HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA 2018-49 - Exhibit F ISMND (2)Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 1 of 109
PENNINGTON INDUSTRIAL
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2018-49
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 37710
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2019-01
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2019-03
(INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
Prepared By:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Applicant:
FAIRWAY COMMERCIAL PARTNERS
Rod Oshita
1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 401
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
December 2019
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 2 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 3 of 109
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4
A. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................... 5
B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ....................................................................................... 5
C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ................................... 6
D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY ............................................................................................................... 6
E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 7
F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES ............................ 8
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 12
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ...................................................................................................... 12
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 18
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................ 34
A. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 34
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................................ 36
C. DETERMINATION ................................................................................................................................ 36
D. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... 37
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 45
I. AESTHETICS .......................................................................................................................................... 45
II.AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 47
III.AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................... 49
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................... 59
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 62
VI.ENERGY .............................................................................................................................................. 65
VII.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. ....................................................................................................................... 66
VIII.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................ 73
IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................................... 75
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................... 78
XI.LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................................................................. 84
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 85
XIII.NOISE ............................................................................................................................................... 86
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................................... 90
XV.PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 91
XVI. RECREATION .................................................................................................................................... 94
XVII.TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................................................... 95
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 100
XIX.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 102
XX.WILDFIRES ....................................................................................................................................... 104
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................... 104
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ..................................................................................... 107
VII. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 107
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 4 of 109
Figures
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2 – Project Site ................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3 – Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4 – Tentative Parcel Map .................................................................................................. 22
Figure 5 – Conceptual Grading Plan .............................................................................................. 24
Figure 6 – Elevations Building 1 .................................................................................................... 26
Figure 7 – Elevations Building 2 .................................................................................................... 28
Figure 8 – Elevations Building 3 .................................................................................................... 30
Figure 9 – Conceptual Landscape Plan ........................................................................................ 32
Tables
Table 1: On-site and Adjacent Land Use ....................................................................................... 12
Table 2: Overall Construction Emissions Summary ...................................................................... 53
Table 3: Summary of Operational Emissions ................................................................................ 55
Table 4: Localized Significance Summary of Construction ........................................................... 57
Table 5: Localized Significance Summary of Operations .............................................................. 58
Table 6: Project GHG Emissions .................................................................................................... 73
Table 7: Unmitigated Operational Noise Level Compliance ......................................................... 86
Table 8: Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary ........................................ 87
Table 9: Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance ..................................... 88
Table 10: Mitigated Grading Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................. 88
Table 11: Unmitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ............................................... 89
Table 12: Mitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels .................................................... 90
Table 13: Project Trip Generation Summary (06/17/2019) .......................................................... 96
Table 14: Collier Avenue (NS) / Chaney Street (EW) Intersection Analysis Results ..................... 97
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 5 of 109
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of Pennington Industrial Project. For purposes of this document, this
application will be called the “proposed project”.
B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
As defined by Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the
necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular
proposal if the following conditions occur:
The project has the potential to: substantially degrade the quality of the environment;
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable.
The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(a), a Negative
Declaration can be adopted if it can be determined that the project will not have a significant
effect on the environment.
According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated
Negative Declaration can be adopted if it is determined that although the Initial Study
identifies that the project may have potentially significant effects on the environment,
revisions in the project plans and/or mitigation measures, which would avoid or mitigate the
effects to below the level of significance, have been made or agreed to by the applicant.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 6 of 109
This Initial Study has determined that the proposed project may result in potentially
significant environmental effects but that said effects can be reduced to below the level of
significance through the implementation of mitigation measures and therefore, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary
environmental evaluations and clearance.
This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 , as amended (Public Resources Code, Section
21000 et seq.); the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA Guidelines”), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.); applicable requirements of the City of Lake
Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public
agency or agency with jurisdiction by law.
The City of Lake Elsinore is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of
the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon
the environment.
C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents which are
intended to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision-makers, other responsible or interested
agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental effects of the proposed
project. The environmental review process has been established to en able public agencies
to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of
eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that
consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other
responsible agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public
objectives, including economic and social goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021).
The City of Lake Elsinore City Council, as Lead Agency, has determined that env ironmental
clearance for the proposed project can be provided with a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Initial Study and Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review.
Comments received on the document will be considered by the Lead Agency before it acts on
the proposed project.
D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the exist ing setting and
environmental implications of the proposed project.
I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 7 of 109
of Lake Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review,
environmental procedures, and incorporation by reference documents.
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of discretionary
approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included.
III.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City’s Environmental Checklist Form.
The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project
and those areas that would have either a potentially significant impact, a less than significant
impact with mitigation incorporated, a less than significant impact, or no impact.
IV.ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS provides the background analysis supporting each response
provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form
is discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response
discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation.
In this section, mitigation measures are also set forth, as appropriate, that would reduce
potentially significant adverse impacts to levels of less than significance.
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents the background analysis supporting each response
provided in the environmental checklist form for the Mandatory Findings of Significance set
forth in Section 21083(b) of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those individuals consulted and
involved in the preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.
VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document.
E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist
Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of
the Initial Study. All responses will take into account the whole action involved, including
offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated
and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses,
including:
1.No Impact: A “No Impact” response is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed
project. A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project -
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2.Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project implementation
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 8 of 109
will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be
less than the levels of thresholds that are considered significant and no additional
analysis is required.
3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation
measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
4. Potentially Significant Impact: There is substantial evidence that the proposed
project may have impacts that are considered potentially significant and an EIR is
required.
F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES
Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on the
incorporation by reference of tiered documentation and technical studies that have been
prepared for the proposed project which are discussed in the following section.
1. Tiered Documents
As permitted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a)the analysis of general matters contained
in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs
and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general
discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration
solely on the issues specific to the later project.
Tiering is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15385 as follows:
“Tiering” refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general
plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site-specific EIRs
incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues
specific to the EIR subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the se quence of
EIRs is:
(a) From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIR of lesser
scope or to a site-specific EIR;
(b) From an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or a supplement
to an EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the Lead
Agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from
consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe.
Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines,
which discourages repetitive analyses, as follows:
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 9 of 109
“Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for
separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development
projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussion s of the same issues and focus
the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of
environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an
EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for
another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative
declaration.”
Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
“Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance
consistent with the requirements of this section, an y lead agency for a later project
pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR
or negative declaration on the later project to effects which:
(1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or
(2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific
revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions or other means.”
For this document, the “City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program
Environmental Impact Report” certified December 13, 2011 (SCH #2005121019) serves as the
broader document, since it analyzes the entire City area, which includes the proposed project
site. However, as discussed, site-specific impacts, which the broader document (City of Lake
Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report)
cannot adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This document, therefore,
evaluates each environmental issue alone and will rely upon the analysis contained within
the Lake Elsinore General Plan Final EIR with respect to remaining issue areas.
2.Incorporation by Reference
An EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another
document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all
or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall
be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Dec laration.
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a])
Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs/MND and is most
appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general
background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project
itself. This procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a
broadly-drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes
Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative
Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the
EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 10 of 109
Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]).
When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the
incorporation must comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as follows:
Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, such other document
shall be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building.
The EIR or Negative Declaration shall state where the incorporated documents will be
available for inspection. At a minimum, the incorporated document shall be made
available to the public in an office of the Lead Agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section
15150[b])
The incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where
possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The
relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR
shall be described. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c])
This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated
document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]).
3.Documents Incorporated by Reference/Technical Studies
a. The following document(s) is/are incorporated by reference:
City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental
Impact Report (“General Plan EIR”) (SCH #2005121019), certified December 13, 2011.
The General Plan EIR, from which this document is tiered, addresses the entire City of
Lake Elsinore and provides background and inventory information and data which
apply to the project site. Incorporated information and/or data will be cited in the
appropriate sections.
b.Various technical reports have been prepared to assess specific issues that may result from
the construction and operation of the proposed project. As relevant, information from these
technical reports has been incorporated into the Initial Study. The following technical reports
are included as appendices to this Initial Study:
Appendix A - Air Quality Impact Analysis, Pennington Industrial Project, City of Lake
Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated July 10, 2019
Appendix B – Cultural Resources Inventory for the Pennington Project, Lake Elsinore,
California, prepared by DUDEK, dated November 4, 2019
Appendix C – Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report Proposed Commercial
Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 377-160-014, South Corner of Chaney & West
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 11 of 109
Minthorn Streets, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, prepared by CW
Soils, dated February 27, 2019
Appendix D - Environmental Site Assessment - Phase I, Undeveloped Property, APN:
377-160-014, Southern corner of West Minthorn Street and Chaney Street, Lake
Elsinore, California 92530, prepared by California Environmental, dated July 2018
Appendix E – Preliminary Drainage Report for Pennington Industrial, South Corner of
Chaney & West Minthorn Streets, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California,
prepared by SB&O Inc., dated May 17, 2019
Appendix F - Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Pennington Industrial
Park, prepared by SB&O Inc., dated February 27, 2019 (Revised May 17, 2019)
Appendix G - Noise Impact Analysis, Pennington Industrial, City of Lake Elsinore,
prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated July 23, 2019
Appendix H – Greenhous Gas Analysis, Pennington Industrial Project, City of Lake
Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated July 10, 2019
Appendix I – Focused Traffic Evaluation, Pennington Industrial Project, City of Lake
Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated July 29, 2019
Appendix J - Service Planning Letter #3223-0, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District,
May 20, 2019
c.The above-listed documents and technical studies are available for review at:
City of Lake Elsinore
Planning Division
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Hours: Mon-Thurs: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Friday: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Closed Holidays
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 12 of 109
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
Development of the Pennington Industrial project (Project) would occur on a currently
undeveloped site located at the southeasterly corner of Chaney Street and Minthorn Street in
the City of Lake Elsinore (City) (Figure 1, Vicinity Map and Figure 2, Project Site). The
approximately 5.01 acre1 Project site is located within Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 4
West as shown on the Elsinore, California 7.5 minute U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic
map. The subject property is relatively flat. The topographic elevation of the subject property
ranges from approximately 1,282 to 1,285 feet above mean sea level.
The Project site is bounded by commercial and industrial land uses to the north and west, Lake
Elsinore Unified School District and Ortega High School to the south, and Government offices to
the east. Table 1, On-site and Adjacent Land Use, summarizes on-site and adjacent land use
while Figure 1 illustrates project location and Figure 2 shows the existing site condition.
Table 1: On-site and Adjacent Land Use
Land Use General Plan Zoning
On-site Undeveloped Limited Industrial (LI) Limited Manufacturing (M-1)
North Industrial Limited Industrial (LI) Limited Manufacturing (M-1)
South School District Public Institutional (PI) Public Institutional (PI)
East Government Offices Limited Industrial (LI) Limited Manufacturing (M-1)
West Commercial Limited Industrial (LI) Commercial Manufacturing (C-M)
1 Assessor Parcel No. 377-160-014
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 13 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 14 of 109
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 15 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 16 of 109
Figure 2 – Project Site
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 17 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 18 of 109
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Project consists of applications for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 37710) and
Industrial Design Review (IDR No. 2019-01) which collectively are being processed under Planning
Application No. 2018-49.
TPM No. 37710 is proposing to subdivide the 5.01 gross acre site into three (3) parcels that are
1.06 acres, 1.72 acres, and 2.01 acres, respectively (Figure 4, Tentative Parcel Map).
IDR No. 2019-01 is proposing to construct three (3) industrial buildings that are 91,140 square
foot (SF) in total with 167 parking spaces (Figure 3, Site Plan). Building 1 will have 32,940 SF gross
floor area, Building 2 will have 39,000 SF gross floor area, and Building 3 will have 19,200 SF gloss
floor area. Each building will consist of a planned open warehouse with truck access doors and a
planned office area with mezzanine level. The Proposed Project would have a 0.44 floor area ratio
(FAR) and 41 percent lot coverage. The maximum height of the buildings would be 30 feet.
