HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA 2016-112 - Exhibit H Response to CommentsKASSAB TRAVEL CENTER PROJECT
Planning Application No.2016-112
Municipal Code Amendment (MCA) No. 2017-02
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2018-03
Commercial Design Review (CDR) No. 2016-17
Response to Comments/Errata
RECIRCULATED DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared for:
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Contact: Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner
Applicant:
KARAKI-Western States
Joseph Karaki
4887 E La Palma Ave, Suite 707
Anaheim, CA 92807
Prepared By:
2400 East Katella Avenue, Suite 800
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 783-1863
Contact: Christine Saunders, Director, Environmental Services
May 2020
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
This page intentionally left blank.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
2.RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ............................................................................................. 1
a)Comment Letter A – Better Neighborhoods ........................................................................ 2
Response to Comment Letter A – Better Neighborhoods ......................................................... 16
b)Comment Letter B – CCOLE, LLC dba Concerned Citizens of Lake Elsinore ........................ 33
Response to Comment Letter B – CCOLE, LLC dba Concerned Citizens of Lake Elsinore ........... 92
3.REVISIONS TO THE IS/MND .......................................................................................... 112
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
1 | Page
1. INTRODUCTION
A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the proposed
Kassab Travel Center Project (Proposed Project) and made available for public comment for a 30-
day public review period from February 8, 2019 through March 11, 2019. Five comment letters
were received on the document, as detailed in Appendix M of the Recirculated Draft IS/MND,
that were considered by the Lead Agency before it acted on the Proposed Project. Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 (a) and in response to comments received, the City of Lake
Elsinore recirculated the IS/MND due to substantial revisions after public notice of its availability
but prior to its adoption.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15074(b)
(14 CCR 15074(b)), before approving the Proposed Project, the City of Lake Elsinore, as the lead
agency under CEQA, will consider the MND with any comments received during this public review
period. Specifically, Section 15074(b) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15074(b)) states the
following:
“Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the
proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed
negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole
record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that
the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent
judgment and analysis.”
2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The agencies that provided substantive written comments on the environmental issues
addressed within the IS/MND are listed in Table 1. Although CEQA (California Public Resources
Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) do not explicitly
require a lead agency to provide written responses to comments received on a proposed IS/MND,
the lead agency may do so voluntarily. A copy of each letter with bracketed comment numbers
on the right margin is followed by the response for each comment as indexed in the letter.
Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes.
Table 1 – Organizations, Persons, and Public Agencies that Commented on the IS/MND
Comment Letter Commenting Organization, Person, or Public Agency Date
A Better Neighborhoods November 4, 2019
B CCOLE, LLC dba Concern Citizens of Lake Elsinore
(Concern Citizens) November 5, 2019
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
2 | Page
a) Comment Letter A – Better Neighborhoods
17901 Von Karman Ave, Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92614
(949) 556-8714
www.better-neighborhoods.com/
November 4, 2019
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Senior Planner
City of Lake Elsinore
Community Development Department
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Email: dabraham@lake-elsinore.org
Re: Kassab Travel Center
Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (the “Project”)
Dear Ms. Abraham,
Thank-you for the opportunity to provide questions and comments regarding the Kassab Travel
Center Recirculated MND.
Better Neighborhoods Inc. is an organization established to help people have a voice in local
development decisions as prominent as that of planners and developers. Our aim is to encourage
smart growth consistent with the needs of the community while protecting the natural environment
and places of historic and aesthetic significance, supporting California’s need for affordable housing
and balancing the desire for growth with the need for features that make cities livable.
There are still a number of problems with this proposal. The Project’s restaurant drive-through
window would require the Applicant to obtain a Municipal Code Amendment No. 2017-02,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-03, and Commercial Design Review No. 2016-17) but the City
has been less than candid about the hurdles involved in obtaining them. As Appendix M reveals,
there is still considerable confusion among stakeholders regarding the nature of the changes sought
and the requirements to obtain each.
As we discovered, neither the General Plan nor its appendices make any reference to the zoning
designation, Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M), applied to the Project site. The only reference to
this designation is in the Municipal Code, which specifically excludes drive-in and drive-through
A-1
A-2
A-3
Comment Letter A – Better Neighborhoods
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 2
uses. The Recirculated MND omits this information. Nor does it explain the City’s rationale for
having excluded such uses in the first place. To what purpose, one wonders?
There are several key facts missing and issues unresolved. For example, we don’t yet know the
Project’s hours of operation so any noise and traffic studies as well as mitigation measures are
based on incomplete information. We know that drive-through uses are excluded without a
conditional use permit but we don’t know why or the standard of review for obtaining such a permit
in circumstances like this in which the proposed use clashes with existing uses in surrounding areas
with potentially dangerous effect.
We know that the Project site was once a water reservoir but somehow (how?) there are no records
of its decommissioning so we don’t know why it was decommissioned or whether it was
decommissioned according to a set of procedures to ensure there are no lingering dangers affecting
subsequent use. Why hasn’t the local water board been consulted?
What is the ‘unknown square structure from at least 1978 to at least 1985” identified in the
Recirculated MND at page 53? This should be a simple question for the City.
What happened to the soil during the site’s use as a water reservoir? Appendix G, the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment, doesn’t tell us very much. By its own admission:
The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify certain obvious environmental concerns
(emphasis added) arising from activities on the Subject Property or nearby properties.
Activities of concern are those that may have contaminated, or have the potential to
contaminate, the Subject Property’s soil or ground water. The purpose of this assessment
was not to determine the actual presence, degree, or extent of contamination, if any, on the
Subject Property. Such a determination would require additional exploratory work.
(Introduction, p. 1-1).
The report goes on to raise a red flag regarding potential contamination by nearby EZ Products, a
manufacturer of small hardware parts, but for reasons known only to GeoRox Engineering and the
Applicant, further soil investigation was not recommended. Why not?
The absence of soil investigation unacceptably leaves open questions regarding the effect/s of the
site’s previous use as a water reservoir and whether and how further exploration might affect
geotechnical findings regarding, for example, lateral spreading, liquefaction and the risk posed by
severe seismic shaking during an earthquake.
What about potential soil contamination by EZ Products and possibly from pesticides from previous
agricultural uses nearby?
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 3
If soil at the Project site is, in fact, contaminated, what would be the potential environmental impact
of disturbing it during construction? What would be the effect of contaminated soil on food
preparation on a large scale?
The purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to provide decision makers
and the public full and frank disclosure of potential environmental impacts associated with a
particular project. Here, even the Recirculated MND has literally just scratched the surface. Further
investigation clearly is needed to resolve outstanding issues and questions before this Project and
the Recirculated MND could be properly approved.
Project Description:
The proposed Kassab Travel Center, 26 feet high, would consist of an 8,360 square foot (SF)-
convenience store with concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages, three quick-serve restaurants, two
covered gas dispensaries with18 pumps, a 2,543-SF fast food restaurant with drive-through window,
multiple parking areas with 78 parking spaces, hardscape, landscape, on-site stormwater
management improvements, various signs, a trash enclosure, lighting and bicycle parking.
Multiple Zoning Issues
According to the Recirculated MND, the Project site is zoned Commercial Manufacturing (C-M)
with allowable uses that include service stations. Eating places/fast food establishments (excluding
drive-in and drive-through establishments) are permitted but only subject to a Conditional Use
Permit.
Whence does this zoning information derive, we wondered. There is only a one-line reference to C-
M in General Plan 2011 Appendix B but no description of allowed uses. Nor does General Plan EIR
2011 section 3.1 Land Use and Planning include the C-M designation. The closest it comes to
describing Commercial Manufacturing is at page 3.1-8 of the EIR, which provides:
Mixed-Use
This designation is intended to provide for a creative mix of commercial and residential uses
to encourage a healthy urban environment in the more urban and redevelopment areas. The
Residential Mixed-Use designation emphasizes a majority of intense residential uses while
the Commercial Mixed-Use designation emphasizes a majority of commercial uses.
As described, a Mixed-Use designation provides only for the vague possibility of Commercial-
Manufacturing - nothing more. So, what is the authority for the Recirculated MND statement of C-
M allowed uses? It’s the Municipal Code, which states as follows:
17.132.010 Purpose.
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 4
The intent of the C-M district is to provide opportunities consistent with the General Plan for
uses which combine commercial and industrial characteristics and for certain commercial
uses which require large display or storage areas. Properties assigned this designation shall
be located on streets that are categorized as secondary, major, or arterial highways in order
to accommodate the intensity of use and increased truck traffic associated with the C-
M district and, also, to ensure a high degree of visibility to benefit the commercial aspects of
the businesses. In a like manner C-M projects should demonstrate a higher quality of
appearance befitting their more commercial nature than would a typical industrial project.
[Ord. 772 § 17.54.010, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.54.010].
17.132.020 Permitted uses.
Uses permitted in the C-M district shall include those businesses listed below which operate
in compliance with the intent and standards of this district and are conducted entirely
within a completely enclosed building. (emphasis added) Each business shall be evaluated
in terms of its operational characteristics and specific site location. …
D. Eating places and fast food establishments; excluding drive-in and drive-through
establishments. (emphasis added).
The Recirculated MND claims that drive-through uses would be permitted at the Project site by
virtue of its Commercial-Manufacturing C-M zoning subject to approval for a Condition Use Permit
precondition. Unfortunately, the report doesn’t explain why the city currently prohibits drive-
through uses or what the standard of review would be for a conditional use permit in this case,
which would necessarily involve conflicting standards and approaches to the Project’s potential
noise impact.
Noise
The Project may generate noise levels at the site that exceed City limits for nearby sensitive
receptors. Noise sources would include rooftop mechanical equipment, air/water machine, gas
fueling activities, parking lot, garbage and delivery truck activities and the drive-through window
speaker. (Recirculated MND, p. 117).
Furthermore, worst-case scenario combined noise levels of 74 dBA at the northwest property line
and 64 dBA at the southwest property line would exceed the City’s commercial daytime noise
standard of 65 dBA on the northwest property line and the nighttime noise standard of 60 dBA at
both the northwest and southwest property lines. This would be considered a significant impact.
(Ibid., p. 118). Such conclusions suggest prima facie that the Project would exceed City noise limits
thus the Project should be rejected on that basis alone.
The next question is, would the proposed eight-foot-high masonry wall on the northwest and
southwest property lines of the Project Site under MM NOI-2 fully mitigate the noise problem but
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 5
create an even bigger eyesore than the 26-foot-high, fast-food and quick-serve restaurants and
convenience store “big box” contemplated by the Applicant?
Neither the General Plan nor CEQA defines what constitutes a “substantial permanent increase to
ambient noise levels.” (Ibid. p. 121).
Noise: CEQA versus Conditional Use Permit Standard of Review
In Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa, 23 Cal. App. 5th 877, 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 278, 2018 Cal. App.
LEXIS 480 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. May 1, 2018):
The California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., defines a
significant effect on the environment as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse
change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project,
including impacts on ambient noise. (emphasis added) Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §
15382; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21060.5, 21151, subd. (b).
According to this reasoning, the proposed Project would create a substantial adverse noise impact.
In Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure, 6 Cal. App. 5th 160,
211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1035 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. November 29, 2016), the
legal test is described as follows:
In contrast, the permit decision is discretionary and requires a determination of whether the
project lacks adequate safeguards to prevent emissions of noise that would
substantially interfere with the public health, safety and welfare or the peaceful
enjoyment of neighboring property. (emphasis added) Although overlapping, the focus of
each is different.
Here, the test seems to be based on a presumption that adequate safeguards would be available and
sufficient to properly mitigate against noise. It’s not clear such a presumption is valid in this case.
The Recirculated MND fails to explain why drive-through uses are excluded or the applicable
standard of review for a conditional use permit. Nor is there any reference to a similarly-sized travel
center or a drive-through window to compare the potential noise such uses typically generate. Why
not?
Municipal Code Noise Provisions
The Municipal Code offers some guidance regarding noise.
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 6
17.176.010 Purpose.
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.
It is determined that certain noise levels and vibrations are detrimental to the public health,
welfare and safety, and are contrary to public interest. Therefore, the City Council does
ordain and declare that creating, maintaining, causing or allowing to be created, caused or
maintained, any noise or vibration in a manner prohibited by or not in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter, is a public nuisance and shall be punishable as such. [Ord. 772
§17.78.010, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.010].
“Ambient noise level” means the composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this
context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal of existing level of
environmental noise at a given location.
“Commercial area” means property which is zoned for commercial purposes, including, but
not limited to, retail and wholesale businesses, personal services, and professional offices.
“Intrusive noise” means that noise which intrudes over and above the existing
ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its
amplitude, duration, frequency and time of occurrence, and tonal or informational content as
well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
The Municipal Code requires the Noise Control Officer to review a Project for compliance
with this chapter
17.176.030 Authority and duties of the Noise Control Office(r) (NCO).
B.Powers. In order to implement and enforce this chapter and for the general purpose
of noise abatement and control, the NCO shall have, in addition to any other authority vested
in it, the power to:
1.Conduct, or cause to be conducted, studies, research, and monitoring related to noise,
including joint cooperative investigation with public or private agencies, and the application
for, and acceptance of, grants.
A-24
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 7
2. On all public and private projects which are likely to cause noise in violation of this
chapter and which are subject to mandatory review or approval by other departments.
a. Review for compliance with the intent and provisions of this chapter. (emphasis
added)
b. Require sound analyses which identify existing and projected noise sources and
associated noise levels.
c. Require usage of adequate measures to avoid violation of any provision of this chapter.
The factors which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions
of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. The sound level of the objectionable noise.
