Based on the information provided in this analysis, the Project would not 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Map My County (Appendix A); Project Plans (Appendix L); Figure X-1, FEMA Firmette Map,
provided in Section X of this Initial Study; General Plan, Section 3.0, Public Safety and Welfare; General
Plan-DEIR, Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; General Plan DEIR, Figure 3.9-1, Hydrologic
Resources; County of Riverside General Plan – Elsinore Area Plan, Hazards – Flooding and Dam
Inundation; City of Lake Elsinore Website – Lake Level; and Google Earth.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map panel 06065C2028G
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 147
XXI. 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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
As discussed throughout the Initial Study, the proposed Project area contains some sensitive biological
resources under the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for western Riverside County that could
potentially be affected by the proposed Project. All potentially significant impacts to biological resources
would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3 identified in this initial study as well as design features already
incorporated into the Project.
No previously recorded or potential cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources were found on the
proposed Project site. Further, the site has been previously disturbed, and it is highly unlikely that any such
resources exist. However, in order to provide protection in the unlikely event that cultural, tribal cultural,
or paleontological resources are unearthed during Project construction, implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM-CUL-1 though MM-CUL-7 for cultural/tribal resources and MM-PALEO-1 for
paleontological resources will reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Thus, the proposed Project will not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Initial Study
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 Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
As demonstrated by the analysis in this Initial Study, the proposed Project will not result in any significant
environmental impacts. The Project is consistent with local and regional plans, and the Project’s air quality
emissions do not exceed established thresholds of significance. The Project adheres to all other land use
plans and policies with jurisdiction in the Project area. With implementation of mitigation, the Project will
not cause a significant increase in traffic volumes within the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project
will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Impacts will be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated to address Project-level impacts.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Initial Study
c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 148
Incorporated
Effects on human beings were evaluated as part of this analysis of this Initial Study and found to be less
than significant with implementation of the following mitigation measures:
• Geological and Soil Constraints MM-GEO-1
Based on the analysis and conclusions in this initial study, the proposed Project will not cause substantial
adverse effects directly or indirectly to human beings. Therefore, potential direct and indirect impacts on
human beings that result from the proposed Project are considered less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Initial Study
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 149
V. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This
section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner, City of Lake Elsinore
Bradley Brophy, Traffic Engineer, City of Lake Elsinore
Nick Lowe, Consultant Traffic Engineer, City of Lake Elsinore
Markham Development Strategies, LLC
Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc.
Alhambra Group
Architects Orange
Engen Corporation
IE Survey and Engineering, Inc.
Jean A. Keller, Ph.D.
JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
Principe and Associates
Urban Crossroads
VI. REFERENCES
The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document. Except
as noted, they are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development
Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674-3124 and on the City’s
website: http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city- departments/community-development/planning/ceqa-
documents-available-for- public- review.
Appendix A Map My County 11-4-2021
Appendix B1 North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared
by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021
Appendix B2 North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis
Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
Appendix C Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis,
Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by
Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021
Appendix D A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by
Jean A. Keller, 12-2021
Appendix E North Elsinore Business Park Energy Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 5-12-2021
Appendix F Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389-
220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021
Appendix G North Elsinore Business Park Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by
Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021
Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s):
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 150
389-220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020
Appendix I1 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph
L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021
Appendix I2 Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC
Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021
Appendix J1 Saddleback/Elsinore Business Park Noise Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared
by Urban Crossroads, 2-19-2021
Appendix J2 North Elsinore Business Park Noise Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads,
11-12-21
Appendix K1 North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, 6-10-2021
Appendix K2 North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening, City of Lake
Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 9-20-2021
Appendix K3 North Elsinore Business Park Trip Generation Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore,
prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-9-2021
Appendix K4 North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memorandum, City
of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021
Appendix L Project Plans, 8-2021
Appendix M Southern California Gas Company website; and EVMWD Service Requirement Letters,
prepared by EVMWD, 5-18-2021 and 12-8-2020
1995 Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8), Updated June 2019
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.html
CalRecycle website
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates
City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LakeElsinore/
City of Lake Elsinore, On-Line Services, Public Safety
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/public-safety
City of Lake Elsinore Website – Lake Level
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community-services/lake-and-aquatic-
resources/lake-level
Department of Finance
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/
North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND
Page 151
Elsinore Area Plan
http://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/genplan/general_Plan_2017/areaplans/ELAP_041117.pdf?ver=2017-
10-06-094258-763
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD)
http://www.evmwd.com/
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Urban Water Management Plan
https://www.evmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/2233/637571268195170000
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Important Farmland Finder, California Department of
Conservation
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
General Plan EIR
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore-
general-plan/general-plan-certified-eir
General Plan
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore-
general-plan
Google Earth
https://www.google.com/earth/
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC)
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LakeElsinore/
Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD)
https://www.leusd.k12.ca.us
Public Resources Code
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/
State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State
— January 1, 2018 and 2019
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/
Southern California Association of Governments Final 2016 RTP/SCS, Demographics & Growth
Forecasts Appendix
http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.pdf
Southern California Edison website
https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are
Williamson Act Program: Reports and Statistics. Department of Conservation
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/stats_reports.aspx