Hardscape, landscape, on-site stormwater management improvements, trash enclosure, and
area lighting would be constructed as part of the Proposed Project.
It is anticipated that preparation of the site for construction will not require the import or export
of soil from the Project site. Grading plans for the Project will be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to the issuance of grading permits. All grading plans and activities will conform to the
City grading ordinance and dust and erosion control requirements. The opening year for the
project is anticipated to be 2021 and will take approximately 12 months to construct. There is an
on-site man-made detention basin on the northeast corner of the site which will be removed
during construction and replaced with on-site catch basins.
Two access driveways are proposed: (1) the northerly driveway to W. Minthorn Street, located
320 feet (curb return‐to‐curb return) east of Chaney Street, and (2) the westerly dri veway located
south of W. Minthorn Street, opposite the driveway of the adjacent property.
Proposed Improvements
Off-site improvements include streets, streetlights, striping, and connection to sewer, water, and
utilities. On-site improvements include drainage, sewer, water, utilities, and grading.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 19 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 20 of 109
Figure 3 – Site Plan
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 21 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 22 of 109
Figure 4 – Tentative Parcel Map
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 23 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 24 of 109
Figure 5 – Conceptual Grading Plan
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 25 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 26 of 109
Figure 6 – Elevations Building 1
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 27 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 28 of 109
Figure 7 – Elevations Building 2
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 29 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 30 of 109
Figure 8 – Elevations Building 3
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 31 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 32 of 109
Figure 9 – Conceptual Landscape Plan
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 33 of 109
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 34 of 109
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Pennington Industrial
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner
(951) 674-3124
4. Project Location: : Undeveloped site located at the southeasterly corner of Chaney Street
and Minthorn Street in the City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside; Assessor’s Parcel Number
[APN] 377-160-014.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Fairway Commercial Partners, Inc.
Rod Oshita
1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd., #401
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
6. General Plan Designation: Limited Industrial (LI)
7. Zoning: Limited Manufacturing (M-1)
8. Description of Project: TPM No. 37710 is proposing to subdivide the 5.01 gross acre site
into three (3) parcels that are 1.06 acres, 1.72 acres, and 2.01 acres, respectively. IDR No. 2019-
01 is proposing to construct three (3) industrial buildings that are 91,140 square foot (SF) in
total with 167 parking spaces. The Proposed Project would have a 0.44 floor area ratio (FAR)
and 41 percent lot coverage. The maximum height of the buildings would be 30 feet.
Hardscape, landscape, on-site stormwater management improvements, trash enclosure, and
area lighting would be constructed as part of the Proposed Project.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property consists of one (1) square shaped parcel
of land that encompasses approximately 5.01 acres. The Project site is currently vacant with
construction materials debris pile observed in the south corner of the site. The Project site is
bounded by commercial and industrial land uses to the north and west, Lake Elsinore Unified
School District and Ortega High School to the south, and Government offices to the east.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: None
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1?
If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of
significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality,
etc.?: In accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City sent notifications
to six Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area on
August 28, 2019. Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the Pechanga Band
of Luiseño Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians req uested formal government-to-
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 35 of 109
government consultation under AB 52. Consultation was concluded on November 8, 2019 with
Rincon and on December 13, 2019 with both Pechanga and Soboba. Due to the level of
disturbance at the project site, it is very unlikely that intact archaeological resources are still
present subsurface. No cultural resources have been recorded within the project site, and no
resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. Standard mitigation measures have
been added to address the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and human remains
during groundbreaking activities. Please see Section XVIII of the Initial Study Environmental
Checklist for more detail.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 37 of 109
D. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality public views of
the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest uses?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use?
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 38 of 109
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 39 of 109
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 40 of 109
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 41 of 109
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or other applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 42 of 109
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public services/facilities?
XVI. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited
to level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 43 of 109
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a sit e, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 44 of 109
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 45 of 109
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the
Environmental Checklist. A complete list of the reference sources applicable to the following
source abbreviations is contained in Section VII, References, of this document.
I. AESTHETICS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less than Significant Impact)
The most notable aesthetic resource in the City of Lake Elsinore (City) is Lake Elsinore itself, a
3,000-acre natural lake. The City’s aesthetic setting is characterized by urbanized development
of various densities occurring within varied topographical features and interspersed with
undeveloped natural areas. Scenic resources within and surrounding the City include the lake,
portions of the Cleveland National Forest, rugged hillside land, distant mountains and ridgelines,
rocky outcroppings, streams, vacant land with native vegetation, parkland, and buildings of
historical and cultural significance such as the cultural center, bathhouse, and military academy.
The Project site is currently vacant and is bounded by commercial and industrial land uses to the
north and west, Lake Elsinore Unified School District and Ortega High School to the south, and
Government offices to the east. The proposed Project is located approximately 0.90 mile north
from Lake Elsinore (water body) and does not propose any building heights in excess of those
that are allowed by the City’s Zoning Code; building heights will be 30 feet. Views of the scenic
resources within and surrounding the City as described above, are the prominent scenic vistas in
the area. However, the Project will not impede any of these views. Thus, the proposed Project
will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, impacts are less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR; Google Earth; Project Description )
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less than Significant
Impact)
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) currently identifies both I -15 and SR-74
as eligible for listing as state scenic highways, but they are not officially designated as such. The
proposed Project is approximately 1.40 miles from SR-74 and approximately 0.20 miles from I-
15. However, any potential visual impacts will be addressed through the City’s design review
process.
Additionally, the City has local ordinances that protect the City’s streetscape and trees. The City’s
Municipal Code includes a City Tree Preservation Ordinance (Ord. 1256). There are no trees
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 46 of 109
currently located within the Project site. The proposed Project will comply with Ord. 1256 to
ensure the preservation of trees and the local streetscape. The City of Lake Elsinore has also
determined that certain species of palm trees in the family Palmaceae are locally significant
resources through the City Significant Palm Tree Ordinance (Ord. 1160). However, no palms occur
on the Project site. Thus, through compliance with local ordinances and the City’s design review
process, any potential impact to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway will be less than significant.
Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required
(Sources: General Plan EIR; LEMC)
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the pro ject
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less than
Significant)
According to mapping information from the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG), which is based on U.S. Census data for urbanized areas, the Project Site is not located
within an urbanized area. The Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The Project site consists of a vacant
parcel located in a mixed undeveloped and commercial area of the City. The site is surrounded
by commercial and industrial land uses to the north and west, Lake Elsinore Unified School
District and Ortega High School to the south, and Government offices to the east. The Proposed
Project would include construction of construct three (3) industrial buildings that are 91,140
square foot (SF) in total with 167 parking spaces. No structures are being proposed that would
diminish the existing visual character of the area or block views of the distant mountains and
ridgelines. The Proposed Project is consistent with the intended land use for the area and meets
development standards guiding the visual character of the site. The resulting aesthetic would be
more organized, unified and urban, compared to the existing conditions. While the Proposed
Project would markedly change the visual quality of the Project Site, it would not degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site or surroundings. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Project Description; SGAG)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (Less than Significant Impact)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 47 of 109
According to the City’s General Plan, light and glare impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory
are of concern to the City. Areas of light pollution impacts have been identified through a “ring
analysis,” where primary impacts to the Observatory are within a 30-mile radius, and secondary
impacts are up to 45 miles. According to the General Plan Figure 4.12, the P roject site is within
the 45-mile secondary impacts radius. The proposed Project would introduce light features to
the vacant Project site. Accordingly, the new buildings and associated components would include
lighting features typical of commercial developments, such as security lighting and indoor
lighting. However, while the Proposed Project would introduce new sources of light, all lighting
fixtures would comply with Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.112.040 Lighting (for
Nonresidential Development). Section 17.112.040 requires all outdoor lighting fixtures in excess
of 60 watts to be oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane
passing through the luminaire and prevent any glare or illumination on adjacent properties or
streets. This section of the LEMC encourages the use of low-pressure sodium vapor lighting due
to the City’s proximity to the Mount Palomar Observatory.
The Proposed Project would also introduce new sources of daytime glare due to the new building
surfaces and vehicles traveling to and from the site. However, the glare created by the proposed
development would be consistent with the levels of glare that ar e emitted by the surrounding
development. The Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with light or glare would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts are less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: LEMC, General Plan, Design Review Application)
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No
Impact)
Agricultural uses constitute approximately 0.8 percent of the City’s total acreage and are
designated by the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) as Farmland of
Local Importance (554 acres within the City), Grazing Land (827 acres within the City), and Unique
Farmland (25 acres within the City). Remaining land is considered Urban/Built-Up Land or Other
Land, reflecting its developed uses or other characteristics making it unsuitable for agriculture.
None of the farmland designations app lied to land within the City or Sphere of Influence (SOI) is
considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the State
of California.
According to the California Department of Conservation California Important Farmland F inder,
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 48 of 109
the Project site consists of Urban/Built-Up Land. Thus, the proposed Project will not convert any
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no impacts
are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: FMMP; General Plan EIR)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact)
The proposed Project is not located within or adjacent to a Williamson Act contract as there are
no Williamson Act agricultural preserves located within the City. Additionally, the Project site is
zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and surrounded by commercial, manufacturing and
public/institutional zoning designations. The Proposed Project would not conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the proposed Project will not
conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: DOC WA; General Plan EIR; Zoning Map)
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest l and (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))? (No Impact)
The proposed Project site is within the City of Lake Elsinore, which does not have zoning
designated for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production within City
limits. Further, the site does not contain forestland or timberland. Thus, there is no conflict with
existing zoning and no cause for rezoning of land related to forestland or timberland. Therefore,
no impacts are anticipated
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Zoning Map)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? (No Impact)
As indicated in Section II(c), the City does not have a zoning designation for forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production within City limits. In addition, the Project
Site is currently vacant and is bounded by commercial and industrial land uses to the north and
west, Lake Elsinore Unified School District and Ortega High School to the south, and Government
offices to the east. The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with forest land would occur.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 49 of 109
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Zoning Map)
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use? (No Impact)
Historical site utilization research indicates the subject property was undeveloped from at least
1938 until 2005. Light agricultural use is evident on air photos in the 1940s and 1950s. From 2009
until 2010, the property was utilized as a contractor’s storage yard. The property is currently
vacant. Any agricultural setting that may have existed around the Proposed Project area has been
developed with modern commercial, industrial, and school structures.
No agricultural activities are presently occurring on-site. The existing condition on-site is vacant
and undeveloped. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the existing zoning designation
of Limited Manufacturing (M-1). The Proposed Project does not result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impacts associated with farmland would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Phase I ESA - Appendix D; Project Description; Zoning Map)
III. AIR QUALITY
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than
Significant Impact)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies
between a Proposed Project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the Proposed Project includes the SC AQMD
AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the Proposed Project
with the AQMP.
The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality.
The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square-mile area consisting of the
four-county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what use to be
referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally
responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the SCAG, county transportation
commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from
stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality s tandards.
Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB.
In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient
air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 50 of 109
emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution
control on the economy.
In March 2017, the AQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate
current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS, as well as, explore new
and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive
programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy
with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (46). Similar to the 2012 AQMP,
the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions,
including the 2016 RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and
transportation to help the region meet the federal Clean Air Act requirements (20).
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including
land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be
analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually
not required. A Proposed Project would b e consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more
policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key
indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air
quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality
standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
(2) Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the
year of project buildout and phase.
Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations
Construction Impacts
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS
violations would occur if LSTs or regional significance thresholds were exceeded. As evaluated,
the Project’s regional and localized construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable
regional significance threshold and LST thresholds. As such, a less than significan t impact is
expected.
Operational Impacts
As evaluated, the Project’s regional and localized operational-source emissions would not exceed
applicable regional significance threshold and LST thresholds. As such, a less than significant
impact is expected.
Based on the information provided above, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the
first criterion.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 51 of 109
Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP
The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved
within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans
adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth
forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development
consistent with the growth projections in the City’s General Plan is considered to be consistent
with the AQMP.
Construction Impacts
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use
assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.
Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential
would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities.
Operational Impacts
The Project Site is designated as Limited Industrial (LI) in the Business District Plan and is zoned
Light Manufacturing (M-1). The Proposed Project is consistent with the current land use
designation and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. The proposed
Project consists of 91,140 square feet of manufacturing use, which is consistent with the site’s
Zoning designation and intensity. Additionally, the Project’s construction and operational-source
air pollutant emissions would not exceed the regional or localized significance thresholds. The
Proposed Project would not exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project Site and is found to
be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.
The Project would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. The proposed Project is
consistent with the land use and growth intensities reflected in the adopted General Plan.
Furthermore, the Project would not exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: AQ Analysis – Appendix A)
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard? (Less than Significant Impact)
The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 52 of 109
for ozone precursors).
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area.
However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources,
which travel throughout the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative
analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered would
cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the Proposed Project’s air
quality must be generic by nature. The project area is out of attainment for ozone and PM10 and
PM2.5 particulate matter. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this analysis of
cumulative impacts incorporates a three-tiered approach to assess cumulative air quality
impacts.
Consistency with the SCAQMD project specific thresholds for construction and
operations;
Project consistency with existing air quality plans; and
Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants.
Consistency with Project Specific Thresholds
Construction Emissions
The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is currently designated by the EPA
for federal standards as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and by CARB for the state
standards as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. On October 17, 2017, the
SCAQMD in conjunction with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
and other California air districts, released the latest version of the California Emissions Estimator
Model™ (CalEEMod™) v2016.3.2. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction -source
and operational-source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG
reductions achieved from mitigation measures. Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod™ has
been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality emis sions.
Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO,
PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from site preparation, grading,
building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. The SCAQMD Rules that are
currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust)
(2) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (3).
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized on
Table 2. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not
exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria
pollutant.
Therefore, potential regional air quality impacts associated with construction of the Proposed
Project would be less than significant.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 53 of 109
Table 2: Overall Construction Emissions Summary
Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2020 4.17 42.47 22.10 0.05 10.07 6.02
2021 24.75 13.01 15.22 0.02 0.92 0.70
Maximum Daily Emissions 24.75 42.47 22.10 0.05 10.07 6.02
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
lbs/day – Pounds Per Day
Source: CalEEMod regional construction-source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1.
Operational Emissions
Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX,
SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary
sources: Area Source Emissions, Energy Source Emissions, and Mobile Source Emissions.
Area Source Emissions
Architectural Coatings - Over a period of time, the buildings that are part of this Project will be
subject to emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes,
primers, and other surface coatings as part of Project maintenance.
Consumer Products - Consumer products include, but are not limited to detergents, cleaning
compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. Many of these
products contain organic compounds which when released in the atmosphere can react to form
ozone and other photochemically reactive pollutants.
Landscape Maintenance Equipment - Landscape maintenance equipment would generate
emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category
would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge
trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project.
Energy Source Emissions
Combustion Emissions Associated with Natural Gas and Electricity - Electricity and natural gas are
used by almost every project. Criteria pollutant emissions are emitted through the generation of
electricity and consumption of natural gas. However, because electrical generating facilities for
the Project area are located either outside the region (state) or offset through the use of pollution
credits (RECLAIM) for generation within the SCAB, criteria pollutant emissions from offsite
generation of electricity is generally excluded from the evaluation of significance and only natural
gas use is considered.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 54 of 109
Mobile Source Emissions
Vehicles - The Project related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips
generated by the Project. Trip characteristics available from the Pennington Industrial Project
Focused Traffic Evaluation (Traffic Evaluation) (Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2019) were utilized in this
analysis.
In the last five years, the SCAQMD has provided numerous comments on the trip length for
warehouse/distribution and industrial land use projects. The SCAQMD asserts that the model -
default trip length in CalEEMod™ and the URBan EMISsions (URBEMIS) 2007 model (version
9.2.4) would underestimate emissions. It should be noted that for warehouse, distribution
center, and industrial land use projects, most of the heavy-duty trucks would be hauling
consumer goods, often from the POLA and POLB and/or to destinations outside of California. The
SCAQMD states that for this reason, the CalEEMod™ and the URBEMIS model default trip length
(approximately 12.6 miles) would not be representative of activities at like facilities. The SCAQMD
generally recommends the use of a 40-mile one-way trip length.
Two separate model runs were utilized in order to more accurately model emissions resulting
from vehicle operations. The first run analyzed passenger car emissions, which incorporated a
default trip length of 16.6 miles for passenger cars, an assumption of 100% primary trips, and a
fleet mix of 61.4% Light-Duty-Auto vehicles (LDA), 4.3% Light-Duty Trucks (LDT1)2, 21.0% Light-
Duty Trucks (LDT2)3, and 13.3% Medium-Duty Trucks (MDV). The second run analyzed truck
emissions, which incorporated an average truck trip length of 40 miles, an assumption of 100%
primary trips, and a fleet mix of 26.4% of Light-Heavy-Duty (LHD), 22.8% of Medium-Heavy-Duty
(MHD), and 50.8% of Heavy-Heavy-Duty (HHD).
Fugitive Dust Related to Vehicular Travel - Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source
of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of tire wear particulates.
Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicular Trips
CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is
motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality
generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality
impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project
CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight
hours.
At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS
and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and
implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin
and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the Air Basin was designated in attainment for
2 Vehicles under the LDT1 category have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 6,000 lbs. and equivalent test weight (ETW) of less
than or equal to 3,750 lbs.
3 Vehicles under the LDT2 category have a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 55 of 109
CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment
at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and
did not predict a violation of CO standards4. Since the nearby intersections to the Proposed
Project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD, no local CO
Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the Proposed Project and no CO Hotspot modeling
was performed. Therefore, potential long-term local air quality impacts associated with
operation would be less than significant.
On-Site Equipment Emissions
It is common for industrial buildings to require cargo handling equipment to move empty
containers and empty chassis to and from the various pieces of cargo handling equipment that
receive and distribute containers. The most common type of cargo handling e quipment is the
yard truck which is designed for moving cargo containers. Yard trucks are also known as yard
goats, utility tractors (UTRs), hustlers, yard hostlers, and yard tractors. The cargo handling
equipment is assumed to have a horsepower (hp) range of approximately 175 hp to 200 hp. Based
on the latest available information from SCAQMD (40); for example, high-cube warehouse
projects typically have 3.6 yard trucks per million square feet of building space. For this particu lar
Project, based on the maximum square footage of manufacturing use permitted by the proposed
Project, on-site modeled operational equipment includes one (1) 200 hp, compressed natural
gas-powered yard tractors operating at 4 hours a day for 365 days of the year.
Table 3 summarizes the Project’s daily regional emissions from on-going operations. During
operational activity, the Project will not exceed any of the thresholds of significance. Therefore,
potential regional air quality impacts associated with the operation would be less than significant.
Table 3: Summary of Operational Emissions
Operational Activities – Summer
Scenario
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 2.09 2.90E-04 0.03 0.00 1.10E-05 1.00E-05
Energy Source 0.09 0.80 0.67 4.77E-03 0.06 0.06
Mobile Source (Passenger Cars) 1.07 1.66 21.83 0.07 7.42 1.99
Mobile Source (Trucks) 0.50 16.89 4.03 0.07 2.58 0.78
On-Site Equipment 0.14 1.55 0.77 3.17E-03 0.05 0.05
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 3.88 20.90 27.32 0.15 10.11 2.88
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
4 The four intersections analyzed by the SCAQMD were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire
Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century
Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately
100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning and LOS F in the evening peak hour.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 56 of 109
Operational Activities – Winter
Scenario
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 2.09 2.90E-04 0.03 0.00 1.10E-05 1.00E-05
Energy Source 0.09 0.80 0.67 4.77E-03 0.06 0.06
Mobile Source (Passenger Cars) 0.85 1.71 17.46 0.07 7.42 1.99
Mobile Source (Trucks) 0.51 17.40 4.19 0.07 2.58 0.78
On-Site Equipment 0.14 1.55 0.77 3.17E-03 0.05 0.05
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 3.67 21.45 23.12 0.15 10.11 2.88
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod regional operational-source emissions are presented in Appendices 3.2 and 3.3.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: AQ Analysis – Appendix A)
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than Significant
Impact)
The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (41). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to
air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of
the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are
referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The significance of localized emissions
impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of any given project a re above or
below State standards.
LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the
nearest residence or sensitive receptor. Receptor locations are off-site locations where
individuals may be exposed to emissions from Project activities.
Residential Receptors
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when
evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly,
individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who
engage in frequent exercise. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather to
exercise are defined as “sensitive receptors”; they are also known to be locations where an
individual can remain for 24 hours.
Non-Residential Receptors
As per the LST Methodology, commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 57 of 109
of sensitive receptor because employees do not typically remain onsite for a full 24 hours but are
typically onsite for eight hours. However, it should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly
states that “LSTs based on shorter averaging periods, such as the NO2 and CO LSTs, could also be
applied to receptors such as industrial or commercial facilities since it is reasonable to assume
that a worker at these sites could be present for periods of one to eight hours (41).” Consistent
with the SCAQMD’s Final LST Methodology, the nearest industrial or commercial use to the
Project site was used to determine operational and construction air impacts for emissions of NO2
and CO.
Project-related Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors in the Project study area include existing residential homes, industrial uses,
and Ortega High School. The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be
considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual and cumulatively
significant impact. As such, the nearest residential receptor to the Project site is located
approximately 916 feet/279 meters west Project site on Collier Avenue. Alternatively, the nearest
non-residential receptor is an industrial building located 60 feet/18 meters north of the Project
site on Minthorn Street. For purposes of analysis, a 279-meter receptor distance is utilized as a
screening threshold to determine LSTs for emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5. It should be noted that
although the nearest non-sensitive receptor is 18-meters from the Project site, the LST
Methodology explicitly states that “LSTs base on shorter averaging periods, such as the NO2 and
CO LSTs, could also be applied to receptors such as industrial or commercial facilities since it is
reasonable to assume that a worker at these sites could be present for periods of one to eight
hours (41).” As such a 25-meter receptor distance was used for NO2 and CO.
Table 4 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the
Project. As shown, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed the numerical
thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than
significant impact would occur for Project-related construction-source emissions and no
mitigation is required.
Table 4: Localized Significance Summary of Construction
On-Site Site Preparation Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 42.42 21.51 9.86 5.96
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 198 925 100 39
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
On-Site Grading Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 26.39 16.05 4.04 2.51
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 162 750 96 37
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod localized construction-source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 58 of 109
Table 5 shows the calculated emissions for the Project’s operational activities compared with the
applicable LSTs. The LST analysis includes on-site sources only; however, the CalEEMod™ model
outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions from mobile sources. In an effort to
establish a maximum potential impact scenario for analytic purposes, the emissions shown on
Table 5 represent all on-site Project-related stationary (area) sources and five percent (5%) of the
Project-related mobile sources.