B. The sound level of the ambient noise.
C. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities.
D. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates.
E. The number of persons affected by the noise source.
F. The time of day or night the noise occurs.
G. The duration of the noise and its tonal, informational or musical content.
H. Whether the noise is continuous, recurrent, or intermittent.
I. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. [Ord. 772
§ 17.78.040, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.040].
Exterior noise limits
Limited Commercial and Office 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
55
60
General Commercial 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
60
65
17.176.080 Prohibited acts.
No person shall unnecessarily make, continue, or cause to be made or continued,
any noise disturbance. The following acts, and the causing or permitting thereof, are
declared to be in violation of this chapter:
A. Operating, playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television set,
phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which produces or reproduces
sound:
A-24
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 8
1.Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to create a noise
disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line or at any time to violate the
provisions of LEMC 17.176.060(A), except for which a variance has been issued by the
City. (emphasis added)
2.In such a manner as to exceed the levels set forth for public space in Table 1, measured at a
distance of at least 50 feet (15 meters) from such device operating on a public right-of-way
or public space.
Why doesn’t the Recirculated MND apply the City’s own test for noise as described in the
Municipal Code to each of the Project’s potential noise sources and the combined result to
determine compliance?
What is the test to obtain a variance by the City for a use such as the proposed Project that would
exceed current noise restrictions?
Construction Noise
Proposed mitigation measure MM NOI-3 would address excessive construction noise by restricting
the operation of the following equipment within the listed distances from the shared property lines
with the adjacent commercial uses during construction: • Large Bulldozer - 50 feet from shared
property line; • Loaded Truck (on dirt road) – 43 feet from shared property line; • Jackhammer – 23
feet from shared property line; and • Small Bulldozer – 2.5 feet from shared property line. With
implementation of MM NOI-3, the construction-related vibration level would be reduced to within
threshold of perception as required by Section 17.176.080(G) of the City’s Municipal Code.
While this measure may be sufficient to mitigate during a long, weary year of construction,
construction noise is but one aspect of the potential noise impact created by the Project. There
would also be noise from increased traffic and noise from Project operations. We still don’t know
the proposed hours of operation.
Project Location
The proposed Project is unlike any of the other uses nearby. The Project site consists of two vacant
parcels surrounded by vacant property to the southwest, west and south; and commercial/industrial
uses to the north and east - self-storage to the northeast across Collier Avenue, recreational vehicle
sales and auto parts sales to the northwest, and concrete manufacturing, auto care and recycling
facilities diagonally across the intersection of Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue to the east.
Wouldn’t such uses conflict with basic health and hygiene requirements for food service? The
Recirculated MND doesn’t even discuss the possibility.
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 9
Light and Glare
Yes, the Project would introduce an imposing new source of light at the undeveloped site regardless
of compliance with Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.112.040. Mere compliance with the law
does not fully and properly explain the impact of this new source of light and glare as CEQA
requires.
The Project would also introduce new sources of daytime glare caused building surfaces and traffic
to and from the site. The Project represents an unplanned use. There is insufficient information to
conclude that light and glare at the Project would be consistent with that of surrounding uses or that
no mitigation would be required.
Solid Waste/Recycling
Measure S-1.1 from the Climate Action Plan would require Applicant to contract with a waste
provider that provides recycling services that diverts a minimum of 65 percent of the solid waste
generated by the Proposed Project. How much waste would three quick serve and one fast food
restaurant generate? What of the risk of used cooking oil contaminating the wastewater? Could this
be one of the reasons why the proposed uses would require not only a change to the Municipal Code
but a Conditional Use Permit and a Commercial Design Review?
Air Quality
According to the Recirculated MND, the Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are
inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD
thresholds of significance. We find Appendix A to be unpersuasive. How would the addition of an
18-pump gas station with multiple fast food outlets, including a drive-through window, not impact
local air quality? Is there an example of a travel center of similar size and feature that so easily
meets air quality restrictions?
Biological Resources
Vernal pools
No basins, ponds, or obvious depressional features were observed during the survey.
However, a small area exhibiting surface soil cracks was present in the southwest portion of
the survey area. Surface soil cracks, where clay sediment is deposited by infiltration and
evaporation of water, are an indicator of hydrology and possible ponding. If the area holds
surface water, it may provide habitat for vernal pool branchiopods (i.e., fairy shrimp). One
fairy shrimp, Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonii), was reported from the
literature review in the vicinity of the Proposed Project (CDFW 2017a). Given that the
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 10
survey was conducted during the dry season, it was not possible to directly determine
whether this area holds water for any length of time. (Recirculated MND, p. 78).
Wouldn’t it be prudent to study pooling water at the site more carefully, especially considering the
site’s previous use as a water reservoir? What else might soil investigation reveal?
Energy
What criteria are used to determine whether a proposed development would result in a potentially
significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation? Are there any examples of proposals that have
failed this test?
Geology and Soils
STRONG GROUND MOTION POTENTIAL The project site is located in a seismically
active area typical of Southern California and likely to be subjected to a strong ground
shaking due to earthquakes on nearby faults. (emphasis added) (Appendix E,
Geotechnical Investigation, p. 4).
Although the probability of primary surface rupture is considered low, ground shaking hazards
caused by earthquakes along regional active faults do exist, these would be accounted for in the
design and construction of the proposed structures, according to the Recirculated MND. What
typically happens to a gas station during seismic shaking? Are there any examples?
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
For liquefaction to occur, all of three key ingredients are required: liquefaction-susceptible
soils, groundwater within a depth of 50 feet or less, and strong earthquake shaking. Soils
susceptible to liquefaction are generally saturated loose to medium dense sands and non-
plastic silt deposits below the water table. Groundwater was encountered within our borings
B-1 through B-5 at 15 feet. Historic high groundwater at the site is as deep as 50 feet. Soil
materials encountered within our borings are clayey soil. It is our opinion that potential for
liquefaction at the site is low. (Appendix E, Geotechnical Investigation, p. 5).
What is the effect of site’s previous use as a water reservoir? Wouldn’t it be prudent to investigate?
GHG
Somehow an 18-pump gas station and fast food complex would not generate an unacceptable
increase in GHG emissions.
A-32
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 11
The GHG emissions from the Proposed Project were analyzed for year 2020 conditions.
Table 7- Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions shows that for the year 2020,
the Proposed Project would create 2,219.09 MTCO2e per year, which is within the
SCAQMD’s draft threshold of significance for all land use types of 3,000 MTCO2e per
year. It should be noted that the Year 2020 emissions are based on approved statewide GHG
reduction measures and the required GHG reduction measures provided in the City’s
Climate Action Plan. Therefore, potential impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions
would be less than significant. (Recirculated MND, p. 98).
Has the City ever used the formula applied here to find that a development proposal exceeded GHG
limits? Such a formula reads more like a no-fail insurance policy than a credible inquiry into
potential environmental impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Appendix G
“The Subject Property did not appear on current regulatory database lists that were reviewed during
this assessment.” (Appendix G, Executive Summary)
Is the City satisfied with the inquiry documented in Appendix G, which describes EZ Products as an
environmental issue?
EZ Products, 17999 Collier Avenue, is located approximately 200 to the northwest of the
Subject Property and is presumed to be higher elevation (hydrologically up/cross gradient).
EZ Products is an active manufacturer of bolt, nut, screw, rivet, and washers. According to
the regulatory database, this facility is listed as a RCRA-SQG, FINDS and ECHO site.
Online research from the California DTSC Hazardous Waste Tracking System revealed
evidence of tetrachloroethylene (PERC) on site for the years 1999 (1.48 tons), 2000 (0.34
tons), and 2001 (2.13 tons). According to the EPA ECHO website and the regulatory
database, this facility specified a three-year period of no violations. Based on the inferred
direction groundwater flow, the amount (over two tons) of PERC onsite for three years, and
close proximity to the Subject Property, this facility represents an environmental issue.
Based on the amount of PERC onsite (3.95 tons), inferred direction of groundwater flow,
and relative distance from the Subject Property, this facility represents an environmental
issue. Based on the lack of documented release, this site is not expected to represent an
environmental concern to the Subject Property, at this time. (Appendix G, Executive
Summary).
What changes did EZ Products make to remove the threat of hazardous releases? Why did GeoRox
Engineering decline soil testing? How would EZ toxins affect possible pesticide residue from
previous agricultural uses nearby? How would soil contamination impact food preparation at the
Project site? What would be the effect of disturbing contaminated soil during construction? These
are serious questions the Recirculated MND fails to resolve.
A-37
A-38
A-39
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 12
Why was the subject property owner not available for interview? The owner might have valuable
insights regarding previous uses. Ron Graves, a real estate broker from San Diego, completed the
questionnaire on the owner’s behalf. Unfortunately, his repeated underlining of “prior” in the
phrase, “prior knowledge” suggests uncertainty about what’s actually being asked. Is the owner
aware of unreported contaminants? Has the City asked? If not, why not?
“The proposed facility would be subject to Program requirements for regulated substances including
preparation of a risk management plan (RMP) to include an off-site consequence analysis,
compliance audit, certified program elements, and a seismic assessment.” (Recirculated MND, p.
102).
Shouldn’t the public and decision makers have the opportunity to review something as important as
the risk management plan before any decision about the Project is made? In the absence of this
information, there is no support for the assertion that the potential impacts regarding hazardous
materials would be less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
The lack of inquiry regarding a previous use of the Project site as a water reservoir and the absence
of references to the Commercial Manufacturing (C-M) zoning designation in any planning
documents, such as the General Plan, is troubling, to say the least. The proposed use is
contemplated nowhere but in the Municipal Code. Not surprisingly, the Project would be a poor fit
with surrounding uses, which may also pose a serious health and safety hazard to food preparation
especially at the scale contemplated.
“Drive-through establishments are not currently listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use
in the C-M zone. The City is currently in the process of updating certain sections of the Municipal
Code and has identified the addition of drive-through establishments as being an appropriate use
subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the C-M Zone.” (Recirculated MND, p. 111).
This is a revelation that appears late in the report and more as a convenient afterthought. How do we
know the City is contemplating such a change? Coincidence? Has a proposed change appeared on
planning committee agendas and, if so, when?
Drive-through restaurants and windows are nothing new to the American urban landscape. Why is
such a change suddenly contemplated now? Why did the City reject them previously?
Why is the C-M zoning designation not referenced in any official planning documents - just the
Municipal Code?
A-40
A-41
A-42
A-43
A-44
A-45
Ms. Damaris Abraham,
Re: Kassab Travel Center
November 4, 2019
Page 13
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Yes, the Project does have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment by impeding a
scenic view with an ugly, noisy, big box-style building that would be a new source of light and
glare, that would likely attract traffic noise and emissions beyond acceptable limits, especially those
from heavy transport trucks, and that would not blend well with existing uses or structures.
The soil may be contaminated with toxins from surrounding and previous uses, which may pose a
significant public health risk if disturbed.
Surrounding uses and potential soil toxins may also pose a health risk to intended use for food
preparation.
Failure to fully and properly consider the issue of the site’s previous use as a water reservoir and the
impact such use may have had on soil stability makes geotechnical conclusions questionable at best.
It makes no sense to leave such a question unanswered when the Project site is in an area subject to
severe seismic shaking.
The fact that the site’s zoning designation as Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) appears in no
official planning documents but exclusively in the Municipal Code is evidence that the proposed
use has not been properly considered or contemplated.
There are no criteria to explain how the City assesses whether the proposed use would be a
reasonable expense of energy.
Much more information is needed to bring the Recirculated MND to a report worthy of adoption.
Sincerely,
J. Michael Goolsby
President and CEO
Better Neighborhoods, Inc.
A-46
A-47
A-48
A-49
A-50
A-51
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
16 | Page
Response to Comment Letter A – Better Neighborhoods
A-1 Comment: (Page No. 1) Better Neighbors Inc. is an organization established to help people
have a voice in local development decisions as prominent as that of planners and developers.
Our aim is to encourage smart growth consistent with the needs of the community while
protecting the natural environment and places of historic and aesthetic significance, supporting
California’s need for affordable housing and balancing the desire for growth with the need for
features that make cities livable.
A-1 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
A-2 Comment: (Page No. 1) There are still a number of problems with this proposal. The Project's
restaurant drive-through window would require the Applicant to obtain a Municipal Code
Amendment No. 2017-02, Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-03, and Commercial Design Review
No. 2016-17 but the City has been less than candid about the hurdles involved in obtaining them.
As Appendix M reveals, there is still considerable confusion among stakeholders regarding the
nature of the changes sought and the requirements to obtain each.
A-2 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
A-3 Comment: (Page No. 1) [N]either the General Plan nor its appendices make any reference to
the zoning designation, Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M), applied to the Project site. The only
reference to this designation is in the Municipal Code, which specifically excludes drive-in and
drive-through uses.
A-3 Response: The comment is not related to a matter subject to review under CEQA. No further
response is required.
A-4 Comment: (Page No. 2) The recirculated MND omits this information. [Reference to comment
above]. Nor does it explain the City's rationale for having excluded such uses in the first place. To
what purpose, one wonders?
A-4 Response: The comment is not related to a matter subject to review under CEQA. No further
response is required.
A-5 Comment: (Page No. 2) There are several key facts missing and issues unresolved. For
example, we don't yet know the Project's hours of operation so any noise and traffic studies as
well as mitigation measures are based on incomplete information.
A-5 Response: The operation was analyzed as a 24-hour operation and the Noise study
demonstrates that with implementation of MM NOI-2, the combined noise levels at the property
line would be less than the City's nighttime noise sandards for commercial land uses.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
17 | Page
A-6 Comment: (Page No. 2) We know that drive-through uses are excluded without a conditional
use permit but we don't know why or the standard of review for obtaining such a permit in
circumstances like this in which the proposed use clashes with existing uses in surrounding areas
with potentially dangerous effect.