As shown on Table 5, operational emissions will not exceed the LST thresholds for the nearest
sensitive receptor. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for Project-related
operational-source emissions and no mitigation is required.
Table 5: Localized Significance Summary of Operations
Operational Activity
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.30 2.77 0.61 0.25
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 361 1,904 30 13
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod localized operational-source emissions are presented in Appendices 3.2 and 3.3.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: AQ Analysis – Appendix A)
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people? (Less than Significant Impact)
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land
uses generally associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses (livestock and farming),
wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations,
refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities.
The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction
equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction
activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed
Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize
odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short -
term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of
construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project -generated
refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance
with the City’s solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply
with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated
with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 59 of 109
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: AQ Analysis – Appendix A)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The site is located in the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
area, but not in a Criteria Cell or Survey Area and is dominated by low-growing vegetation.
According to an Environmental Site Assessment - Phase I prepared by California Environmental in
July 2018, the subject property has been previously disturbed and was used as a contractor’s
storage yard. The property is currently vacant. A construction materials debris pile was observed
in the south corner of the site. Due to the numerous disturbances of the proposed Project site ,
there is little habitat value for the MSHCP and other special status species. The Project site is
located within an MSHCP survey area for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The burrowing owl
(BUOW) is listed as a California Species of Concern as designated by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and is a conditionally covered species in the MSHCP. Therefore,
mitigation measure MM Bio 1 will be implemented to conduct preconstruction focused species
surveys for burrowing owl within 30-days prior to any ground-disturbing activities at the project
site where suitable habitat is present. With the implementation of mitigation measure MM Bio
1, impacts to BUOW would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM Bio 1: Burrowing Owl Surveys. Due to the presence of suitable habitat onsite for the
western burrowing owl, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction focused
species surveys within 30-days prior to any ground disturbing activities at the
project site where suitable habitat is present. If burrowing owls are determined to
occupy the project site during preconstruction surveys, CDFW shall be consulted
and a passive relocation program shall be undertaken to relocate owls to an area
outside the impact zone. The relocation shall be conducted following accepted
protocols and would occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl.
Existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated.
(Sources: WR-MSHCP; RC GIS; Phase I ESA - Appendix D)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less than Significant
Impact)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 60 of 109
A variety of drainages cross the City of Lake Elsinore originating from the surrounding hills and
generally draining towards Lake Elsinore. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
wetlands are present within the City primarily around Lake Elsinore. However, the project site
does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. These impacts were
analyzed in the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan EIR and were determined to be less than
significant with the implementation of existing Federal and State programs, in particular Sections
401 and 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
The majority of the project site is dominated by disturbed habitat and non-native grasslands
Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (No Impact)
There are no waters of the United States or waters of the State within the project site. There are
also no marshes, vernal pools, or coastal waters within the project site. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less than Significant Impact)
The Project site consists of undeveloped land consisting of seasonal nonnative grass
communities. The project site is surrounded by commercial and industrial land uses to the north
and west, Lake Elsinore Unified School District and Ortega High School to the south, and
Government offices to the east.
The Project area setting, which once consisted of agricultural and vacant land, has been
significantly compromised by increased development. Due to this prior development in the local
vicinity of the proposed Project, no wildlife movement or crossing occurs on the Project site, and
the Project area does not provide topographic or vegetative features that function as a wildlife
movement corridor, habitat linkage or nursery site. Thus, the proposed Project does not
substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 61 of 109
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Site Visit; Phase I ESA - Appendix D)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Chapter 5.120 of the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (Municipal Code) is referred to as the
Tree Preservation Ordinance. This Chapter protects City trees, park trees and street trees within
public areas owned by the City. The project site does not contain any trees protected under
Chapter 5.120 of the Municipal Code and therefore, the project will have no impact. Additionally,
Chapter 5.116 of the Municipal Code protects Significant Palm Trees within the City limits. This
Chapter provides a mechanism to regulate the removal, destruction and relocation of significant
palm trees. No palm trees occur within the project site and therefore, there will be no impact to
Significant Palm Trees. Lastly, Chapter 19.04 of the Municipal Code is referred to as the Habitat
Conservation Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to implement the Stephens’ Kangaroo
Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKRHCP). The project site is located within the fee area for the
SKRHCP. Potential project impacts to the SKRHCP are discussed in Section IV.F below. There will
be no impact on any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Mitigation Measures:
MM Bio 2: MSHCP Fees. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall
pay the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(WRMSHCP) development mitigation fees, in effect at the time permits are issued.
MM Bio 3: SKR Fees. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall pay
the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKRHCP) fees, in effect at
the time permits are issued.
(Sources: LEMC)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
(Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The project is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). As such, a habitat assessment and consistency analysis is
required to evaluate the project with respect to consistency with the MSHCP. A review of the
Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator for the
project site APN determined that the site is located within the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP.
Additionally, the project site is not located within a Criteria Cell, Cell Group, Existing Core Area,
proposed Core Area, existing linkage, or a proposed linkage. The project site is located within a
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 62 of 109
required survey area for burrowing owl, as discussed above in Section IV.A. Because the project
site is located within the MSCHP boundary, it may have a substantial effect and requires
mitigation. Additionally, the project site occurs within the boundaries of the SKRHCP. However,
the project site is not located within the core reserve area, and therefore, the proposed project
site may have a substantial effect on the SKRHCP, but will not affect any core reserve areas.
Payment of the SKRHCP fee is required for project sites that occur within the SKRHCP area. The
payment of the fee allows the City to implement the terms of the Section 10(a) permit and
management authorization.
Mitigation Measures:
MM Bio 1: Burrowing Owl Surveys. Defined in Item IV.a, above.
MM Bio 2: MSHCP Fees. Defined in Item IV.e, above.
MM Bio 3: SKR Fees. Defined in Item IV.e, above.
(Sources: WR-MSHCP; RC GIS; LEMC)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The Cultural Resources Inventory Report prepared for the Project by Dudek, dated November 4,
2019 (Appendix B) included a historical records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on
October 18, 2019 for the proposed project site and surrounding one-mile radius. EIC records
indicate that 43 previous cultural resource investigat ions have been performed within one mile
of the project area, of which only one addressed the project site (RI-3725), with two adjacent (RI-
5820 and RI-6728). The RI-3725 is the only study within the project area, and addressed both
archaeological and historic built environment resources as part of a Phase 1 study prior to the
Chaney Business center development. The two adjacent reports were focused on the property
immediately adjacent to the southwest, and constituted a Phase I survey and evaluation of a
single historic property. The property was found ineligible for the CRHP and has since been
demolished.
In the event that cultural resources (including historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural
resources) are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, MM Cul 1 requires
work to be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until it can be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other
appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or
their designee to discuss the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other
areas. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation
or resource recovery, may be warranted and would be discussed in consultation with the
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 63 of 109
appropriate regulatory agency and/or tribal group. With implementation of MM Cul 1, potential
impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM Cul 1: Unanticipated Resources. The developer/permit holder or any successor in interest
shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground
disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the
following procedures shall be followed:
1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural
resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the
Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from
consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative),
and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the
significance of the find.
2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee
immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting.
3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the
discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence
of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate
mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource.
4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery
until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a
decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director
or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures.
(Sources: General Plan EIR; Site Visit; Phase I Cultural Report - Appendix B)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated)
The Cultural Resources Inventory Report prepared for the Project by Dudek, dated November 4,
2019 (Appendix B) included a historical records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on
October 18, 2019 for the proposed project site and surrounding one-mile radius. The EIC records
identified one hundred fifty-four cultural resources were within a one-mile radius of the project
site, although none are within the project site. One historic district (P -33-007143) is located
within the one-mile radius. The Lake Elsinore Historic Downtown district is located approximately
¼ mile to the south from the project area. This district contained 122 resources within one mile
of the project; however, none are within the project area and will not be impacted by the project.
Outside of the historic district the remaining resources include 22 historic structures, three
historic sites, two historic isolates, and four prehistoric isolates.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 64 of 109
Dudek Archaeologist conducted an intensive pedestrian survey on October 23, 20 19 using
standard archaeological procedures and techniques. No cultural resources were identified during
the pedestrian survey. The entire project site has been disturbed through previous development.
A school complex currently occupies the area to the southwest of the site, with the associated
modern debris and trash on the surface of the project area. No undisturbed, native sediments
were observed. Inspection of rodent burrows and spoils in the vegetation planters identified only
fill sediments comprised primarily of decomposed granite. However, there still remains the
possibility that undiscovered buried archaeological resources might be encountered during
construction. The City prepared consultation invitation letters to the Native American Tribes on
the City’s AB52 consultation list that were mailed on August 28, 2019. The City received a
response from three tribes, and a summary of the consultation is provided in Section XVIII, Tribal
Cultural Resources.
In the event that cultural resources (including historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural
resources) are inadvertently discovered during ground -disturbing activities, MM Cul 1 has been
included to require work to be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until it can be evaluated
by a qualified archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes
(or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development
Director or their designee to discuss the significance of the find. Construction ac tivities may
continue in other areas. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as data
recovery excavation or resource recovery, may be warranted and would be discussed in
consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency and/or t ribal group. With implementation
of MM Cul 1, potential impacts associated with archeological resources would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM Cul 1: Unanticipated Resources. Defined in Section V.a. above.
(Sources: General Plan EIR; Site Visit; Phase I Cultural Report - Appendix B)
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less
than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
There are no cemeteries located within the proposed Project boundary. In the event human
remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination o f origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find
immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely
Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative,
the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48
hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 65 of 109
Thus, with adherence to existing regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation
measure MM Cul 2, the Project is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. Therefore,
impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures:
MM Cul 2: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that
may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving,
the construction contractors, project archaeologist and/or designated Native
American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find.
The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of
Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner
shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped
in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no further disturbance shall
occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall
comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that
fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact
the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely
descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and
engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in
Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD
are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply
and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section
5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).
According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one
location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American
cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).
(Sources: General Plan EIR; Site Visit; Phase I Cultural Report - Appendix B)
VI. ENERGY
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
(Less than Significant Impact)
The Property Owner/Developer would comply with all applicable regulations related to
construction and operation of the Proposed Project, including the City of Lake Elsinore building
code, the MHSCP (Section IV), the Climate Action Plan (Section VIII), and solid waste management
(Section XIX). Therefore, potential impacts associated with wasteful energy use during
construction or operation would be less than significant.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 66 of 109
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Initial Study)
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
(Less than Significant Impact)
The Proposed Project would comply with the City of Lake Elsinore building code, which is
consistent with the State of California Energy Commission 2016 Building Energy Efficient
Standards5 for Non-Residential Buildings. The City of Lake Elsinore has adopted the City of Lake
Elsinore Climate Action Plan (Climate Action Plan), on December 13, 2011. The Climate Action
Plan provides specific measures to be implemented in new developments to reduce GHG
emissions as well as a GHG emissions reduction target based on a community-wide emissions
reduction to 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year by 2020. The Climate Action Plan also
addresses measures that address renewable energy and energy efficiency (Project Design
Features 1 through 6). Appendix A provides a list of the applicable reduction measures for new
non-residential developments included in the Climate Action Plan and a proje ct consistency
analysis of each measure. With implementation of Project Design Features 1 through 6, the
Proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable local measures provided in the Climate
Action Plan. Therefore, potential impacts associated with obstructing a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Initial Study, General Plan)
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42. (Less than Significant Impact)
The City is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province and includ es parts of
two structural blocks, or structural subdivisions of the province. The active Elsinore fault zone
diagonally crosses the southwest corner of the Elsinore 7.5’ quadrangle and is a major element
of the right-lateral strike-slip San Andreas Fault system. The Elsinore Fault Zone forms a complex
series of pull-apart basins.
According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report prepared for the Project by CW
5 https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 67 of 109
Soils, dated February 27, 2019 (Appendix C), the subject property is not located within an Alquist-
Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Study Zone, established by the State of California to restrict the
construction of habitable structures across identifiable traces of known active faults. No active
faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site.
The nearest faults to the Project site are associated with the Elsinore Fault system located
approximately 1.8 miles from the site. Thus, the potential for surface ruptur e due to faulting
occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low.
Additionally, any structure developed as a part of the Project will be subject to seismic design
criteria in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) which will reduce potential impacts
related to the rupture of an earthquake fault. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Geotechnical Report – Appendix C)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less than Significant Impact)
The site is situated in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by generally
moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion. The site lies in relative close proximity to
several seismically active faults; therefore, during the life of the proposed improvements, the
City and surroundings also have the potential to experience significant ground shaking as a result
of seismic activity on a number of the Peninsular Ranges’ other active faults as shown in Section
3.11 Geology & Soils of the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR. The Proposed Project would be
designed and constructed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the current
California Building Code (CBC), which would address potential impacts related to potential
ground shaking. Therefore, potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking
would be less than significant
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, Geotechnical Report – Appendix C)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than Significant Impact)
The geotechnical investigation for the Proposed Project evaluated the potential for seismic-
related ground failure, including liquefaction, at the Project Site. The three requirements for
liquefaction to occur include seismic shaking, poorly consolidated cohesionless sands, and
groundwater. Liquefaction results in a substantial loss of shear strength in loose, sa turated,
cohesionless soils subjected to earthquake induced ground shaking. Potential impacts from
liquefaction include loss of bearing capacity, liquefaction related settlement, lateral movements,
and surface manifestation in the form of sand boils.
The Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report prepared for the Project by CW Soils, dated
February 27, 2019 (Appendix C) provided liquefaction analyses that model the existing ungraded
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 68 of 109
conditions and recommended graded conditions, using a groundwater level of 5 feet to represent
a conservative historic high groundwater level. The analyses of the post-graded conditions
revealed that potentially liquefiable soils were encountered in boring B-2, from 14 to 19 feet. The
geotechnical report estimates that dynamic settlement of sands due to liquefaction will be
approximately 1.7 inches near Boring B-2 prior to performing the recommended grading
improvements. Upon completion of the recommended grading improvements, the report
estimates that dynamic settlement of sands due to liquefaction will be approximately 0 inches
near Boring B-2. Therefore, the potential for design level earthquake induced liquefaction and
lateral spreading to occur beneath the proposed structures is considered very low to remote due
to the recommended compacted fill and the dense nature of the deeper onsite soils. Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer of the Proposed Project would be
required to submit grading and foundation plans to the City for review t o demonstrate
compliance with the City’s grading requirements as well as 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.
Therefore, potential impacts to people or structures from liquefaction shaking would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Geotechnical Report – Appendix C)
iv) Landslides? (No Impact)
Landslides result from the downward movement of earth or rock materials that have been
influenced by gravity. In general, landslides occur due to various factors including steep slope
conditions, erosion, rainfall, groundwater, adverse geologic structure, and grading impacts. The
Project Site is generally flat and is surrounded by similar topography and no significant slopes are
proposed as part of the project design. The Project Site is in the Business District of the General
Plan and its slope is less than 15%. Potential landslide impacts would be concentrated in districts
with steep slopes of more than 30% and in Hillside Residential land use designations, including
the Northwest Sphere, Lake View Sphere, Lakeland Village, Alberhill, North Central Sphere,
Meadowbrook, Lake Elsinore Hills, and Riverview Districts of the General Plan. Therefore, no
impacts associated with landslides would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, Riverside County GIS)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction activities have the potential to result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. However,
erosion will be addressed through the implementation of existing State and Federal
requirements, and minimized through compliance with the National Pollut ant Discharge
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 69 of 109
Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit which requires that a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) be prepared prior to construction activities and implemented
during construction activities. The preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) will identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address soil erosion. Upon
compliance with these standard regulatory requirements, the proposed Project is not anticipated
to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts are less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: PWQMP – Appendix F)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less than Significant Impact)
Seismically-induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth materials due
to ground shaking. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be continuous,
unconstrained laterally, and free to move along gently sloping ground toward an unconf ined
area. Lateral spreading results in near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement
of the soil mass involved. A gentle slope in the ground face or the presence of a slope face nearby
can cause the ground to slide or spread on layers of liquefied soil. The Project Site is generally
flat and there is no slope.
The Project Site is not located in an area of landslide potential. The geotechnical report
recommends that prior to placing compacted fills, the exposed bottom should be scarified to a
depth of 6 inches or more, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture
content and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent. The Proposed Project would be
constructed in compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and the CBC.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with unstable soil would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Geotechnical Report – Appendix C)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less than Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated)
While there is currently no soil mapping that identifies specific areas within the City that are
subject to expansive soils, such soils are known to exist in the City. Expansive soils are composed
of a significant amount of clay particles which can expand (absorb water) or contra ct (release
water). These shrink and swell characteristics can result in structural stress and place other loads
on these soils. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report prepared for the
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 70 of 109
Project by CW Soils, the preliminary laboratory test results indicate that the onsite soils exhibit
an expansion potential of Medium (Expansion Index of 51 to 90) as classified by the 2016 CBC.
The CBC specifies that slab on grade foundations (floor slabs) resting on soils with expansion
indices greater than 20, require special design considerations per the 2016 CBC. Accordingly,
measures are considered necessary to reduce anticipated expansion and collapse potential.
Implementation of mitigation measure MM Geo 1, requiring the proposed Project to comply with
all recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, will reduce impacts related to
expansive soil conditions to a less than significant level. The design procedures incorporate the
thickness and plasticity index of the various soils within the upper 15 feet of the proposed
structure.
Mitigation Measures:
MM Geo 1: Compliance with Recommendations from the Geotechnical Interpretive Report.
Per the Preliminary Foundation Design Recommendations section of the
Geotechnical Report, the Project shall comply with the recommendations for:
Conventional Footings, Building Floor Slabs, and Post Tensioned Slab/Foundation
Design Recommendations as described below:
a. Conventional Footings
Exterior continuous footings should be founded at the minimum depths
below the lowest adjacent final grade (i.e. minimum 18 inch depth for one-
story and two-story, and minimum 24 inch depth for three-story
construction). Interior continuous footings for one-, two-, and three-story
construction may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. In accordance with Table 1809.7 of the 2016
CBC, all continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12, 15, and 18
inches, for one-, two-, and three-story structures, respectively, and should
be reinforced with a minimum of four (4) No. 4 bars, two (2) top and two (2)
bottom.
Exterior pad footings intended to support roof overhangs, such as second
story decks, patio covers and similar construction should be a minimum of
24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with a
minimum of No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on center, each way,
and should be placed near the bottom-third of the footings.
b. Building Floor Slabs
Building floor slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. All floor slabs
should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 18
inches on center, each way, supported by concrete chairs or bricks to ensure
desired mid-depth placement. Based on an assumed effective plasticity
index of 16, the project architect or structural engineer should evaluate
minimum floor slab thickness and reinforcement in accordance with 2016
CBC Section 1808.6.2.
Building floor slabs with moisture sensitive or occupied areas, should be
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 71 of 109
underlain by a minimum 10-mil thick moisture barrier to help reduce the
upward migration of moisture from the underlying soils. The moisture
barrier should be properly installed using the guidelines of ACI publication
318-05 and meet the performance standards of ASTM E 1745 Class A
material. Prior to placing concrete, it is the responsibility of the contractor
to ensure that the moisture barrier is properly placed and free of op enings,
rips, or punctures. As an option for additional moisture protection and
foundation strength, higher strength concrete, such as a minimum
compressive strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) in 28 -days may
be used. In addition, a capillary break/vapor retarder for concrete slabs
should be provided in accordance with CALGreen. Ultimately, the design of
the moisture barrier system along with recommendations for concrete
placement and curing are the purview of the foundation engineer, factoring
in the project conditions provided by the architect and owner.
Garage floor slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and should be
reinforced in a similar manner as living area floor slabs. Garage floor slabs
should be placed separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive
separation maintained with ⅜ inch minimum felt expansion joint materials
and quartered with weakened plane joints. A 12 inch wide turn down
founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across
garage entrances. The turn down should be reinforced with a minimum of
two (2) No. 4 bars, one (1) top and one (1) bottom.
Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all floor slabs should be
pre-watered to achieve a moisture content at least 1.1 times optimum. Th e
moisture content should penetrate a minimum depth of 12 inches into the
subgrade soils. The pre-watering should be verified and tested by CW Soils.
c. Post Tensioned Slab/Foundation Design Recommendations
In lieu of the proceeding foundation recommendations, post tensioned slabs
may be used for the proposed structures. Post tension foundations are generally
considered to be a better foundation system, but may be slightly higher in
overall cost. The foundation engineer may design the post tensioned foundation
system using the following Post Tensioned Foundation Slab Design table. These
parameters have been provided in general accordance with Post Tensioned
Design. Alternate designs addressing the effects of expansive soils are allowed
per 2016 CBC Section 1808.6.2. When utilizing these parameters, the foundation
engineer should design the foundation system in accordance with the allowable
deflection criteria of applicable codes.
It should be noted that the post tensioned design methodology is partially based
on the assumption that soils moisture changes around and underneath post
tensioned slabs, are only influenced by climate conditions. With regard to
expansive soils, moisture variations below slabs are the major factor in
foundation damage. However, the design methodology does not take into
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 72 of 109
account presaturation, owner irrigation, or other non-climate related influences
on the moisture content of the subgrade soils. In recognition of these realities,
we modified the soils parameters obtained from this methodology to help
account for reasonable irrigation practices. Additionally, the slab subgrades
should be presoaked to a depth of 12 inches and maintained at above optimum
moisture until placing concrete. Furthermore, prior to placing concrete, the
subgrade soils below all floor slabs and perimeter footings should be presoaked
to achieve moisture contents at least 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 times optimum to
depths of 6, 12, 18, and 24 inches for Low, Medium, High, and Very High
expansion potential soils, respectively. The moisture content should penetrate
to a minimum depth of 24 inches into the subgrade soils. The pre-watering
should be verified and tested by CW Soils.
Ponding water near the foundation can significantly chang e the moisture
content of the soils below the foundation, causing excessive foundation
movement and detrimental effects. Our recommendations do not account for
excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape designs. To prevent moisture
infiltration below the foundation, planters placed adjacent to the foundation
should be designed with an effective drainage system or liners. Some lifting of
the perimeter foundation should be expected even with properly constructed
planters.
Future owners should be informed and educated of the importance in
maintaining a consistent level of moisture within the soils around structures.
Potential negative consequences can result from either excessive watering or
allowing expansive soils to become too dry. Expansive soils will shrink as they
dry, followed by swelling during the rainy winter season or when irrigation is
resumed, causing distress to site improvements.
(Sources: Geotechnical Report – Appendix C)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater? (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed Project will be served by a sewer system and no septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems would be required. Existing septic systems and any septic systems
discovered during the development of the proposed Project will be properly abandoned, closed,
or destroyed in accordance with all applicable state and local regulations. Thus, the proposed
Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, impacts are less than significant
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 73 of 109
(Sources: Project Description)
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? (Less than Significant Impact)
According to the Riverside County GIS database, the proposed Project is located within a
paleontological sensitivity area of low potential. Due to the previously developed and disturbed
nature of the Project site, no paleontological resources or site or un ique geologic features are
anticipated to be impacted. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Riverside County GIS)
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO2 and CH4 from
construction activities. For construction phase Project emissions, GHGs are quantified and
amortized over the life of the Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project,
construction emissions were amortized over a 30 -year period and added to the annual
operational phase GHG emissions.
Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of CO 2, CH4,
and N2O from the following primary sources: Area Source Emissions, Energy Source Emissions
(combustion emissions associated with natural gas and electricity), Mobile Source Emissions, On-
site Equipment Emissions, Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution, and Solid Waste. The
annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project are estimated to
be 2,635.39 MTCO2e per year as summarized in Table 6.
Table 6: Project GHG Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (metric tons per year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2E
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 17.27 0.00 0.00 17.35
Area Source 0.01 2.00E-05 0.00 0.01
Energy Source 460.08 0.02 0.01 462.10
Mobile (Passenger Car) Sources 674.56 0.01 0.00 674.89
Mobile (Truck) Sources 1,255.52 0.04 0.00 1,256.55
On-Site Equipment 50.84 0.02 0.00 51.25
Waste 22.94 1.36 0.00 56.83
Water Usage 94.13 0.69 0.17 116.41
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 74 of 109
Total CO2E (All Sources) 2,635.39
Screening Threshold (CO2e) 10,000
Threshold Exceeded? NO
Source: CalEEMod™ model output, See Appendices 3.1 through 3.3 for detailed model outputs.
The SCAQMD’s adopted numerical threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year for industrial stationary
source emissions is selected as the significance criterion. The SCAQMD-adopted industrial
threshold was selected by the City because the proposed Project is more analogous to an
industrial use than any other land use such as commercial or residential in terms of its expected
operating characteristics. The Project proposes a warehouse use that will serve mid - stream
functions in the goods movement chain between manufacturers and consumers, characteristic
of an industrial operation. Further, analysis of the Project’s traffic generation in this report is
based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Gen eration Manual, 10th Edition,
2017 for warehouse and industrial land use categories. Also, 10,000 MTCO2e has been used as
the significance threshold by many local government lead agencies for logistics projects
throughout the SCAG region since the SCAQMD adopted this threshold for its own use. Further,
to ensure that the threshold is conservative in its application, although the SCAQMD uses their
adopted 10,000 MTCO2e threshold to determine the significance of stationary source emissions
for industrial projects, the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold used in this CEQA document is applied to all
sources of Project-related GHG emissions whether stationary source, mobile source, area source,
or other.
Use of this threshold is also consistent with guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate
Change handbook, as such, the City has opted to use a non -zero threshold approach based on
Approach 2 of the handbook. Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture)
establishes a numerical threshold based on cap ture of approximately 90 percent of emissions
from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is
10,000 MTCO2e based on the review of 711 CEQA projects.
As previously stated, the Project will result in approximately 2,635.39 MTCO2e per year. As such,
the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e if it were
applied. Thus, the Project would not have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: GHG Report – Appendix H)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less than Significant Impact)
The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The City of Lake Elsinore has
adopted the City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan (CAP), on December 13, 2011. The CAP
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 75 of 109
provides specific measures to be implemented in new developments to reduce GHG emissions.
Appendix G, Table 3-4 provides a list of the applicable reduction measures for new non -
residential developments included in the Climate Action Plan and a project consistency analysis
of each measure. With implementation of Project Design Features 1 through 8, the Proposed
Project would be consistent with the applicable local measures provided in the CAP as well as the
programs and standards that would be implemented as a result of the CAP. Section III(a) shows
that the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan Update growth projections. The
Proposed Project would comply with the CAP’s local measures and reduction targets and would
not conflict with the applicable plan for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: GHG Report – Appendix H, CAP)
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction of the proposed Project may include the transportation and storage of hazardous
materials, such as fuels, cleaning solvents, or pesticides. The transportation of hazardous
materials can result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion. The proposed
Project is not expected to create the need for an excess of hazardous materials being used on -
site during construction or operation.
A number of federal and state agencies prescribe strict regulations for the safe transportation of
hazardous materials. Hazardous material transport, storage and response to upsets or accidents
are primarily subject to federal regulation by the United States Department of Transportation
(DOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. California regulations applicable to Hazardous material transport, storage and
response to upsets or accidents are codified in Title 13 (Motor Vehicles), Title 8 (Cal/OSHA), Title
22 (Management of Hazardous Waste), Title 26 (Toxics) of the California Code of Regulations,
and the Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans
and Inventory).
As the proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable federal and state laws
related to the transportation, use, storage and response to upsets or accidents that may involve
hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of upsets and accidents during
transit and storage, it is not expected to result in the use of large amounts of hazardous materials
that would create a hazard to the public or environment. Therefore, impacts are less than
significant.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 76 of 109
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: CCR; Code of Federal Regulations; Health and Safety Code)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment? (Less than Significant Impact)
As noted in response Item IX.a above, the proposed Project may involve the use of hazardous
materials but shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws pertaining to the transport,
use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous materials, including bu t not limited to Title 49
of the Code of Federal Regulations and Title 13, (motor vehicles) Title 8 (Cal/OSHA), Title 22
(Health and Safety Code), Title 26 (Toxics) of the California Code of Regulations, and Chapter 6.95
of the Health and Safety Code (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory),
which describes strict regulations for the safe transportation and storage of hazardous materials.
Thus, the proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable federal and state laws
related to the transportation, use and storage of hazardous materials and will not create a
significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the enviro nment.
Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: CCR; Code of Federal Regulations; Health and Safety Code)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less than
Significant Impact)
The closest school site is the Ortega High School, located directly south of the Project site. As
previously discussed, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable
federal, state and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling,
and storage of hazardous waste during the construction phase to reduce the likelihood and
severity of accidents during transit. Proper handling of the use and disposal of hazardous
materials would reduce the potential for exposure of any school in proximity to the Project Site
to hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: CCR; Code of Federal Regulations; Health and Safety Code)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment? (Less than Significant Impact)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 77 of 109
Based on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Site/Facility Search,
the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5. An Environmental Site Assessment - Phase I was prepared by California
Environmental in July 2018 for the proposed Project site; a site visit was conducted on May 5,
2018. Historical site utilization research indicates the subject property was undeveloped from at
least 1938 until 2005. Light agricultural use is evident on air photos in the 1940s and 1950s. From
2009 until 2010 the property was utilized as a contractor’s storage yard. The property is currently
vacant. A construction materials debris pile was observed in the south corner of the site. The pile
contained concrete fragments, RCP sections, a concrete septic tank, red clay bricks,
miscellaneous metal, concrete footings and small concrete slabs. Clay pot fragments, brick, small
concrete pieces and asphalt grindings were spread over much of the surface of the site. No
evidence of hazardous materials was observed in the construction debris observed at the site.
Screening soil sampling was conducted at the site to evaluate for TPH, metals, PCBs and
organochlorine pesticides in shallow soil at the site. PCBs and pesticides were not detected. The
low concentrations of TPH (40-92 mg/Kg) detected in soil are likely related to the asphalt debris
observed in shallow soil and this is not an environmental concern. The concentrations of metals
detected are within the ranges normally found in native soils except for an elevated
concentration of lead (250 mg/Kg) detected in sample S2. The concentration of lead detected in
sample S2 is below the CalEPA-DTSC screening level of 320 mg/Kg for commercial properties. The
clay pot fragments containing glazing were tested for the presence of metals. No hazardous
concentrations of metals were detected in the clay pot glazing.
The subject property is not identified on the standard environmental government sources
researched in this report. The nearest listed environmental concern site is located at 653 West
Minthorn Street, approximately 190 feet to the northeast. This offsite property was formerly
occupied by Rightway Portable Toilets. A release from a gasoline UST impacted the soil at this
offsite facility. This site was granted case closure from the Santa Ana RWQCB in 1989. Impa ct to
the subject site from this offsite property is considered unlikely as the site was granted case
closure by the Santa Ana RWQCB. No additional data regarding this offsite release was found.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: DTSC; Google Earth; Phase I ESA – Appendix D)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact)
The Proposed Project is not be located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport. Therefore, no impacts associated with safety hazards or
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 78 of 109
excessive noise in proximity to an airport would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR)
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable fire code requirements for
construction and access to the site and as such, will be reviewed by the City Fire Department to
determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance with these
requirements. This review will ensure that the Project will provide adequate emergency access
to and from the site. Further, the City Engineer and the City Fire Department will review any
modifications to existing roadways to ensure that adequate emergency access and/or emergency
response would be maintained. Thus, the proposed Project does not propose any changes that
will impact the City’s Emergency Preparedness Plan or the Riverside County Operational Area
Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan so will not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR)
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires? (Less than Significant Impact)
According to the Riverside County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps and the City of Lake Elsinore
General Plan EIR Figure 3.10-2 (City of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility), the Project Site is not
located in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project Site is vacant and bounded
by commercial and industrial land uses to the north and west, Lake Elsinore Unified School
District and Ortega High School to the south, and Government offices to the east. As part of the
plan check process, the Project Site plan would undergo a fire, life, and safety review by the City
Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance
with these requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with wildland fires would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Riverside County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, General Plan EIR Figure 3.10-2 - City
of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility)
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 79 of 109
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality ? (Less than Significant Impact)
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) sets water quality standards
for all ground and surface waters within the Project’s region. Water quality standards are defined
under the Clean Water Act to include both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the
levels of water quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses (water quality
objectives).
Construction of the Proposed Project would include grading, excavation, and other earthmoving
activities that have the potential to cause erosion that could subsequently degrade water quality
and/or violate water quality standards. As required by the Clean Water Act, the Pro posed Project
would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit Program, which is
administered in the project area by Riverside County and is issued by the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), regulates storm water and urban runoff discharges from
developments to natural and constructed storm drain systems in the City of Lake Elsinore. Since
the Proposed Project would disturb one or more acres of soil, construction activities would be
subject to the Construction General Permit (NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste
Discharge Requirements, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, adopted September 2, 2009 and effective
as of July 2, 2010) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Construction
General Permit requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for
site clearing, grading, and disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation. The SWPPP would
generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, storm
water collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage
patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways.
Development of the Project Site would add impervious surfaces through associated parking lot
and parking, sidewalks, and drive aisles. By increasing the percentage of impervious surfaces on
the Project Site, less water would percolate into the ground and m ore surface runoff would be
generated. Paved areas and streets would collect dust, soil and other impurities that would then
be assimilated into surface runoff during rainfall events. Operation of the Proposed Project has
the potential to release pollutants resulting from replacing vacant land with roadways, walkways,
and parking lots. These improvements may potentially impact water quality. However, according
to the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by SB&O, Inc., dated May 17,
2019 (Appendix E), while the Project is approximately 80% impervious, the impervious area has
been reduced to the minimum area possible. The pervious area will be vegetated landscape and
one underground infiltration basin underneath the proposed parking areas. The Preliminary
WQMP has been submitted to the City Public Works Department for review. Prior to issuance of
a grading or building permit, a final WQMP will be required for the Project.
The proposed Project incorporates site design, source controls and treatment control BMPs to
address storm water runoff. The building rooftops shall drain back to landscape areas, where
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 80 of 109
possible, for natural filtration. The catch basins will have filtration inserts to filter runoff pr ior to
entering the proposed underground infiltration basin. Thus, through BMPs combined with
compliance of existing regulations the proposed Project will not violate water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, impacts are less tha n significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: PWQMP – Appendix F)
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin? (Less than Significant Impact)
According to General Plan EIR, the proposed Project is located within the Elsinore Groundwater
Management Zone (GMZ). Since the City has a large amount of vacant land, substantial changes
to recharge systems could occur from development of the vacant parcels. In order to reduce
pollutants, the City has implemented policies to minimize pollutants in the local and regional
waterways, which includes water that percolates into the groundwater through Water Resources
Policies 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Water Resources Policies 4.1 and 4.2 require development projects to
acquire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants. Water Resources Policy 4.3 requires the City
to review future development project’s beneficial uses during the environmental review stage.
Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to substantially deplete groundwater supplies.
As outlined in the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by SB&O, Inc., the
proposed Project utilizes the minimum impervious area possible. The pervious area will be
vegetated landscape and one underground infiltration basin underneath the proposed parking
areas. The proposed Project incorporates site design, source controls and treatment control
BMPs to address storm water runoff. Where possible, the building rooftops shall drain back to
landscape areas for natural filtration. The catch basins will have filtration inserts to filter runoff
prior to entering the proposed underground infiltration basins. These conditions are not
conducive to groundwater recharge. Thus, development of the Project site will not substantially
interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR; PWQMP – Appendix F)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
i). Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less than Significant Impact)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 81 of 109
According to the Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by SB&O, Inc., dated May 17, 2019
(Appendix D), approximately 43% of the existing site drains south and discharges from the site
into a concrete inlet on the adjoining County social services property. T he remainder of the
project site discharges into Chaney Street all along the northwest property line. Development of
the Project site for industrial use will include associated parking, landscape areas, and drive aisles.
The existing inlet will be blocked off at the property line and all proposed site flows will discharge
to Chaney Street and ultimately into Temescal Creek.
The Project is subject to NPDES requirements including preparing and implementing a SWPPP for
the prevention of runoff during construction. Erosion, siltation and other possible pollutants
associated with long-term implementation of the Project is addressed as part of the project-
specific Preliminary WQMP and grading permit process. Thus, through compliance with existing
regulations and policies the proposed Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in
a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts
will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Hydro; PWQMP – Appendix F)
ii). Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite; (Less than Significant Impact)
As described in Item X.c.ii. above, the Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the Project Site. The drainage area will have an increased impervious area
from existing conditions and will result in slightly higher peak runoff values. The increase in peak
runoff shall be mitigated to a level at or below existing levels through the use of underground
infiltration basins, catch basins, and outlet structures as outlined in the Preliminary Drainage
Report prepared by SB&O, Inc. The catch basin can store the anticipated volume from a 100-year,
24-hour storm event. The catch basin will also have sufficient capacity to alleviate the expected
increase in runoff, retaining the peak flow within the private street and eliminating offsite flow
to Lakeshore Drive. Thus, no flooding on or off-site as a result of the proposed Project will occur.
Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: Hydro; PWQMP – Appendix F)
iii). Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or; (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed underground infiltration basins would retain and treat runoff from the Project Site.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 82 of 109
Non-structural BMPs such as activity restrictions, basin inspection, street sweeping, and common
area landscape maintenance and litter control would also contribute towards runoff control and
water quality protection. In addition, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the
NPDES permit requirements to reduce any potential water quality impacts. The Proposed Project
would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the drainage
systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff.
The amount of water runoff is not expected to exceed stormwater drainage capacity. The
Property Owner/Developer shall prepare a SWPPP for construction activity associated with the
Proposed Project. The SWPPP shall be maintained at the construction site for the entire duration
of construction. The objectives of the SWPPP are to identify pollutant sources that may affect the
quality of storm water discharge and to implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in storm water
discharges during construction and post construction in compliance with NPDES. Projects that
comply with NPDES standards would result in a less than significant impact. In addition, storm
drains located within the City limits are maintained by the City as well as by the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Storm runoff within the City is generally
intercepted by a network of City facilities and then conveyed into regional facilities. All
downstream conveyance channels that would receive runoff from the Project Site are engineered
and regularly maintained to ensure flow capacity. Therefore, potential impacts associated with
runoff would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, PWQMP – Appendix F)
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less than Significant Impact)
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the majority of the proposed
Project site is within Zone X (containing a small portion along the proposed Project site’s western
property line within the 0.2% annual chance of flood hazard zone) and is not within a 100-year
flood hazard area. The Proposed Project has been designed to include drainage basins that would
reduce post-development runoff rates in accordance with the requirements of the City of Lake
Elsinore and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Because the
Proposed Project has been designed to attenuate post -development runoff from the site,
Project-related runoff would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
downstream areas in a manner that would result in flooding on - or off-site. Additionally, the
Proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with flood flows would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: FEMA, PWQMP – Appendix F)
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 83 of 109
inundation? (Less than Significant Impact)
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the majority of the proposed
Project site is within Zone X (containing a small portion along the proposed Project site’s western
property line within the 0.2% annual chance of flood hazard zone) and is not within a 100 -year
flood hazard area. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report prepared for the
Project by CW Soils, the proposed Project site is not located within a coastal area. Therefore,
tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered to be a significant hazard at the site.
Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking.
The Project Site is surrounded by a relatively flat and urbanized area. The Project Site is located
approximately 0.9 miles northeast of Lake Elsinore, which lacks significant potential for a
damaging seiche because of its low depth, and presence of flood control devices constructed by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including the berm fill at the southern end of the lake. The
Project Site is located at least 25 miles from the ocean and approximately 1,267 feet above mean
sea level (MSL). Due to the location of the Project Site, and topography of the surrounding locale,
it is also not likely that mudflows would inundate the site. Therefore, no impacts associated with
inundation by flood, tsunami, or seiche would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: FEMA, General Plan EIR, Geotechnical Report – Appendix C)
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? (Less than Significant Impact)
The Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River watershed, which is regulated by the Santa
Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB has developed a “Water Quality
Control Plan” for the Santa Ana River Basin (herein, “Basin Plan”). The Basin Plan establishes
water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region. The Basin Plan includes
an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to
achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to
minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water.
Permits are issued under several programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these
discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means.
The RWQCB ensures compliance with the Basin Plan through its issuance of National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits, issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDR), and Water Quality Certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
In conformance with these requirements, the Applicant has prepared a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP), included as Appendix E, which demonstrates that the Proposed
Project’s drainage plan would meet all applicable requirements of the Basin Plan, including
requirements and conditions of approval associated with NPDES permits, issuance of WDRs, and
Water Quality Certifications. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the Basin
Plan, and potential impacts associated with implementation of a water quality control plan would
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 84 of 109
be less than significant.
According to General Plan EIR, the Project Site is located within the Elsinore Groundwater
Management Zone (GMZ). Since the City has a large amount of vacant land, substantial changes
to recharge systems could occur from development of the vacant parcels. In order to reduce
pollutants, the City has implemented policies to minimize pollutants in the local and regional
waterways, which includes water that percolates into the groundwater through Water Resources
Policies 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Water Resources Policies 4.1 and 4.2 require development projects to
acquire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants. Water Resources Policy 4.3 requires the City
to review future development project’s beneficial uses during the environmental review stage.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater
management plans, and potential impacts associated with implementation of a groundwater
management plan would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, PWQMP – Appendix F)
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact)
The Project Site is currently zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and is surrounded by Limited
Manufacturing (M-1), Commercial Manufacturing (C-M), and Public/Institutional (PI) zoning
designations. The Zoning Code divides the City into districts, or zones, and regulated land use
activity in each district, specifying the permitted uses of land and buildings, density, bulk, and
other regulations. The Proposed Project would construct an industrial business on an
undeveloped parcel surrounded by other commercial and industrial development. The Project
Site does not contain any existing residential or community structures and is in the Business
District. The Proposed Project would not include any changes to the existing circulation network
that would divide an existing community. Therefore, no impacts associated with the division of
an established community would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, Zoning Map)
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(No Impact)
The General Plan Land Use Designation of the Project Site is Limited Industrial (LI) and it is zoned
Limited Manufacturing (M-1). The LI designation provides for industrial parks, warehouses,
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 85 of 109
manufacturing, research and development, public and quasi -public uses, and similar and
compatible uses. The Proposed Project, which includes the construction of three (3) buildings for
warehousing and manufacturing, is consistent and compatible the LI Land Use Designation. The
proposed warehousing and manufacturing use is a permitted use in the (M-1) Zone. The
Proposed Project is consistent with all applicable existing and planned land use policies and
regulations of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the General Plan. The Project will not conflict
with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map)
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Less than Significant Impact)
The County’s principal mineral resources include clay, limestone, iron ore, sand, and construction
aggregate. As of 2010, six mines were active in the Lake Elsinore area, producing clay, stone/rock,
and sand and gravel. Decomposed granite has also been mined in the Lake Elsinore area in recent
years. According to Figure 3.12-1 of the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project site is located
within the Mineral Resource Zone 3 Area (MRZ-3), or areas containing mineral deposits, the
significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. Historical site utilization research
indicates the subject property was undeveloped from at least 1938 until 2005. Light agricultural
use is evident on air photos in the 1940s and 1950s. From 2009 until 2010, the property w as
utilized as a contractor’s storage yard. The property is currently vacant. No mineral extraction
has been documented on the site. Given the size and location of the Project site in relationship
to surrounding urban uses, it is highly unlikely that any surface mining or mineral recovery
operation could feasibly take place in the Project area.
Additionally, the City’s General Plan delineates mining operations areas by an overlay land use
for mining purposes. The proposed Project is not within the Extractive Overlay of the General
Plan Land Use Map. Therefore, the proposed Project will have less than significant impacts in
regards to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR; General Plan LU Map)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact)
As discussed in Item XII.a above, the City’s General Plan delineates mining operations areas by
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 86 of 109
an overlay land use for mining purposes. The proposed Project is not within the Extractive Overlay
of the General Plan Land Use Map. Thus, the proposed Project will not result in the loss of
availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR; General Plan LU Map)
XIII. NOISE
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated)
A Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads dated July 23, 2019 (Appendix G) was
completed to determine potential impacts to noise associated with the development of the
Proposed Project. The following section calculates the potential noise emissions associated with
the construction and operations of the Proposed Project and compares the noise levels to the
City standards.
Operational Impacts
The operation of the Proposed Project may generate noise levels that exceed City standards at
the existing nearby sensitive receptors. The operation of the Proposed Project may create an
increase in noise levels from roof-top air conditioning units, idling trucks, delivery truck activities,
backup alarms, as well as loading and unloading of dry goods, and parking lot vehicle movements
all operating simultaneously.
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels
were evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds of the City of Lake Elsinore. Table 7 shows
the operational noise levels associated with the Pennington Industrial Project will satisfy the
daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards at the nearby receiver locations. All other
receiver locations are shown to experience operational noise levels below the exterior noise level
standards. Therefore, the project impact from operational noise will be less than significant.
Table 7: Unmitigated Operational Noise Level Compliance
Noise Level at Receiver Locations (dBA)2 Receiver
Location1
Land
Use Threshold
Exceeded?3 L50
(30 mins)
L25
(15 mins)
L8
(5 mins)
L2
(1 min)
Lmax
(<1 min)
Daytime Residential
Standards
50 60 65 70 75 -
Nighttime 40 55 60 65 70 -
Daytime 60 65 70 75 80 -
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 87 of 109
Nighttime Public Space 55 60 65 70 75 -
R1 Residential 28.0 29.7 31.4 32.5 35.9 No
R2 Public 47.5 50.3 54.7 58.5 63.9 No
R3 Public 41.4 43.2 45.1 46.6 49.7 No
1 See Exhibit 7-A for the receiver and noise source locations.
2 Estimated unmitigated Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 7-2.
3 Do the estimated Project operational noise levels meet the operational noise level standards (Table 3-1)?
Construction Impacts
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks,
power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high
levels. The number and mix of construction equipment is expected to occur during site
preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating.