A-6 Response: The comment is not related to a matter subject to review under CEQA. The process
for obtaining a conditional use permit can be found in Section 17.415.070 of the City’s municipal
code. No further response is required.
A-7 Comment: (Page No. 2) We know that the Project site was once a water reservoir but
somehow (how?) there are no records of its decommissioning so we don't know why it was
decommissioned or whether it was decommissioned according to a set of procedures to ensure
there are no lingering dangers affecting subsequent use. Why hasn't the local water board been
consulted? What is the 'unknown square structure form at least 1978 to at least 1985' identified
in the Recirculated MND at page 53? This should be a simple question for the City.
A-7 Response: The reservoir was a rectangular shaped pond on farmland and there would not
have been any decommissioning. The water board did not yet exist when the pond was in
existence.
The unknown square structure was either a barn or a home. Based on aerial photos, it was not an
industrial use nor operated as a drycleaner or gas station. The unknown structure, which may
have been a residence or farm structure, that is no longer present, is not of concern.
A-8 Comment: (Page No. 2) What happened to the soil during the site's use as a water reservoir?
Appendix G, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, doesn’t tell us much.
The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify certain obvious environmental concerns (emphasis
added) arising from activities on the Subject Property or nearby properties. Activities of concern
are those that may have contaminated, or have the potential to contaminate, the Subject
Property’s soil or ground water. The purpose of this assessment was not to determine the actual
presence, degree, or extent of contamination, if any, on the Subject Property. Such a
determination would require additional exploratory work. (Introduction, p. 1-1).
A-8 Response: See Response A-7 above.
A-9 Comment: (Page No. 2) The report goes on to raise a red flag regarding potential
contamination by nearby EZ Products, a manufacturer of small hardware parts, but for reasons
known only to GeoRox Engineering and the Applicant, further soil investigation was not
recommended. Why not?
A-9 Response: Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and review of DTSC and
RWQCB databases, which does not list this location, there is no evidence of leaks or spills from
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
18 | Page
this business. Business use of potentially hazardous materials does not mean that the use has
resulted in an environmental concern. There is no compelling reason to investigate this former
adjacent business. No evidence of impact from this business was observed on the subject property
and as noted in the ESA, it was determined that it was not an environmental concern. Further,
groundwater is reported to be at least 29 feet below the surface and moves in a south to
southwest direction.
A-10 Comment: (Page No. 2) The absence of soil investigation unacceptably leaves open
questions regarding the effect/s of the site’s previous use as a water reservoir and whether and
how further exploration might affect geotechnical findings regarding, for example, lateral
spreading, liquefaction and the risk posed by severe seismic shaking during an earthquake.
A-10 Response: See response A35 below.
A-11 Comment: (Page No. 2) What about potential soil contamination by EZ Products and
possibly from pesticides from previous agricultural uses nearby?
A-11 Response: Recognized environmental conditions were not identified.
A-12 Comment: (Page No. 3) If soil at the Project site is, in fact, contaminated, what would be the
potential environmental impact of disturbing it during construction? What would be the effect
of contaminated soil on food preparation on a large scale?
A-12 Response: The Project Site has been previously rough graded and there would not be residual
herbicides or pesticides on the site from distant past agricultural uses. Soil sampling for these is
not recommended. Also, the soil will be paved, or under a building footprint, thus preventing
exposure. There is no reason to suggest the soil is contaminated. During construction, watering
will be required to keep dust down as required by SCAQMD.
A-13 Comment: (Page No. 3) The purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is
to provide decision makers and the public full and frank disclosure of potential environmental
impacts associated with a particular project. Here, even the Recirculated MND has literally just
scratched the surface. Further investigation clearly is needed to resolve outstanding issues and
questions before this Project and the Recirculated MND could be properly approved.
A-13 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
A-14 Comment: (Page No. 3) Project Description:
The proposed Kassab Travel Center, 26 feet high, would consist of an 8,360 square foot (SF)-
convenience store with concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages, three quick-serve restaurants,
two covered gas dispensaries with18 pumps, a 2,543-SF fast food restaurant with drive-through
window, multiple parking areas with 78 parking spaces, hardscape, landscape, on-site
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
19 | Page
stormwater management improvements, various signs, a trash enclosure, lighting and bicycle
parking.
A-14 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
A-15 Comment: (Page No. 3) Multiple Zoning Issues
According to the Recirculated MND, the Project site is zoned Commercial Manufacturing (C-M)
with allowable uses that include service stations. Eating places/fast food establishments
(excluding drive-in and drive-through establishments) are permitted but only subject to a
Conditional Use Permit.
Whence does this zoning information derive, we wondered. There is only a one-line reference to
C-M in General Plan 2011 Appendix B but no description of allowed uses. Nor does General Plan
EIR 2011 section 3.1 Land Use and Planning include the C-M designation. The closest it comes to
describing Commercial Manufacturing is at page 3.1-8 of the EIR[.]
A-15 Response: The comment is not related to a matter subject to review under CEQA. No further
response is required.
A-16 Comment: (Page No. 3-4) Mixed-Use
This designation is intended to provide for a creative mix of commercial and residential uses to
encourage a healthy urban environment in the more urban and redevelopment areas. The
Residential Mixed-Use designation emphasizes a majority of intense residential uses while the
Commercial Mixed-Use designation emphasizes a majority of commercial uses.
As described, a Mixed-Use designation provides only for the vague possibility of Commercial-
Manufacturing - nothing more. So, what is the authority for the Recirculated MND statement of
C-M allowed uses? It’s the Municipal Code, which states as follows:
17.132.010 Purpose.
The intent of the C-M district is to provide opportunities consistent with the General Plan for uses
which combine commercial and industrial characteristics and for certain commercial uses which
require large display or storage areas. Properties assigned this designation shall be located on
streets that are categorized as secondary, major, or arterial highways in order to accommodate
the intensity of use and increased truck traffic associated with the C-M district and, also, to
ensure a high degree of visibility to benefit the commercial aspects of the businesses. In a like
manner C-M projects should demonstrate a higher quality of appearance befitting their more
commercial nature than would a typical industrial project.
[Ord. 772 § 17.54.010, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.54.010].
17.132.020 Permitted uses.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
20 | Page
Uses permitted in the C-M district shall include those businesses listed below which operate in
compliance with the intent and standards of this district and are conducted entirely within a
completely enclosed building. (emphasis added) Each business shall be evaluated in terms of its
operational characteristics and specific site location.
D. Eating places and fast food establishments; excluding drive-in and drive-through
establishments. (emphasis added).
A-16 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
A-17 Comment: (Page No. 4) The Recirculated MND claims that drive-through uses would be
permitted at the Project site by virtue of its Commercial-Manufacturing C-M zoning subject to
approval for a Condition Use Permit precondition. Unfortunately, the report doesn’t explain why
the city currently prohibits drive-through uses or what the standard of review would be for a
conditional use permit in this case, which would necessarily involve conflicting standards and
approaches to the Project’s potential noise impact
A-17 Response: The potential noise impacts of the proposed drive-through use was analyzed in
the Noise Impact Analysis, which determined that with mitigation, operation of the Proposed
Project would meet the City’s noise standards as defined in the municipal code.
A-18 Comment: (Page No. 4) The Project may generate noise levels at the site that exceed City
limits for nearby sensitive receptors. Noise sources would include rooftop mechanical
equipment, air/water machine, gas fueling activities, parking lot, garbage and delivery truck
activities and the drive-through window speaker. (Recirculated MND, p. 117).
Furthermore, worst-case scenario combined noise levels of 74 dBA at the northwest property
line and 64 dBA at the southwest property line would exceed the City’s commercial daytime noise
standard of 65 dBA on the northwest property line and the nighttime noise standard of 60 dBA
at both the northwest and southwest property lines. This would be considered a significant
impact. (Ibid., p. 118). Such conclusions suggest prima facie that the Project would exceed City
noise limits thus the Project should be rejected on that basis alone.
A-18 Response: The purpose of CEQA is to identify potential significant impacts and then address
the potential impact through mitigation that project applicant is required to implement.
The worst case 74 dB and 64 dB noise levels are for the unmitigated conditions, which were found
to be significant. MM NOI-2 requires construction of an 8-foot high sound wall that would reduced
the noise levels to 58 dB and 51 dB, respectively, which are within the City's daytime noise
standard of 65 dB and nighttime noise standard of 60 dB.
A-19 Comment: (Page No. 4-5) The next question is, would the proposed eight-foot-high masonry
wall on the northwest and southwest property lines of the Project Site under MM NOI-2 fully
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
21 | Page
mitigate the noise problem but create an even bigger eyesore than the 26-foot-high, fast-food
and quick-serve restaurants and convenience store “big box” contemplated by the Applicant?
A-19 Response: The proposed sound wall is allowable per City's Municipal Code 17.112 Non-
Residential Development Standards.
A-20 Comment: (Page No. 5) Neither the General Plan nor CEQA defines what constitutes a
“substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels.” (Ibid. p. 121).
A-20 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
A-21 Comment: (Page No. 5) In Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa, 23 Cal. App. 5th 877, 233 Cal. Rptr.
3d 278, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 480 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. May 1, 2018):
The California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., defines a
significant effect on the environment as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change
in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including impacts on
ambient noise. (emphasis added) Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15382; Pub. Resources Code, §§
21060.5, 21151, subd. (b).
According to this reasoning, the proposed Project would create a substantial adverse noise
impact.
A-21 Response: Even though the City's General Plan does not define what constitutes a significant
noise impact, the Initial Study utilized guidance provided by the Federal Transit Administration,
who researched and determined what noise levels created from a project cause a significant
adverse impact to humans. This information is provided in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual, which is published governmental agency report, which is an acceptable
resource for use in a CEQA analysis.
A-22 Comment: (Page No. 5) In Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment &
Infrastructure, 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1035 (Cal. App. 1st
Dist. November 29, 2016), the legal test is described as follows:
In contrast, the permit decision is discretionary and requires a determination of whether the
project lacks adequate safeguards to prevent emissions of noise that would substantially
interfere with the public health, safety and welfare or the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring
property. (emphasis added) Although overlapping, the focus of each is different.
Here, the test seems to be based on a presumption that adequate safeguards would be available
and sufficient to properly mitigate against noise. It’s not clear such a presumption is valid in this
case.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
22 | Page
A-22 Response: As noted in Response A-19 and A-21 above, all noise impacts have been reduced
to less than significant levels and the Proposed Project is consistent with the City's Municipal Code.
A-23 Comment: (Page No. 5) The Recirculated MND fails to explain why drive-through uses are
excluded or the applicable standard of review for a conditional use permit. Nor is there any
reference to a similarly-sized travel center or a drive-through window to compare the potential
noise such uses typically generate. Why not?
A-23 Response: Multiple reference noise measurements were utilized to assess the potential noise
impacts created from the Propsed Project. These noise measurements included reference noise
measurements of a drive thru restaurant speaker, fueling pumps area of a travel center, rooftop
equipment, parking lot activities, truck deliveries, and an air/water machine.
A-24 Comment: (Page No. 5-8) Municipal Code Noise Provisions The Municipal Code offers some
guidance regarding noise.
17.176.010 Purpose.
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. It is determined
that certain noise levels and vibrations are detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety,
and are contrary to public interest. Therefore, the City Council does ordain and declare that
creating, maintaining, causing or allowing to be created, caused or maintained, any noise or
vibration in a manner prohibited by or not in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, is a
public nuisance and shall be punishable as such. [Ord. 772 § 17.78.010, 1986. Code 1987 §
17.78.010].
“Ambient noise level” means the composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context,
the ambient noise level constitutes the normal of existing level of environmental noise at a given
location.
“Commercial area” means property which is zoned for commercial purposes, including, but not
limited to, retail and wholesale businesses, personal services, and professional offices.
“Intrusive noise” means that noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at
a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration,
frequency and time of occurrence, and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing
ambient noise level.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
23 | Page
The Municipal Code requires the Noise Control Officer to review a Project for compliance with
this chapter
17.176.030 Authority and duties of the Noise Control Office(r) (NCO).
B. Powers. In order to implement and enforce this chapter and for the general purpose of noise
abatement and control, the NCO shall have, in addition to any other authority vested in it, the
power to:
1. Conduct, or cause to be conducted, studies, research, and monitoring related to noise,
including joint cooperative investigation with public or private agencies, and the application
for, and acceptance of, grants.
2. On all public and private projects which are likely to cause noise in violation of this chapter
and which are subject to mandatory review or approval by other departments.
a. Review for compliance with the intent and provisions of this chapter. (emphasis
added)
b. Require sound analyses which identify existing and projected noise sources and
associated noise levels.
c.Require usage of adequate measures to avoid violation of any provision of this chapter.
A-23 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
A-24 Comment: (Page No. 5-8) The factors which shall be considered in determining whether a
violation of the provisions of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. The sound level of the objectionable noise.
B. The sound level of the ambient noise.
C. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities.
D. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates.
E. The number of persons affected by the noise source.
F. The time of day or night the noise occurs.
G. The duration of the noise and its tonal, informational or musical content.
H. Whether the noise is continuous, recurrent, or intermittent.
I. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. [Ord. 772 §
17.78.040, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.040].
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
24 | Page
Exterior noise limits
Limited Commercial and Office 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 55 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 60
General Commercial 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 60 7:00 a.m. -- 10:00 p.m. 65
17.176.080 Prohibited acts.
No person shall unnecessarily make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, any noise
disturbance. The following acts, and the causing or permitting thereof, are declared to be in
violation of this chapter:
A. Operating, playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television set,
phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which produces or reproduces sound:
1. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to create a noise
disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line or at any time to violate the
provisions of LEMC 17.176.060(A), except for which a variance has been issued by the City.
(emphasis added)
2. In such a manner as to exceed the levels set forth for public space in Table 1, measured at a
distance of at least 50 feet (15 meters) from such device operating on a public right-of-way or
public space.
A-24 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
A-25 Comment: (Page No. 8) Why doesn’t the Recirculated MND apply the City’s own test for
noise as described in the Municipal Code to each of the Project’s potential noise sources and the
combined result to determine compliance?
A-25 Response: As noted in Response A-19 and A-21 above, all noise impacts have been reduced
to less than significant levels and the Proposed Project is consistent with the City's Municipal Code.
A-26 Comment: (Page No. 8) What is the test to obtain a variance by the City for a use such as
the proposed Project that would exceed current noise restrictions?
A-26 Response: No variance is needed, as noted in the analysis (ISMND and the Noise Study). The
Proposed Project noise impacts are reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation
of mitigation measures MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, and MM NOI-3.
A-27 Comment: (Page No. 8) Construction Noise
Proposed mitigation measure MM NOI-3 would address excessive construction noise by
restricting the operation of the following equipment within the listed distances from the shared
property lines with the adjacent commercial uses during construction: • Large Bulldozer - 50 feet
from shared property line; • Loaded Truck (on dirt road) – 43 feet from shared property line; •
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
25 | Page
Jackhammer – 23 feet from shared property line; and • Small Bulldozer – 2.5 feet from shared
property line. With implementation of MM NOI-3, the construction-related vibration level would
be reduced to within threshold of perception as required by Section 17.176.080(G) of the City’s
Municipal Code.
While this measure may be sufficient to mitigate during a long, weary year of construction,
construction noise is but one aspect of the potential noise impact created by the Project. There
would also be noise from increased traffic and noise from Project operations. We still don’t know
the proposed hours of operation.
A-27 Response: The Noise Study and ISMND analyzed day and nighttime operational noise and
concluded that the Proposed Project would be consistent with the City's noise standards with the
implementation of mitigation measures MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, and MM NOI-3.
A-28 Comment: (Page No. 8) The proposed Project is unlike any of the other uses nearby. The
Project site consists of two vacant parcels surrounded by vacant property to the southwest, west
and south; and commercial/industrial uses to the north and east - self-storage to the northeast
across Collier Avenue, recreational vehicle sales and auto parts sales to the northwest, and
concrete manufacturing, auto care and recycling facilities diagonally across the intersection of
Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue to the east. Wouldn’t such uses conflict with basic health and
hygiene requirements for food service? The Recirculated MND doesn’t even discuss the
possibility.
A-28 Response: The comment is not related to a matter subject to review under CEQA.
Owner/Developer would be required to comply with Riverside County Health standards, such as
food permits for the allowable restaurant uses. No further response is required.
A-29 Comment: (Page No. 9) Yes, the Project would introduce an imposing new source of light at
the undeveloped site regardless of compliance with Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.112.040.
Mere compliance with the law does not fully and properly explain the impact of this new source
of light and glare as CEQA requires.
The Project would also introduce new sources of daytime glare caused building surfaces and
traffic to and from the site. The Project represents an unplanned use. There is insufficient
information to conclude that light and glare at the Project would be consistent with that of
surrounding uses or that no mitigation would be required.
A-29 Response: The Proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal
Code guidelines and standards. Outdoor light fixtures would be installed in compliance with the
City's Municipal Code which requires lighting fixture s in excess of 60 watts to be oriented and
shielded to prevent direct illumination or glare on to adjacent properties. The new building
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
26 | Page
surfaces and vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site would emit daytime glare consistent
with the levels of glare emitted by the surrounding development.
A-30 Comment: (Page No. 9) Measure S-1.1 from the Climate Action Plan would require Applicant
to contract with a waste provider that provides recycling services that diverts a minimum of 65
percent of the solid waste generated by the Proposed Project. How much waste would three
quick serve and one fast food restaurant generate? What of the risk of used cooking oil
contaminating the wastewater? Could this be one of the reasons why the proposed uses would
require not only a change to the Municipal Code but a Conditional Use Permit and a Commercial
Design Review?
A-30 Response: The Proposed Project would divert a minimum of 65 percent of solid waste, which
is consistent with Measure S-1.1 from the Climate Action Plan.
A-31 Comment: (Page No. 9) According to the Recirculated MND, the Project would generate air
pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in
significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance. We find Appendix A to be
unpersuasive. How would the addition of an 18-pump gas station with multiple fast food outlets,
including a drive-through window, not impact local air quality? Is there an example of a travel
center of similar size and feature that so easily meets air quality restrictions?
A-31 Response: The local air quality impacts were analyzed and quantified through industry
accepted methodology that included using the CalEEMod model that was developed with
coordination with the SCAQMD and is the model required by the SCAQMD to analyze land use
development projects. The calculated local criteria pollutant emissions were compared to the
SCAQMD localized thresholds that are specific for the Lake Elsinore area. As such, the MND
adequately analyzes the local air quality impacts created from operation of the Proposed Project.
A-32 Comment: (Page No. 9-10) Vernal pools
No basins, ponds, or obvious depressional features were observed during the survey. However,
a small area exhibiting surface soil cracks was present in the southwest portion of the survey
area. Surface soil cracks, where clay sediment is deposited by infiltration and evaporation of
water, are an indicator of hydrology and possible ponding. If the area holds surface water, it may
provide habitat for vernal pool branchiopods (i.e., fairy shrimp). One fairy shrimp, Riverside fairy
shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonii), was reported from the literature review in the vicinity of the
Proposed Project (CDFW 2017a).
Given that the survey was conducted during the dry season, it was not possible to directly
determine whether this area holds water for any length of time. (Recirculated MND, p. 78).
Wouldn’t it be prudent to study pooling water at the site more carefully, especially considering
the site’s previous use as a water reservoir? What else might soil investigation reveal?
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
27 | Page
A-32 Response: Page 78 of the MND states that given that the biological survey was conducted
during the dry season, it was not possible to directly determine whether the Project Site holds
water for any length of time.The MND concludes that it is unlikely that the area ponds. A review
of aerial Google Earth imagery shows no indication of surface water or soil saturation over
multiple years and seasons. In addition, as noted in the IMSND report and the Biological report,
the soil type mapped in the survey area is not considered hydric. Further, this area would not be
considered a “vernal pool” because indicator plant species (e.g., woolly-marbles [Psilocarphus
brevissimus], toad rush [Juncus bufonius], or water crassula [Crassula aquatica]) are not likely to
be present; plant species observed in the immediate area consist of horseweed (Erigeron
canadensis), stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum), annual bur-sage, and grayish shortpod mustard,
which are considered upland or facultative upland species. For these reasons, fairy shrimp are not
expected to occur in the survey area.
A-33 Comment: (Page No. 10) What criteria are used to determine whether a proposed
development would result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation? Are there any examples of proposals that have failed this test?
A-33 Response: The Proposed Project would not consist of any uses that would utilize substantial
amounts of electricity, natural gas or petroleum fuel. The Proposed Project would be required to
meet the most current Title 24 Part 6 and Part 11 energy efficiency requirements and implement
Project Design Features 1 through 8, which are designed for consistency with the City's Climate
Action Plan, to lower energy usage from the project. As such, the Proposed Project would be
designed to minimize energy usage and implementation of the current 2019 Title 24 Part 6
standards for the project will result in 30 percent less energy usage than a project that was built
before January 1, 2020, when these regulations went into effect (source:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_S
tandards_FAQ.pdf)
A-34 Comment: (Page No. 10) STRONG GROUND MOTION POTENTIAL The project site is located
in a seismically active area typical of Southern California and likely to be subjected to a strong
ground shaking due to earthquakes on nearby faults. (emphasis added) (Appendix E,
Geotechnical Investigation, p. 4).
Although the probability of primary surface rupture is considered low, ground shaking hazards
caused by earthquakes along regional active faults do exist, these would be accounted for in the
design and construction of the proposed structures, according to the Recirculated MND. What
typically happens to a gas station during seismic shaking? Are there any examples?
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
28 | Page
A-34 Response: The proposed buildings including the gas station are required to be constructed
to the standards prescribed by the California Building Code (CBC), which would reduce risks
associated with seismic activity.
A-35 Comment: (Page No. 10) LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
For liquefaction to occur, all of three key ingredients are required: liquefaction-susceptible soils,
groundwater within a depth of 50 feet or less, and strong earthquake shaking. Soils susceptible
to liquefaction are generally saturated loose to medium dense sands and non- plastic silt deposits
below the water table. Groundwater was encountered within our borings B-1 through B-5 at 15
feet. Historic high groundwater at the site is as deep as 50 feet. Soil materials encountered within
our borings are clayey soil. It is our opinion that potential for liquefaction at the site is low.
(Appendix E, Geotechnical Investigation, p. 5).
What is the effect of site’s previous use as a water reservoir? Wouldn’t it be prudent to
investigate?
A-35 Response: The Project Site is considered geotechnically feasible and the Property
Owner/Developer would be required to submit grading and foundation plans to the City to
demonstrate compliance with the City's grading requirements and any applicable
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. The Proposed Project would be designed
and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements which would reduce risks associated with
liquefaction to less than significant.
A-36 Comment: (Page No. 10) Somehow an 18-pump gas station and fast food complex would
not generate an unacceptable increase in GHG emissions.
A-36 Response: The GHG Emissions analysis was performed by tiering off of the City's Climate
Action Plan, which is an acceptable and encouraged analysis methodology for CEQA analyses. The
GHG emissions analysis found that through implementation of Project Design Features 1 through
8, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan.
A-37 Comment: (Page No. 11) The GHG emissions from the Proposed Project were analyzed for
year 2020 conditions. Table 7- Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions shows that
for the year 2020, the Proposed Project would create 2,219.09 MTCO2e per year, which is within
the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of significance for all land use types of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. It
should be noted that the Year 2020 emissions are based on approved statewide GHG reduction
measures and the required GHG reduction measures provided in the City’s Climate Action Plan.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions would be less than
significant. (Recirculated MND, p. 98).
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
29 | Page
Has the City ever used the formula applied here to find that a development proposal exceeded
GHG limits? Such a formula reads more like a no-fail insurance policy than a credible inquiry into
potential environmental impacts.
A-37 Response: With regard to the numerical calculations of the project's GHG emissions, the
MND details that these calculations are provided solely for informational purposes only and are
not utilized to determine significance of the project. The GHG emissions analysis tiers off of the
City's Climate Action Plan and utilizes the standards provided in the CAP to determine significance.
The Climate Action Plan provides numerous meausures for projects to implement to be consistent
with the CAP. If a project is not capable of implementing the measures listed in the CAP, than the
project would result in a significant impact.
A-38 Comment: (Page No. 11) “The Subject Property did not appear on current regulatory
database lists that were reviewed during this assessment.” (Appendix G, Executive Summary)
Is the City satisfied with the inquiry documented in Appendix G, which describes EZ Products as
an environmental issue?
EZ Products, 17999 Collier Avenue, is located approximately 200 to the northwest of the Subject
Property and is presumed to be higher elevation (hydrologically up/cross gradient). EZ Products
is an active manufacturer of bolt, nut, screw, rivet, and washers. According to the regulatory
database, this facility is listed as a RCRA-SQG, FINDS and ECHO site. Online research from the
California DTSC Hazardous Waste Tracking System revealed evidence of tetrachloroethylene
(PERC) on site for the years 1999 (1.48 tons), 2000 (0.34 tons), and 2001 (2.13 tons). According
to the EPA ECHO website and the regulatory database, this facility specified a three-year period
of no violations. Based on the inferred direction groundwater flow, the amount (over two tons)
of PERC onsite for three years, and close proximity to the Subject Property, this facility represents
an environmental issue. Based on the amount of PERC onsite (3.95 tons), inferred direction of
groundwater flow, and relative distance from the Subject Property, this facility represents an
environmental issue. Based on the lack of documented release, this site is not expected to
represent an environmental concern to the Subject Property, at this time. (Appendix G, Executive
Summary).
A-38 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
A-39 Comment: (Page No. 11) What changes did EZ Products make to remove the threat of
hazardous releases? Why did GeoRox Engineering decline soil testing? How would EZ toxins affect
possible pesticide residue from previous agricultural uses nearby? How would soil contamination
impact food preparation at the Project site? What would be the effect of disturbing contaminated
soil during construction? These are serious questions the Recirculated MND fails to resolve.
A-39 Response: See Response A-9 and A-11 above.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
30 | Page
A-40 Comment: (Page No. 12) Why was the subject property owner not available for interview?
The owner might have valuable insights regarding previous uses. Ron Graves, a real estate broker
from San Diego, completed the questionnaire on the owner’s behalf. Unfortunately, his repeated
underlining of “prior” in the phrase, “prior knowledge” suggests uncertainty about what’s
actually being asked. Is the owner aware of unreported contaminants? Has the City asked? If not,
why not?
A-40 Response: It is not unusual for the property owner to not be present during a site visit. The
language used by the ESA is standard language. It is vacant land and has not had previous
industrial use.
A-41 Comment: (Page No. 12) “The proposed facility would be subject to Program requirements
for regulated substances including preparation of a risk management plan (RMP) to include an
off-site consequence analysis, compliance audit, certified program elements, and a seismic
assessment.” (Recirculated MND, p. 102).
Shouldn’t the public and decision makers have the opportunity to review something as important
as the risk management plan before any decision about the Project is made? In the absence of
this information, there is no support for the assertion that the potential impacts regarding
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
A-41 Response: The RMP ensures that potential risks associated with accidental releases of
hazardous materials are minimized. Further, as noted in the analysis, the Proposed Project is
subject to permit and inspections by the Hazardous Materials Division of the County Fire
Department.
A-42 Comment: (Page No. 12) The lack of inquiry regarding a previous use of the Project site as a
water reservoir and the absence of references to the Commercial Manufacturing (C-M) zoning
designation in any planning documents, such as the General Plan, is troubling, to say the least.
The proposed use is contemplated nowhere but in the Municipal Code. Not surprisingly, the
Project would be a poor fit with surrounding uses, which may also pose a serious health and
safety hazard to food preparation especially at the scale contemplated.
A-42 Response: The Proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning
A-43 Comment: (Page No. 12) “Drive-through establishments are not currently listed as a
permitted or conditionally permitted use in the C-M zone. The City is currently in the process of
updating certain sections of the Municipal Code and has identified the addition of drive-through
establishments as being an appropriate use subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit
in the C-M Zone.” (Recirculated MND, p. 111).
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
31 | Page
This is a revelation that appears late in the report and more as a convenient afterthought. How
do we know the City is contemplating such a change? Coincidence? Has a proposed change
appeared on planning committee agendas and, if so, when?
A-43 Response: The Project describes drive-through establishment as a proposed use in the
Project Description section of the ISMND, page 8.
A-44 Comment: (Page No. 12) Drive-through restaurants and windows are nothing new to the
American urban landscape. Why is such a change suddenly contemplated now? Why did the City
reject them previously?
A-44 Response: The comment is not related to a matter subject to review under CEQA. No further
response is required.
A-45 Comment: (Page No. 12) Why is the C-M zoning designation not referenced in any official
planning documents - just the Municipal Code?
A-45 Response: The Municipal Code is the planning document that would reflect zoning
designations.
A-46 Comment: (Page No. 13) Yes, the Project does have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment by impeding a scenic view with an ugly, noisy, big box-style building that would
be a new source of light and glare, that would likely attract traffic noise and emissions beyond
acceptable limits, especially those from heavy transport trucks, and that would not blend well
with existing uses or structures.
A-46 Response: Refer to Response A-29.
A-47 Comment: (Page No. 13) The soil may be contaminated with toxins from surrounding and
previous uses, which may pose a significant public health risk if disturbed.
Surrounding uses and potential soil toxins may also pose a health risk to intended use for food
preparation.
A-47 Response: Refer to Response A-29.
A-48 Comment: (Page No. 13) Failure to fully and properly consider the issue of the site’s previous
use as a water reservoir and the impact such use may have had on soil stability makes
geotechnical conclusions questionable at best. It makes no sense to leave such a question
unanswered when the Project site is in an area subject to severe seismic shaking.
A-48 Response: Refer to Response A-28.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
32 | Page
A-49 Comment: (Page No. 13) The fact that the site’s zoning designation as Commercial-
Manufacturing (C-M) appears in no official planning documents but exclusively in the Municipal
Code is evidence that the proposed use has not been properly considered or contemplated.
A-49 Response: Refer to Response A-45.
A-50 Comment: (Page No. 13) There are no criteria to explain how the City assesses whether the
proposed use would be a reasonable expense of energy.
A-50 Response: Refer to Response A-33
A-51 Comment: (Page No. 13) Much more information is needed to bring the Recirculated MND
to a report worthy of adoption.
A-51 Response: The analysis demonstrates that the Proposed Project impacts are less than
significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
33 | Page
b) Comment Letter B – CCOLE, LLC dba Concerned Citizens of Lake Elsinore
B-1
B-2
Comment Letter B –
CCOLE, LLC dba Concerned Citizens of Lake Elsinore
B-3
B-4
B-4a
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-7a
B-7b
B-7c
B-7d
B-8
B-8a
B-8b
B-8b
B-8c
B-9
Comment Letter B - Exhibit A
B-A1
B-A2
B-A2
B-A3
B-A4
B-A4
B-A5
B-A5
B-A6
B-A7
B-A8
Comment Letter B - Exhibit B
B-B1
B-B2
B-B3
B-B3
B-B4
B-B5
B-B5
B-B6
B-B6
B-B7
B-B8
B-B8
B-B9
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
92 | Page
Response to Comment Letter B – CCOLE, LLC dba Concerned Citizens of Lake Elsinore
B-1 Comment: (Page No. 1) On behalf of my client, CCOLE, LLC, dba Concerned Citizens of Lake
Elsinore (hereinafter, (/Concerned Citizens"), I am submitting comments pursuant to the City's
Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND")
for the above-referenced project .
B-1 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
B-2 Comment: (Page No. 1) Concerned Citizens submitted comments to the Community
Development Department dated March 11, 2019, on the MND for the Kassab Travel Center
Project. Concerned Citizens' comments included two expert consultant reports which identified
numerous analytical deficiencies and incorrect assumptions and which provided substantial
evidence supporting a fair argument that the Kassab Travel Center Project (the (/Project") may
have a substantial impact on the environment and that the MND was insufficient under CEQA.
In response to those comments, the MND was revised and recirculated for additional comment
and is before your Commission for proposed adoption.
While certain of the deficiencies noted in Concerned Citizens' previous comments on the initial
version of the MND have been corrected, our consultants' analysis of the Revised MND show that
significant deficiencies in the analysis of the Project's environmental impacts remain, such that
there remains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have a
significant impact on the environment. Those deficiencies are discussed in the following sections
and detailed in the attached consultant reports. Accordingly, Concerned Citizens respectfully
submits that the MND is insufficient as a matter of law and that an Environmental Impact Report
must be prepared for the Project.
B-2 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
B-3 Comment: (Page No. 2) RK Engineering Group, Inc. ("RK"), in its March 8, 2019 comments
that were included as part of Concerned Citizens' March 11, 2019 comments, identified seven
inadequacies of the analysis of the Project's noise impacts. Two of those issues have not been
adequately addressed in the City's Response to Comments. (See RK's October 21, 2019 analysis,
included as Exhibit A hereto.)
B-3 Response: The comment is acknowledged. Please see the following subsequent responses.
B-4 Comment: (Page No. 2) First, RK questioned whether the noise levels for the Parking Lot and
Fueling Pumps adequately represented the noise levels anticipated to be generated by the
Project. Those assumed levels were those generated at a smaller gas station in Laguna Beach,
which does not appear to serve diesel gas for heavy trucks. RK said that the estimated noise level
impacts from the project do not appear to account for the heavy truck traffic that will be present
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
93 | Page
on-site. Thus, the noise analysis underestimates potential noise impacts of the Project. (See page
3, #3 of RK's March 11, 2019 comments.)
B-4 Response: The commenter is incorrect. As shown in Appendix D, the reference noise
measurement for the gas pumps was taken in Atascadero at a similar gas station to the Proposed
Project that services RVs. The parking lot reference noise measurement was taken at a Fresno
Walmart, where several RVs were in the parking lot.
B-4a Comment: (Page No. 2) The City's response to this comment is inadequate and
unsubstantiated, and belied by illustrations used to support the Project. The City merely
concludes that "the Proposed Project was designed to facilitate the filling of RVs and
automobiles." Appendix M, page 49 (response to C-B4). The City acknowledges that "heavy trucks
could use the pumps set up for RVs" but seeks to disregard that fact by hiding behind the claim
that "the Proposed Project would not be advertised as a truck stop and it is anticipated that
relatively few heavy trucks will utilize the proposed gas station." Id. But, nothing would prevent
trucks using the Project to purchase diesel fuel. Indeed, the City is assuming that the operator of
the Project will not advertise it as a truck stop. There is no mitigation measure requiring that
there be no advertising of the Project as a truck stop, and therefore this claim is wholly
unsubstantiated. Moreover, the site plan for the Project clearly shows that the site was designed
to accommodate heavy-duty semi- trailer trucks, as indicated on the Truck/Recreational Vehicle
Turning Template, which includes a drawing of a semi-trailer utilizing the fuel pumps under
Canopy 2. If the Project were not intended to serve heavy- duty trucks, as the City professes, why
does the Project illustrate a semi-trailer using the fuel pumps? The City's unsubstantiated claim
is particularly ludicrous in that the Project would provide fast-fill diesel fueling pumps in an area
surrounded by industrial uses, and located on the corner of two designated Truck Routes
(Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue). Given these facts, the noise analysis should have
incorporated the worst case scenario and disclosed impacts from daily on-site and off-site diesel
truck operations. In the absence of such analysis, the Project should include mitigation measures
that would prohibit heavy-duty semi-trailer trucks from accessing the site.
B-4 Response: The Proposed Project does not include the amenities typically included with truck
stops, such as shower stalls and a lounge area for truck drivers to rest. The truck turning template
shows the canopy's tallest possible height is 20 feet and reflects the largest vehicle in the vehicle
mix for traffic and noise analysis.
According to Caltrans, 2016 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway
System, of the approximately 19,000 daily trips on SR-74 in the vicinity of the Project Site, only
215 daily trips are from 5+ axle trucks (semi-trucks). The noise and traffic analysis utilized the
existing vehicle mix identified in the Project area.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
94 | Page
B-5 Comment: (Page No. 2) Second, and related to the first noise-related deficiency discussed
above, RK questioned whether the Roadway Noise Impact analysis adequately addressed the
Project's anticipated impact on noise levels along Collier Avenue. (See page 4, #8 of RK's March
11, 2019 comments.) As noted in the preceding paragraph, there is no substantiation for the
City's assumption that "it is anticipated that relatively few heavy trucks will utilize the proposed
gas station." The illustration in the Project's documentation belies that claim by showing a semi-
trailer utilizing the fuel pumps under Canopy 2. Collier Avenue is a designated Truck Route, and
the Project is located in an area surrounded by industrial uses.
B-5 Response: As stated above, there are relatively few semi-trucks that drive past the Project
Site on a daily basis. Furthermore, the convenience store does not include any amenities typically
found in truck stops, such as paid shower areas and lounge areas.
B-6 Comment: (Page No. 2-3) Third, even if it were true that the Project's diesel fuel pumps were
"designed" for RVs and autos, the Project's fleet mix should have been adjusted to account for
higher rates of RVs that would use the fueling facility. RVs generate more noise and higher
emissions than typical autos and light-duty trucks, but RK's review of the fleet mix used in the
roadway noise model and the CaIEE Mod emissions calculations fails to indicate that any
adjustments were made to account for the higher rates of RV utilization. (See RK's October 21,
2019 analysis, at page 2, #2.) Thus, again, the MND is deficient in that it made assumptions that
understate both noise and air quality impacts.
B-6 Response: The Proposed Project would not provide any amenities that would make it a
destination for RVs. There are many gas stations located nearby that are also capable of selling
diesel and gasoline to RVs. As such, the clientele would likely be the vehicles and associated vehicle
mix that currently drive the nearby roads.
The noise modeling utilized the vehicle mix provided by Caltrans for SR-74 in the vicinity of the
Project Site. It is anticipated that a proportional number of vehicles from each vehicle class that
drive on the nearby roads would utilize the Proposed Project.
For air quality, the CalEEMod model utilized the default vehicle mix, which is proportionally based
on the vehicle miles traveled by each vehicle class, including motorhomes in western Riverside
County.
B-7 Comment: (Page No. 3) The Responses to Comments and Revisions to the MND re the
Deficiencies in the Analysis of the Project's Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts Fail
to Adequately Address Those Deficiencies
B-7 Response: The prior comments were thoroughly analyzed and detailed responses were
prepared, pursuant to the requirements detailed in the CEQA Guidelines. No further response is
required.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
95 | Page
B-7a Comment: (Page No. 3) First, in its March 8, 2019 comments on the original MND, RK
observed that the Air Quality/GHG Study did not appear to consider the impact of the three
quick-serve restaurants that would be located within the convenience store building. No
additional trips, energy use, water use or waste generation associated with those separate uses
was included in the analysis of the Project's impacts. (RK's March 8, 2019, submittal, at page 4,
#1.) Failing to include those additional emissions underestimates the Project's potential impacts.
In its response to comments, the City states that the Project "was analyzed as a Gasoline Station
with 14,452 square feet of building space to account for both the canopies and C-store square
footages." (Appendix M, at page 51, response to C-B11.)
But the City's response fails to resolve the issue identified by RK. The Project description states
that the proposed travel center will include three quick serve restaurants within the convenience
store. The quick serve restaurants will generate their own trips (in addition to the trips from
customers using the gas station) and will require more energy and water usage and generate
more waste than a typical convenience market. Modeling all 8,260 square feet of the travel
center building as just a "convenience store" underestimates the Project's emissions.
B-7a Response: The CalEEMod model provides some limitations, since it does not provide all of
the Land Use types that are listed in the ITE Trip Generation Rates. The proposed Gas Station with
Convenience Store, that includes the project-generated daily vehicle trips modeled in CalEEMod,
was based on the daily trip rates provided in the Traffic Report. The ITE Trip Generation Rates are
developed from thousands of traffic surveys of similar land uses to the Proposed Project. It should
be noted that including a quick serve restaurant in the convenience market for a gas station is not
a new or novel design, rather it is one of the most typical designs for gas station projects.
B-7b Comment: (Page No. 3-4) The ITE land use description for "Gas Station with Convenience
Market" states the following: "This land use includes gasoline/service stations with convenience
markets where the primary business is the fueling of motor vehicles. These service stations may
also have ancillary facilities for servicing and repairing motor vehicles and may have a car wash.
Some commonly sold convenience items are newspapers, coffee or other beverages, and snack
items that are usually consumed in the car. The sites included in this land use category have the
following two specific characteristics: The gross floor area of the convenience market is between
2,000 and 3,0000 gross square feet; and the number of vehicle fueling positions is at least 10."
(ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th ed., Vol. 2: Data; Services (Land Uses 900-999, at page 353).
With a convenience store, as with the Project, 2.5 to 3 times larger than assumed for this land
use category in the ITE guidebook, there is obviously a potential for more trips than were
assumed in the MND.
RK did a quick comparison of the two land uses (convenience market vs. fast food restaurant
without a drive-through) and made the following observations: Utilizing the ITE Trip Generation
Manual and CalEEMod default parameters, and assuming a conservative 33 percent of the
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
96 | Page
building area to be quick serve restaurant space, on an annual basis the three quick serve
restaurants have the potential to:
• Generate an additional 3.4 million vehicle miles traveled;
• Use an additional 96,150 kilowatt hours of electricity;
• Use an additional 748 million BTUs of natural gas;
• Use an additional 560,000 gallons of water; and
• Generate an additional 23 tons of waste.
See Exhibit A, at page 3, and its Attachment B.
The increased energy usage associated with restaurant operation is significant and should be
considered in analyzing emissions. The MND understates Project emissions by considering the
quick serve restaurant space identically with a convenience store.
B-7b Response: The ITE Land Use 945, Gas Station with Convenience Market is the land use utilized
in the Traffic Report to determine the vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed gas
station and convenience market and the CalEEMod modeling utilized the daily trip generation
rates from the Traffic Report.
Although, the commenter references to the ITE land use descriptions are correct, the ITE
Guidebook provides multiple ways to calculate vehicle trip generated by a project and the Traffic
Report relied on the number of vehicle fueling pumps, instead of the building square footage, so
the references to the size of the convenience market are not applicable to the methodology
utilized to calculate the project generated trips from the proposed gas station and convenience
market.
It should be noted that the convenience market and quick serve restaurants would only provide
ancillary uses that are supportive of the primary gas station use and the food that would be sold
in the convenience market and quick serve restaurants would be food that can be consumed in
vehicles, so only a nominal number of trips would be generated from patrons that are solely
coming to the Project Site for the quick serve restaurants.
The commenter only used the attached CalEEMod annual results that utilized their alternative
modeling parameters to replicate Proposed Project’s model. They did not include the CalEEMod
daily printouts or the mitigation measures associated with the project design features and new
regulatory requirements. When Vista Environmental replicated the CalEEMod model, the results
showed that the emissions created from non-mobile sources (i.e., area sources and energy usage)
would actually be lower for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, PM2.5 and CO2e based on the commenters
alternative modeling parameters. Therefore the only difference in the calculation of emissions
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
97 | Page
between the commenter's suggestions and what was analyzed in the Air Report, is the number of
daily trips generated by the project.
B-7c Comment: (Page No. 4) Second, RK in its March 8, 2019 comments that were included in
Concerned Citizens' March 11 comments, observed that the Project is fundamentally inconsistent
with the City's Climate Action Plan insofar as it encourages the continued use of fossil fuels. (RK's
March 8, 2019 analysis, at page 6.) The City's Response to Comments concludes that it would not
conflict with the growth projections provided in the General Plan. (Appendix M, at page 53,
response to C-B17.) RK's more recent analysis concludes that the Project is inconsistent with the
City's CAP and broader state initiatives to combat climate change, in that the City's CAP states
expressly that "the key to lower transportation-related emissions is to implement strategies that
decrease vehicle miles traveled and encourage the replacement of traditional vehicles with fuel
efficient and alternative energy vehicles. This involves providing more choices through greater
access to alternative forms of transportation, including transit, biking and walking; diversified
land use patterns, and promoting development patterns where people can live, work and
recreate without having to drive great distances . It also involves encouraging the use of zero- or
low-emission vehicles over conventional automobiles."
B-7c Response: The March 8 comments were reviewed and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions
analysis was revised to address their comments. The Proposed Project will be required to meet
the new 2019 Title 24 Part 6 and new 2019 Title 24 Part 11 CalGreen building standards, that
require all public parking lot, including the Proposed Project to include electric vehicle charging
stations, preferred parking spaces for clean air vehicles, and bike racks, as well as other measures
that promote alternative transportation. In addition, the Air Report identified 8 project design
features that need to be incorporated into the project design to adhere to the City's Climate Action
Plan.
B-7d Comment: (Page No. 4) Moreover, RK's more recent analysis, included as Exhibit A, observes
that the Project is not consistent with the GHG reduction strategies and measured included in
the City's CAP, particularly with regard to transportation and land use. In particular, the MND
does not discuss the Project's inconsistency with the following measures:
• T-1.2: The Project will not connect neighborhood activity centers, major
destinations and transit facilities. Accordingly, the benefit of the sidewalk along
the Project frontage is questionable in terms of vehicle trip reduction.
• T-1.6: The Project does not provide for the expansion of transit routes and does
not state that the owner/operator would provide free or reduced cost monthly
transit passes to employees.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
98 | Page
• T-3.1: The Project is not considered a mixed-use, high density, infill or transit
oriented development, and the Project is not located in the Historic or Ballpark
Districts.
• T-4.1: The IS/MND does not provide any information as to how the trip reduction
program will be enforced or how the Project will provide training or incentives for
employee trip reduction.
• T-5.1: The Project does not facilitate the replacement of inefficient vehicles with
hybrids, plug-in electric and other low- and zero-emissions vehicles.
B-7d Response: The Proposed Project will be required to implement 8 Project Design Features as
conditions of approval, in order to be consistent with the City’s CAP.
The project applicant does not have authority to control the sidewalks or other non-motorized
transportation facilities (such as paths/trails and bicycle lanes) outside of its property. Once the
adjacent, undeveloped parcels are developed, the City will ensure that sidewalks and other non-
motorized facilities are properly connected per the City’s CAP and/or other approved plans (e.g.,
Circulation Element, Active Transportation Plan, etc.).
B-8 Comment: (Page No. 4) The Responses to Comments and Revisions to the MND re the
Deficiencies in the Analysis of the Project's Traffic Impacts Fail to Adequately Address Those
Deficiencies
The revised MND and the Responses to Comments received on the earlier draft MND
satisfactorily address many, but not all, of the comments Concerned Citizens and its consultant,
Kimley-Horn, raised in its March 11, 2019 letter. Our comments regarding three deficiencies - the
MND's failure to establish that the assumptions about the amount of pass-by traffic are
reasonable, its failure to explain whether the pass-by assumptions include trips diverted to and
from the freeway, and its statements regarding the Project's mitigation responsibilities - have not
been addressed, however. Each of the remaining deficiencies is described below.
B-8 Response: Comment noted. Please refer to responses to Comments B-8a, B-8b, and B-8c below
for comments on pass-by and diverted project trips, and mitigation responsibility.
B-8a Comment: (Page No. 5) First, Kimley-Horn's March 11, 2019 comments questioned whether
the use of the ITE's Trip Generation Handbook's pass-by assumptions were reasonable in this
instance. The analysis assumes that fully 63 percent of all the vehicles currently passing the
Project site in the morning peak hour will turn into the Project site. Kimley-Horn' s expert opinion
was that this seemed to be an overly aggressive pass- by assumption for this site, and that
additional trips will in fact be generated by the Project. The Traffic Impact Study's error in this
regard may therefore result in an understatement of Project-related traffic impacts.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
99 | Page
The revised MND did not modify the pass-by assumptions, and offered an unintelligible and
substantively meaningless "response" to Kimley-Horn's comments. The response to this
comment states, "The trip generation analysis assumes that the project is operating at its full
operational capacity as no other reductions in trip generation were applied (i.e., 50% operation,
75% operation, etc.)." The response asserts that because of this assumption, the traffic analysis
"therefore may be considered a conservative analysis ...." (Pages 45-46, at C-A3 and C-A3a .)
Kimley-Horn states, in its analysis of the Recirculated Draft Initial Study/MND for the Project, that
the first-quoted sentence is unclear as to its meaning, because "[traffic impact analysis is always
based on the assumption that the project will operate at its full operational capacity. Assuming
full operations is not a conservative approach - full operations would always be the base required
assumption. The level of project operation has nothing to do with pass-by assumptions." Exhibit
B, at page 2.
Rather, Kimley-Horn explains, "[p]ass-by traffic has to do with the volume of traffic that is already
driving past the site, going from Point A to Point B (i.e., a person driving to work or home from
work). A pass-by trip would be someone who is already currently driving past the project sit e,
and who could be expected to stop and patronize the business, and then continue on their way."
Kimley-Horn states that the "analysis needs to ensure that there is enough background traffic
already on the road to support the pass-by traffic assumption", i.e. that the volume of traffic
passing the site on Riverside Drive is sufficiently high to support the amount of pass-by traffic
assumed. Kimley-Horn notes that "traffic volume passing the site on Collier Avenue is much less,
and the report assumes that 24% to 46% of the morning traffic that is already driving along Collier
Avenue past the project site today would stop at the Travel Center each morning and then
continue on its way." Exhibit B, at page 3. Kimley-Horn quotes the ITE Trip Generation Handbook
(3rd Edition) as follows in this regard : "If application of a pass-by percentage results in an
unrealistic reduction in the calculated through volume on the adjacent road, the pass-by
percentage should be reevaluated for reasonableness. For example, it is unlikely for a site's pass-
by traffic to represent the majority of adjacent street traffic." Id. Yet, the ITE's example of what
requires a "reasonableness" evaluation is exactly what the Project's traffic analysis assumed,
without any "reasonableness" evaluation in response to Concerned Citizens comments.
Accordingly, without more, the MND is deficient as a matter of law.
B-8a Response: The pass-by traffic assumptions for the Proposed Project are reasonable and
supported by data provided in the Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition published by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2017). As noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for
the MND, the pass-by trip rates were appropriately determined based on the average pass-by trip
rate observed per the corresponding land use code. Per the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, the
pass-by rate is further supported by traffic volumes along Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue
(segments of State Route 74 – SR-74). The peak hour traffic volumes along these segments are
1,569 for the AM peak hour, and 1,977 for the PM peak hour along Riverside Drive; and, 1,576 for
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
100 | Page
the AM peak hour, and 2,201 for the PM peak hour along Collier Avenue. Per the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook, the existing peak hour volumes support the average AM and PM peak hour
pass-by trip rates of 62% and 56% for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, utilized in the
traffic analysis. It is important to note that the traffic volumes will increase in the future year
scenarios.
It is acknowledged that the pass-by percentage from volumes on Collier Avenue, north of Riverside
Drive, may be lower due to lower traffic volumes compared to volumes south of Riverside Drive.
Therefore, a conservative re-evaluation of the non-adjusted (i.e., no pass-by reduction) project
traffic volumes was performed for the three study intersections north of Riverside Drive (Collier
Avenue/Nichols Road, I-15 southbound ramps/Nichols Road, and I-15 northbound ramps/Nichols
Road). Based on that analysis, the project’s impacts to those three intersections would remain the
same as originally determined, and the prescribed mitigation measures at the impacted
intersections would continue to mitigate impacts of the non-pass-by project traffic volumes.
Therefore, no new findings of significance are found, and no new mitigation measures are
required. Attachment A contains the level of service (LOS) worksheets for those three
intersections.
B-8b Comment: (Page No. 5-6) Second, Kimley-Horn's March 11, 2019 comments stated that it is
unclear as to whether the traffic impact analysis' pass-by trip assumptions included trips diverted
from the freeway, and noted that if so, they are not simply pass-by trips at all, but rather diverted
trips that must be added to each study intersection that each trip would travel through between
the freeway exit location to the Project site, and from the Project site back to a freeway entrance.
If the pass-by trip assumptions did include diverted trips in the pass-by assumptions, the traffic
analysis would understate the number of trips generated by the Project, and also understate the
Project's traffic impacts.
The response to this comment regarding diverted trips states, "The project site is not located
adjacent to a freeway interchange (e .g., 1-15 at Nichols Road and Central Avenue), therefore,
pass-by trips are not primarily based on freeway traffic, as there are already gas stations at both
interchanges on 1-15."
Kimley-Horn finds that "[t]his response to comments C-A4 and C-A5 is in conflict with the project
trip assumptions and analysis for the following reasons :
• The Project Trip Distribution on Figure 4 shows that 67% of the project traffic was
assigned to the 1-15 Freeway - 30% to the north and 37% to the south .
• Whether the project traffic that uses the freeway to get to and from the Travel
Center is pass-by-traffic or not, it is not traffic that is currently "passing by" the
Travel Center site.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
101 | Page
• Any vehicles that exit the freeway to get to the Travel Center will be all new trips
added to the Collier, Nichols, and Center intersections. The project trips to and
from the freeway will be new, added trips through the interchanges and all
intervening inter sections .
• The analysis should include the full project trip generation without the pass-
through reduction at these intersections."
Exhibit B, at pages 3-4.
In addition, Concerned Citizens notes that the Project site will be visible from the 1-15 freeway,
particularly with signage. See Exhibit C. Thus, even though there are gas stations at both
interchanges, the signage for the gas station and the quick-serve restaurants at the Project site
will be visible from the freeway, and thus can be expected to result in diverted trips from that
freeway. The response to Concerned Citizens' comments on the diverted trips issue fails to
adequately address this issue.
B-8b Response: The project’s pass-by rate assumptions are primarily based on background traffic
traveling on Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue (segments of SR-74) and do not take into account
diverted trips from Interstate 15 (I-15). As noted in our prior response, the Project Site is not
located adjacent to a freeway interchange (e.g., 1-15 interchanges at Nichols Road and Central
Avenue), therefore, trips on I-15 are not likely to divert to the project because similar traveler
amenities are provided at both interchanges. These amenities include: 1) an ARCO gas station and
outlet mall (with restaurants) at the I-15/Nichols Road interchange; and, 2) Chevron and ARCO
gas stations and three retail shopping centers at the I-15/Central Avenue (SR-74) interchange.
The ITE Trip Generation Handbook states that diverted trips should only be estimated if “…the
travel routes for diverted trips can be clearly established…”. In this case, a route diversion from I-
15 to the Project Site cannot be established due to the presence of similar uses that are in
immediate proximity to the freeway.
As noted in the response to Comment B-8a above, all pass-by trip rates were appropriately
determined based on the average pass-by trip rate per the corresponding land use code. Per the
ITE Trip Generation Handbook, the pass-by rate is further supported by the existing and forecast
traffic volumes along Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue (segments of SR-74). SR-74 is an east-
west highway that provides regional access between Riverside and Orange Counties, starting at
the Interstate 215 (I-215)/SR-74 interchange in Perris, traveling through the City of Lake Elsinore,
and terminating in South Orange County at Interstate 5 (I-5) in San Juan Capistrano. Additionally,
SR-74 provides direct access to the recreational amenities of Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the traffic
volumes on Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive (segments of SR-74) themselves support the
project’s pass-by assumptions, and no traffic diversion from I-15 to the Project Site was assumed
in the traffic analysis. Also, as discussed in the response to Comment B-8a above, an analysis of
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
102 | Page
the intersections of Collier Avenue/Nichols Road, I-15 southbound ramps/Nichols Road, and I-15
northbound ramps/Nichols Road without the project’s pass-by trip reductions, and it was
determined that the project’s impacts to those three intersections would remain the same as
originally determined, and the prescribed mitigation measures at the impacted intersections
would continue to mitigate impacts of the non-pass-by project traffic volumes. Therefore, no new
findings of significance are found, and no new mitigation measures are required.
B-8c Comment: (Page No. 6) Third, Kimley-Horn's March 11, 2019 comments addressed an
inconsistency in the responsibility for required mitigation for Intersection #1 and Intersection #3.
This inconsistency has not been addressed in the Recirculated Draft Initial Study. As Kimley-Horn
observes, "[u]nder the Existing plus Project heading on page 46, the report says that the project
will construct the improvements at 1-15 NB Ramps/Nichols Road, Collier Avenue/Nichols Road,
and Gunnerson Street/Riverside Drive. Under the Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project
heading, the report says that the project will pay its fair share for the very same improvements.
These contradictory statements should be reconciled ." Exhibit B, at page 5 (emphasis added).
B-8c Response: Based on the traffic analysis the Proposed Project would have a direct impact at
the Collier Avenue/Nichols Road intersection in the Existing plus Project scenario. The direct
impact is due to operation of the intersection being reduced from an acceptable LOS (LOS D or
better) in the baseline condition, to an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) in the plus project condition.
The intersections of I-5 northbound ramps/Nichols Road and Gunnerson Street-Strickland
Avenue/Riverside Drive (SR-74) are already operating at unacceptable LOS conditions in the
existing condition (without the project), and will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS
conditions in the Existing plus Project scenario. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be fully
responsible for the construction of the mitigation measure at the intersection of Collier
Avenue/Nichols Road (conversion of the intersection to all-way stop control), and the project
would pay its fair-share at for the remaining intersections since these impacts are contributing to
already unsatisfactory conditions occurring in the baseline (no project) conditions. The fair share
calculation for the improvements at Collier Avenue/Nichols Road has been clarified as to be a
100% contribution of the cost to implement the all-way stop control. It should be noted that City
and Caltrans have recently converted Intersection #1 I-15 NB Ramps/Nichols Road with an all-
way-stop configuration consistent with the Proposed Project’s mitigation measure MM TRAF-1.
B-9 Comment: (Page No. 6) For each of the above-stated reasons, the Recirculated Draft Initial
Study/MND is deficient as a matter of law . An Environmental Impact Report should be prepared
for the Project.
B-9 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
103 | Page
Exhibit A
B-A1 Comment: (Page No. 1) RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this 2nd
review of potential environmental impacts associated with noise, air quality and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from the Kassab Travel Center, located at 29301 Riverside Drive, at the western
corner of Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue, in the City of Lake Elsinore, California.
This 2nd review has been provided to evaluate whether the Recirculated Draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has adequately addressed all potential noise, air and GHG
impacts. Based on this 2nd review, several issues still remain that may require additional analysis
to ensure that all potential project impacts are evaluated.
The following comments are provided in reference to the Kassab Travel Center Recirculated Draft
IS/MND, Appendix M, Response to Comments. An excerpt of the comments are provided in
Attachment A.
B-A1 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
B-A2 Comment: (Page No. 1-2) Response C-B4. The explanation as to why the project would not
generate a significant amount of heavy trucks is unsubstantiated. While the project may be a self-
proclaimed RV fueling station, nothing would prevent other trucks from utilizing the site to
purchase diesel fuel. In fact, the site plan clearly shows the site was designed to accommodate
heavy duty semi-trailer trucks, as indicated on the Truck/Recreational Vehicle Turning Template,
which includes a drawing of a semi- trailer trick utilizing the fuel pumps under Canopy 2.
Therefore, seeing that the site would provide fast-fill diesel fueling pumps in an area of town
largely surrounded by industrial uses, located on the corner of two designated Truck Routes
(Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue), and since the site is designed to easily accommodate heavy
duty trucks, the analysis should reflect the worst case scenario and disclose impacts from daily
on-site and off -sit e diesel truck operation. Alternatively, if no analysis of diesel trucks is to be
provided, then specific mitigation measures should be implemented that would prohibit heavy
duty semi- trailer trucks from accessing the site.
B-A2 Response: The Proposed Project would not provide any amenities that would make it a
destination for heavy trucks. As such, the clientele would likely be the vehicles and associated
vehicle mix that currently travel in the area (commuters, area residents, and visitors of the lake).
The Proposed Project is not located in a location where a high volume of heavy trucks travel, and
therefore has not been designed to accommodate heavy trucks. The project does not include the
amenities typically included with truck stops, such as shower stalls, a lounge area for truck drivers
to rest, and parking for heavy trucks with trailers. Additionally, per traffic volumes in Caltrans’
2016 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, of the
approximately 19,000 daily trips on SR-74 in the vicinity of the Project Site, only 215 daily trips are
from 5+ axle trucks (semi-trucks). That equates to heavy trucks being 1% of the daily traffic
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
104 | Page
volumes on SR-74. Therefore, the traffic analysis assumptions are appropriate as it assumes that
the Proposed Project would not generate a significant volume of heavy trucks.
B-A3 Comment: (Page No. 2) Response C-B9. Similar to response C-B4, the IS/MND should
provide evidence supported by facts to substantiate the claim that this particular gas station will
not generate diesel truck traffic in any significant quantity, even though the site appears to be
designed to serve trucks. Diesel trucks are a significant contributor to environmental impacts,
especially in regards to noise, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. All potential impacts
need to be adequately identified in the IS/MND.
Furthermore, RV's, which also generate more noise and higher emissions than typical autos and
light-duty trucks, need to be adequately modeled in the vehicle fleet mix calculations . The
analysis should be updated to reflect an appropriate fleet mix with a higher rate of RV vehicles
(i.e. motorhomes, medium-heavy duty trucks, etc.). Based upon our review of the fleet mix used
in the FHWA roadway noise model and CalEEMod emissions calculations, no adjustments were
made to account for the higher rates of RV vehicles that would utilize the fueling facility.
B-A3 Response: For discussion relating to the analysis of heavy trucks, please see Response B-A3
above.
As detailed in the response to Comment B-6, the air and noise modeling is based on the vehicle
mixes found in the project vicinity and region, as the Proposed Project is anticipated to serve the
public, proportionally to the vehicle mix that currently operates in the project vicinity.
The RV and auto noise impacts are reflected in Table M, Fueling Pumps, which were based on a
similar type of gas station that served both RVs and autos in Atascadero. Table M shows that the
noise level created at the property lines would be as high as 41 dB, which is well below the 60 dB
threshold.
Comment B-A4: (Page No. 2-3) Response C-B11 . The issue regarding land use parameters and
operational emissions modeling has not been resolved. The project description in the IS/MND
states that the proposed travel center will include three (3) quick serve restaurants within the
convenience store. The quick serve restaurants will generate their own trips (beyond the internal
trips from customers using the gas station), require additional energy and water usage, and
generate more waste than a typical convenience market. Modeling all 8,360 square feet of the
travel center building as just a convenience store underestimates emissions.
RK did a quick comparison of the two land uses (convenience market vs. fast food restaurant
without drive-thru) and made the following observations; Utilizing the ITE Trip Generation
Manual and CalEEMod default parameters, and assuming 33% of the building area to be
restaurant space, on an annual basis the three (3) quick serve restaurants have the potential to;
• Generate an additional 3.4 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
105 | Page
• Use an additional 96,1 50 kilowatt hours of electricity
• Use an additional 748 million BTUs of natural gas
• Use an additional 560,000 gallons of water
• Generate an additional 23 tons of waste
See attachment B for the CalEEMod annual emissions report.
The increased energy usage associated with restaurant operation is significant and needs to be
considered when analyzing emissions. Therefore, the IS/MND should be revised to disclose all
potential air quality and GHG emissions associated with the operation of the three (3) quick serve
restaurants.
B-A4 Response: As detailed in the response to Comment B-7b, the commenter's proposed revisions
to the CalEEMod model parameters, would result in lowering the non-mobile source emissions
(i.e. area sources and energy usage). The only increase would occur from the additional vehicle
trips, however the Traffic Report utilized the correct project trip generation rates, so the
suggested revisions to the project trip generation are not warranted. Therefore, the commenter's
proposed revisions would actually result in lower emissions from the Proposed Project than what
was reported in the Air Report.
Comment B-A5: (Page No. 3-4) Response to C-816. The revised Air/GHG analysis fails to recognize
several key aspects of the project that are not consistent with the GHG reduction strategies and
measures described in the Lake Elsinore CAP, particularly with regards to transportation and land
use. For example;
• T-1.2, the project will not connect neighborhood activity centers, major
destinations and transit facilities, thus the benefit of the sidewalk along the
project frontage is minimal in terms of vehicle trip reduction.
• T-1 .6, the project does not provide for the expansion of transit routes and does
not indicate it would provide free or reduced cost monthly transit passes to
employees.
• T-3.1, the project is not considered a mixed-use, high density, infill or transit
oriented development, and the project is not located within the Historic and
Ballpark Districts.
• T-4.1, the IS/MND does not provide any information as to how the trip reduction
program will be enforced or how the project will provide training and incentives
for employee trip reduction.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
106 | Page
• T-5 . 1, the project does not facilitate the replacement of inefficient vehicles with
hybrids, plug-in electric and other low- and zero-emissions vehicles.
B-A5 Response: As detailed in B-7d, the Proposed Project has demonstrated consistency with the
CPA through implementation of 8 Project Design Features.
The Proposed Project will be required to implement 8 Project Design Features, in order to be
consistent with the City’s CAP. The project applicant does not have authority to control the
sidewalks or other non-motorized transportation facilities (such as paths/trails and bicycle lanes)
outside of its property. Once the adjacent, undeveloped parcels are developed, the City will ensure
that sidewalks and other non-motorized facilities are properly connected per the City’s CAP and/or
other approved plans (e.g., Circulation Element, Active Transportation Plan, etc.).
Comment B-A6: (Page No. 4) Additionally, the project has not provided an adequate response as
to how the project is consistent with the transportation and land use strategies of the CAP which
state, "the key to lower transportation -related emissions is to implement strategies that
decrease vehicle miles traveled and encourage the replacement of traditional vehicles with fuel
efficient and alternative energy vehicles. This involves providing more choices through greater
access to alternative forms of transportation including transit, biking and walking; diversified land
use patterns, and promoting development patterns where people can live, work and recreate
without having to drive great distances. It also involves encouraging the use of zero- or low
emission vehicles over conventional automobiles."
B-A6 Response: As detailed in B-7c, the Proposed Project would implement 8 Project Design
Features that are required to demonstrate consistency with the CAP, in addition, the Proposed
Project will need to meet the new Title 24 standards that went into effect on January 1, 2020 that
also require commercial projects to institute features to reduce vehicle miles travelled and
encourages the use of alternative powered vehicles.
Comment B-A7: (Page No. 4) This gas station project, which encourages the continued use of
fossil fuels, is not consistent with Lake Elsinore's CAP or the broader State and Global initiatives
to combat climate change. The GHG impact should be considered potentially significant.
B-A7 Response: The CAP does not provide any restrictions on the development of new gas stations
further it is an allowable use.
Comment B-A8: (Page No. 4) Based upon this 2nd review of the environmental Noise, Air Quality
and Greenhouse impact for the Kassab Travel Center Project, several issues previously raised
have not been adequately addressed and, as a result, the IS/MND does not disclose all potential
impacts from the proposed project. If you have any questions regarding this study, or would like
further review, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 474-0809 .
B-A8 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
107 | Page
Exhibit B
Comment B-B1: (Page No. 1) Below please find review comments for the Traffic Impact Study for
the Kassab Travel Center project in the City of Lake Elsinore - March 2019 Revised Traffic Study.
Our original review comments are shown first, and the new review comments on the revised
Traffic Study are shown in strike-out/underline format.
B-B1 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
Comment B-B2: (Page No. 1) The project proposes to change the General Plan land use
designation for the site from Limited Industrial to Commercial. A Commercial site would be a
more traffic-intensive use than the Limited Industrial use assumed in the General Plan. Why was
a Build-out scenario analysis not done? This would typically be done to determine whether or
not the Build-out transportation system can accommodate the additional trips associated with
the change in land use designation. - (COMMENT C-Al)
A Supplemental Build-out 2035 analysis was prepared in December 2017. and a copy was
provided at our request. The analysis assumed Build-out volumes based on the Riverside County
Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM). and Build-out intersection configurations based on the City of
Lake Elsinore General Plan. The analysis demonstrated that the project traffic would not result in
adverse impacts. and that the future Build-out transportation network would accommodate the
project traffic.
B-B2 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
Comment B-B3: (Page No. 1-2) Page 14 says that traffic counts that were collected in 2014 and
2016 were grown by 2% per year to bring them to 2017 conditions. Checking the traffic count
data collection sheets against the volumes on Figure 9 and in the Synchro worksheets, this was
not done. - (COMMENT C-AZ)
The traffic volumes have been revised so that all traffic counts prior to 2017 have been grown 2%
per year to 2017 conditions. and the Figures. Intersection analysis. and results tables have been
revised. FYI. in addition to the revised intersection tables. each of the original intersection tables
from the prior study immediately follow the revised table in the report. presumably to facilitate
the reader's ability to compare results.
B-B3 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
Comment B-B4: (Page No. 2) 2.The AM existing volumes for Intersection# 6 - Collier at Central
are wrong on Figure 9 and in the Synchro worksheets - the Figure and the Synchro worksheets
show the PM peak hour volumes, not the AM volumes. All analyses and conclusions that use
these incorrect volumes would need to be corrected. - (COMMENT C-AZ a and b)
The AM volumes have been corrected and the analysis has been revised.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
108 | Page
B-B4 Response: The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
Comment B-B5: (Page No. 2-3) The pass-by assumptions for the Gas Station with Convenience
Store and Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-through are based on pass-by rates published in the
ITE Trip Generation Handbook. but the Traffic Study Engineer should make sure . that the
assumptions about the amount of pass-by traffic for this particular project site are reasonable,
given the volume of traffic on the roadway from which the pass-by traffic is coming. - (COMMENT
C-A3)
The analysis assumes that 71% to 85% of the pass-by trips will enter and exit the driveway on
Collier Avenue, north of Riverside Drive. The existing volume of traffic on this segment of Collier
Avenue is only 6,540 trips per day, with 229 trips in the morning peak hour and 588 trips in the
evening hour. The pass-by trips that are assumed to come from this traffic stream represent 30%
of the existing available daily trips, 63% of the existing morning peak hour, and 25% of the existing
evening peak hour trips. Given the low volume of traffic on this roadway segment, and given that
there are other gas station and fast food restaurant choices in the immediate vicinity, this seems
like an overly aggressive pass-by assumption for this one site. The net new Project trips that
would be added to the transportation system, and the resulting Project-related impacts may be
understated. - (COMMENT C-A3a)
The revised study did not modify the pass-by assumptions.
It is unclear what is meant in the response to this comment. which says. "The trip generation
analysis assumes that the project is operating at its full operational capacity as no other
reductions in trip generation were applied (i.e.. 50% operation. 75% operation, etc.)."
Traffic impact analysis is always based on the assumption that the project will operate at its full
operational capacity. Assuming full operations is not a conservative approach - full operations
would always be the base. required assumption . The level of project operation has nothing to
do with pass-by traffic assumptions .
Pass-by traffic has to do with the volume of traffic that is already driving past the site, going from
Point A to Point B (i.e.. a person driving to work or home from work). A pass-by trip would be
someone who is already currently driving past the project site. and who could be expected to
stop and patronize the business. and then continue on their way.
The analysis needs to ensure that there is enough background traffic already on the road to
support the pass-by traffic assumption.
The volume of traffic passing the site on Riverside Drive are sufficiently high to support the
amount of pass-by traffic assumed.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
109 | Page
However. traffic volume passing the site on Collier Avenue is much less. and the report assumes
that 24% to 46% of the morning traffic that is already driving along Collier Avenue past the project
site today would stop at the Travel Center each morning. and then continue on its way.
The ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition) states. "If application of a pass-by percentage
results in an unrealistic reduction in the calculated through volume on the adjacent road, the
pass-by percentage should be re-evaluated for reasonableness. For example. it is unlikely for a
site's pass -by traffic to represent the majority of adjacent street traffic."
B-B5 Response: Please see response to Comment B-8a above.
Comment B-B6: (Page No. 3-4) 1. It is not entirely clear how the pass-by trips were assigned
throughout the study area, but based on the trip assignments at the driveways shown on Figures
6 and 7, it appears that the pass-by assumptions include pass-by trips to and from the freeway -
30% to and from the north, and 37% to and from the south. - (COMMENT C-A4)
If this is the case, the net new Project trips that would be added to the transportation system,
and the resulting Project-related impacts may be understated for the following reason.
A pass -by trip that exits the freeway at one location, travels to the site, and then continues its
trip on the freeway in the same direction would be a diverted trip, and must be added to each
study intersection that it would travel through between the freeway exit location and the
freeway entrance location. Specifically, any freeway trips that are assumed to be pass -by trips
must be shown as a diverted trip at Intersections # 1 through 8. A few movements will be negative
trips, but most will be added trips that must be taken into account._- (COMMENT C-A5)
The response to these comment states that. "The project site is not located adjacent to a freeway
interchange (e.g.,1-15 at Nichols Road and Central Avenue), therefore, pass- by trips are not
primarily based on freeway traffic, as there are already gas stations at both interchanges on I-
15."
This response to comments C-A4 and C-AS is in conflict with the project trip assumptions and
analysis, for the following reasons:
•The Project Trip Distribution on Figure 4 shows that 67% of the project traffic was assigned to
the 1-15 Freeway- 30% to the north, and 37% to the south.
•Whether the project traffic that uses the freeway to get to and from the Travel Center is pass-
by traffic or not it is not traffic that is currently "passing by" the Travel Center site.
•Any vehicles that exit the freeway to get to the Travel Center will be all new trips added to the
Collier, Nichols, and Center intersections. The project trips to and from the freeway will be new,
added trips through the interchanges and all intervening intersections,
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
110 | Page
•The analysis should include the full project trip generation without the pass- by reduction at
these intersections.
B-B6 Response: Please see responses Comments B-8a and B-8b above.
Comment B-B7: (Page No. 4) The report repeatedly recommends converting Intersection #1 - 1-
15 NB Ramps at Nichols and Intersection #3 - Collier at Nichols from a two-way stop-controlled
intersection to an all-way stop-controlled intersection, even though both intersections would
warrant a traffic signal in the future. - (COMMENT C-A6)
•At Intersection #1 - I-15 NB Ramps at Nichols, the future northbound left turn (216 AM, 335 PM
trips) would experience substantial delay. All other movements through the intersection operate
free ly, with little or no delay. - (COMMENT C- A6a)
•At Intersection #3 - Collier at Nichols, the future northbound left turn (31 AM, 96 PM trips)
would experience unacceptable delay. All other movements through the intersection operate
freely, with little or no delay. - (COMMENT C-A6b)
•The recommendation to convert these inter sections to an all-way stop-controlled intersection
would benefit only the northbound movement, and would require the thousands of vehicles on
all other movements - which now proceed through the intersection with little delay or no delay
at all - to stop. This would substantially increase the total seconds of delay through the
intersection, inconveniencing drivers, and having the added negative impacts on air quality and
gas consumption. - (COMMENT C-A6c)
While the analysis provided in the response are technically accurate, we still question the wisdom
of implementing an improvement that would require hundreds, and in some cases. thousands of
vehicles on all the other approaches to stop, because of the delay on a minor movement.
B-B7 Response: The previous response submitted in September 2019 addressed this comment,
and is provided as follows:
At Intersection #3 - Collier Avenue and Nichols Road, while delays at the northbound left turn
movement would increase with the implementation of the mitigation measure (conversion to all-
way stop control), the total intersection delay with all way stop control is forecast to result in
satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better) which would mitigate the Proposed Project's potential impact.
Furthermore, the queuing analysis indicates that the forecast queue for the northbound left turn
lane would be 36 feet in the AM peak hour and 65 feet in the PM peak hour, both of which can be
accommodated within the existing storage lane.
Per the prescribed mitigation measure at Collier Avenue/Nichols Road (conversion to all-way stop
control), implementation of the measure would result in improved intersection LOS with no
impacts to vehicle queues. The comment is acknowledged. No further response is required.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
111 | Page
Comment B-B8: (Page No. 4-5) On page 43, the 3rd bullet identifies the following mitigation for
the intersection of Collier at Riverside: Restripe two southbound through lanes to one
southbound through and one southbound through-left lane. Based on the subsequent Mitigation
Figures, Tables, and Synchro mitigation worksheets, it appears this bullet should be referring to
Intersection #6 - Collier at Central. - (COMMENT C-A7)
•This same mis-reference occurs on page v - 3rd bullet from the bottom; and on page 53 - 3rct
bullet and sub-bullet. - (COMMENT C-A7a)
This issue has been corrected on page 49 and page 61 of the revised report. It has not been
corrected on page v of the Executive Summary.
B-B8 Response: The Executive Summary has been revised to match the mitigations listed on page
49 and page 61 of the revised TIS.
Comment B-B9: (Page No. 5) Chapter 9 - page 41: The report presents conflicting conclusions
regarding the project's responsibility toward the recommended mitigation measures. -
(COMMENT C-A8)
•On page 41, it indicates the project would be 100% responsible for improvements at
Intersection #1 - I-15 NB Ramps at Nichols and Intersection #3 - Collier at Nichols. - (COMMENT
C-A8a)
•On the same page, near the bottom, it indicates that the project would only need to pay its fair
share toward the same mitigation mentioned above for Intersection #1, and on page 42 indicates
that the project would construct the same mitigation mentioned above for Intersection #3. -
(COMMENT C-A8b)
•On the top of page 43, the report indicates that the project responsibility toward all mitigation
improvements, including those mentioned above, would only be its fair-share payment. -
(COMMENT C-A8c)
Under the Existing plus Project heading on page 46, the report says that the project will construct
the improvements at I-15 NB Ramps/Nichols Road, Collier Avenue/ Nichols Road, and Gunnerson
Street/Riverside Drive. Under the Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project heading. the report
says that the project will pay its fair share for the very same improvements. These contradictory
statements should be reconciled.
On a related note, any impacted intersections that are on a State Highway are under Caltrans'
jurisdiction, and any improvement needed to mitigate the project impact will require
coordination with and permission from Caltrans.
B-B9 Response: Please see response to Comment B-B8 and B-8c above. The ISMND notes that
Caltrans approval is required.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
112 | Page
3. REVISIONS TO THE IS/MND
In response to comments, minor clarifying revisions were made to the Recirculated Draft IS/MND and Appendices A and K.
Revisions to the Recirculated Draft IS/MND:
The following revisions corresponding to those made in Appendices A and K were made:
• Figure 3 – Site Plan on Page 16 was updated to show Electric Vehicle parking stalls in accordance with 2019 CalGreen
standards
• Page 55
• Citations to the revision dates for Appendices A and K.
Revisions to Appendix A:
Revisions clarify that the Proposed Project would comply with the latest 2019 CalGreen standards. Appendix A “Air Quality GHG
Impact Analysis” pages 4-6, 25-26, 35-36, 52 and 54 have been revised.
Revisions to Appendix K:
Revisions clarify:
• Peak hour volumes at the I-15 NB Ramps/Nichols Road intersection would not satisfy peak hour signal warrant for AM peak
hour
• The City and Caltrans recently converted this intersection to an-all-way stop configuration consistent with MM TRAF-1.
Appendix K “Traffic Impact Analysis” pages iv, v157, 42, 43, 48, 53, and 54 have been revised.
No further revisions to the Recirculated Draft IS/MND were required based upon: (1) additional or revised information required to
prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of IS/MND
publication; and/or (3) typographical errors.
Kassab Travel Center Project
Recirculated Draft IS/MND
Response to Comments/Errata
113 | Page
Corresponding revisions to MM TRAF-1 were made on page 159 the Recirculated Draft IS/MND and are shown in blue
strikeout/underline:
MITIGATION
NUMBER TIMING MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE
FOR
MONITORING
COMPLETION
MM TRAF-1
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the Property
Owner/Developer shall pay its fair-share to construct the
following improvements
• Intersection #1: I-15 NB Ramps/Nichols Road – Although The
peak hour volumes at this intersection would not satisfy the
peak hour signal warrant for the AM peak hour, a signal is not
needed to improve LOS back to LOS D or better. The following
improvement is needed to mitigate intersection LOS:
o Convert this intersection into an all-way-stop. With this
mitigation, the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS
B during both the AM and PM.
o While delays at the northbound left turn movement
would increase with the implementation of this
measure, the total intersection delay with all-way stop
control is forecast to result in satisfactory LOS (LOS D or
better) which would mitigate the project's impact.
Furthermore, the queuing analysis indicates that the
forecast queue for the northbound left turn lane would
be accommodated within the existing storage lane.
o The City and Caltrans have recently converted this
intersection to an all-way-stop configuration consistent
with this mitigation measure. Therefore, the requirement
for this mitigation measure has been satisfied.
Building and
Planning
Dept.