The construction noise analysis shows that the highest construction noise levels will occur when
construction activities take place at the closest point from primary Project construction activity
to each of the nearby receiver locations. As shown on Table 8, the unmitigated construction noise
levels are expected to range from 38.7 to 72.9 dBA Leq at the receiver locations. To evaluate
whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at off-site
sensitive receiver locations the City of Lake Elsinore stationary construction equipment noise
level standards of 60 dBA Leq for residential and 70 dBA Leq for public (e.g., school) uses, are
used as the acceptable construction noise thresholds at the nearby sensitive receiver locations
since Project construction will occur for greater than 10 consecutive days.
Table 8: Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary
Receiver
Location1
Construction Stage Hourly Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation
Grading
Building
Construction
Paving
Architectural
Coating
Highest
Noise
Levels2
R1 38.7 48.0 42.7 40.4 42.0 48.0
R2 63.6 72.9 67.6 65.3 66.9 72.9
R3 63.6 72.9 67.6 65.3 66.9 72.9
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions.
Table 9 shows the highest construction noise levels at the potentially impacted receiver locations
are expected to approach 72.9 dBA Leq at receiver locations R2 and R3, and therefore, will
potentially exceed the 70 dBA Leq threshold at occupied school uses represented by R2 and R3.
The noise impact due to unmitigated Project construction noise levels is, therefore, considered a
potentially significant impact at receiver locations R2 and R3. This potentially significant impact
is due to large, or heavy, mobile equipment associated with the grading stage of Project
construction.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 88 of 109
Table 9: Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Land Use
Category
Highest
Construction
Activity Noise
Levels (dBA Leq)2
Threshold
(dBA Leq)3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 Residential 48.0 60 No
R2 School 72.9 70 Yes
R3 School 72.9 70 Yes
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions, as shown on Tables 8-7.
3 Construction noise level thresholds by land use category.
4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels meet the construction noise level thresholds?
MM NOI 1 would require a minimum 90-foot buffer for large mobile equipment (greater than
80,000 pounds), loaded trucks, and jackhammers is required to reduce the Project construction
noise level impacts at R2 and R3 (southwest property line). Table 10 shows the mitigated Project
construction noise levels due to grading, with the 90-foot buffer, would result in noise levels
approaching 63.4 dBA Leq at receiver locations R2 and R3, which are below the 70 dBA Leq
exterior noise level threshold at public land uses, and as such, would result in less than significant
noise impacts with mitigation.
Table 10: Mitigated Grading Equipment Noise Levels
Reference Construction Activity1
Reference
Noise Level
@ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity 59.2
Dozer Activity 64.2
Rough Grading Activities 73.5
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet: 73.5
Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity (Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
R1 943' -25.5 0.0 48.0
R2 90' -5.1 -5.0 63.4
R3 90' -5.1 -5.0 63.4
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver with the minimum
90-foot buffer zone for large mobile equipment (> 80,000 lbs).
3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance.
4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers in the Project study area.
Mitigation Measures:
MM NOI 1: Construction Buffer. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Property
Owner/Developer shall include a note on the grading and building plans that no
large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds), loaded trucks, and
jackhammers shall be operated within 90 feet of the southwest property line.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 89 of 109
(Sources: Noise Impact Analysis – Appendix G, LEMC)
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the
equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected
that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent,
localized intrusion. The proposed Project’s construction activities most likely to cause vibration
impacts are:
Heavy Construction Equipment: Although all heavy mobile construction equipment has
the potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to
buildings, the vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause
building damage.
Trucks: Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration
intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps
or potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem.
Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
Project-related construction vibration velocity levels are expected to approach 0.048 in/sec root-
mean-square (RMS) at the nearby receiver locations at distances ranging from 30 to 943 feet, as
shown on Table 11. Based on the City of Lake Elsinore vibration threshold of 0.01 in/sec RMS, the
construction-related vibration impacts are considered potentially significant impact at receiver
locations R2 and R3.
Table 11: Unmitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Receiver
Location1
Distance
to
Const.
Activity
(Feet)
Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)2 RMS
Velocity
Levels
(in/sec)3
Threshold
(RMS)
Threshold
Exceeded?4 Small
Bulldozer
(<80k lbs)
Jack-
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
(>80k lbs)
Peak
Vibration
(PPV)
R1 943’ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 No
R2 30’ 0.002 0.027 0.058 0.068 0.068 0.048 0.01 Yes
R3 30’ 0.002 0.027 0.058 0.068 0.068 0.048 0.01 Yes
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A of the NIA.
2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 8-10 of NIA.
3 Vibration levels in PPV are converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction
Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.
4 Does the peak vibration exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold shown on Table 3-4 of the NIA?
MM NOI 1 would require a minimum 90-foot buffer for large mobile equipment (greater than
80,000 pounds), loaded trucks, and jackhammers is required to reduce the Project construction
noise level impacts at R2 and R3 (southwest property line). With the mitigation measures
identified herein, the vibration levels would be reduced to 0.009 in/sec RMS at receiver locations
R2 and R3, as shown on Table 12, and the impact due to Project construction would be considered
a less than significant impact with mitigation for the adjacent receiver locations (R2 and R3) which
represent the Keith McCarthy Academy and school use.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 90 of 109
Table 12: Mitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Receiver
Location1
Buffer
Distance
to Const.
Activity
(Feet)
Mitigated Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)2 RMS
Velocity
Levels
(in/sec)3
Threshold
(RMS)
Threshold
Exceeded?4 Small
Bulldozer
(<80k lbs)
Jack-
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
(>80k lbs)
Peak
Vibration
(PPV)
R2 90’ - 0.005 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.01 No
R3 90’ - 0.005 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.01 No.
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A of the NIA.
2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 8-10 of NIA.
3 Vibration levels in PPV are converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction
Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.
4 Does the peak vibration exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold shown on Table 3-4 of the NIA?
Mitigation Measures: MM NOI 1, as defined in Item XIII.a, above.
(Sources: Noise Impact Analysis – Appendix G)
C) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (No Impact)
The Proposed Project is not be located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport. Therefore, no impacts associated with excessive noise in
proximity to an airport would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan)
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? (No Impact)
The Proposed Project consists of construct three (3) industrial buildings that are 91,140 square
foot (SF) in total, which may directly induce growth through the addition of new businesses. The
population is expected to increase from approximately 38,185 in the City in 2005 to 318,856 in
the City and its sphere of influence in 2030. Residents who work within Lake Elsinore are primarily
employed in services positions, manufacturing businesses, construction, and retail trade. The
Proposed Project would provide employment opportunities for City residents. The Proposed
Project would be consistent with the Limited Industrial land use designation contained in the
City’s General Plan which provides for an estimated 16,424,826 square feet of industrial uses.
The Proposed Project comprises approximately 0.6 percent of the City’s planned industrial uses.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 91 of 109
The Proposed Project would be also considered infill development and is consistent with
surrounding uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with unplanned population growth would
occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan Land Use Map, General Plan EIR, Project Description )
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
The Project Site is currently vacant and would be developed with three (3) buildings intended for
industrial use. In addition, the Proposed Project is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and has a
general plan land use designation of Limited Industrial (L-I) and not intended for residential use.
Therefore, the development of an industrial use on-site would not result in the displacement of
substantial numbers of existing people or housing, which could necessitate the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts associated with the displacement of
substantial numbers of people or housing would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, Project Description)
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? (Less than Significant Impact)
The City contracts for fire services from the Riverside County Fire Department and the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). The nearest fire station is Station #97,
located approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the Project Site as shown on Figure 3.14 -1 of the
General Plan EIR. The fire department currently serves the exiting parcel and the proposed land
is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the construction of the Proposed Proje ct would
not represent a significant increase fire service.
Chapter 16.74 of the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code establishes a program for the adoption
and administration of development impact fees by the City for the benefit of the citizens whereby
as a condition to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy by the City the
Property Owner/Developer would be required to pay development impact fees or provide other
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 92 of 109
consideration to the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital
improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which would benefit such
new development. Section 16.74.049 includes a “Fire facilities fee” to mitigate the additional
burdens created by new development for City fire facilities. Since the Proposed Project does not
propose new housing, any impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through
the payment of the appropriate development impact fees. The Proposed Project would also be
required to comply with all applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the
site and as such, would be reviewed by the City Fire Department to determine the specific fire
requirements applicable to ensure compliance with these requirements. The Pr oposed Project
would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to fire protection. Therefore,
potential impacts associated with fire protection would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR Figure 3.14-1 Police and Fire Stations, LEMC)
b) Police protection? (Less than Significant Impact)
Police protection services are provided by the Lake Elsinore Police Department (LEPD) under
contract by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD). The Lake Elsinore Police
Department/Sheriff's Station is located at 333 Limited Avenue, approximately 1.08 miles
southeast of the Project Site. Chapter 16.74 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes a program
for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of
defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to
the extent allowed by law) which would benefit such new development. The Proposed Proje ct
would participate in this development impact fee program to mitigate impacts to police
protection resources. Any potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset
through the payment of the development impact fee. The Proposed Project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts related to police protection. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with police projection would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR Figure 3.14-1 Police and Fire Stations, LEMC)
c) Schools? (Less than Significant Impact)
The Project Site is located within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) which serves
most of the City of Lake Elsinore, all of the cities of Canyon Lake and Wildomar, and a portion of
unincorporated Riverside County as shown in Figure 3.14-3 of the General Plan EIR. The Property
Owner/Developer would be required to pay school impact fees as levied by the LEUSD, which
would provide funding for school facilities. Since the Proposed Project does not propose new
housing, any potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the
payment of the appropriate development impact fees. The Proposed Project would not result in
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 93 of 109
substantial adverse physical impacts related to schools. Therefore, potential impacts associated
with schools would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR Figure 3.14-3 – Schools and District Boundaries)
d) Parks? (Less than Significant Impact)
Since the Proposed Project does not propose residential uses, a direct increase in park uses is not
expected as a result of Project implementation. Indirect impacts to park facilities from
commercial development would be the occasional use of a park during a lunch or dinner break.
Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) for the City’s Municipal Code
requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Developer pay fees
for the purposes set forth in that section. Paragraph D of Section 16.34.060 describes the City’s
Park Capital Improvement Fund and describes that the City Council has the o ption to request
dedication for park purposes or in lieu thereof, request that the Property Owner/Developer pay
a fee for the purpose of purchasing the land and developing and maintaining the City park system.
As is consistent with all commercial projects, the Property Owner/Developer would be required
to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving and maintaining park land
within the City. Since the Proposed Project does not propose new housing, any potential impacts
would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate park
fees. The Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to
parks. Therefore, potential impacts associated with parks would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC)
e) Other public services/facilities? (Less than Significant Impact)
The City of Lake Elsinore is part of the Riverside County Library System. The nearest City of Lake
Elsinore library to the Project Site is the Lake Elsinore Branch Library at 600 West Graham Avenue,
approximately 0.9 miles southeast of the Project Site. Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34
(Required Improvements) of the City’s Municipal Code requires that prior to the issuance of a
building permit, the Property Owner/Developer pay fees for the purposes set forth in that
section. Paragraph B of Section 16.34.060 describes the City’s Library Mitigation Fee and states
that an in-lieu fee for future construction of library improvements shall be paid to the City to
assure the necessary library facilities are provided the community. Since the Proposed Project
does not propose new housing, any impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset
through the payment of the appropriate library mitigation fees. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with libraries would be less than significant.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 94 of 109
Chapter 16.74 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes a program for the adoption and
administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of
public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by
law) which would benefit such new development. Section 16.74.048 includes an “Animal shelter
facilities fee” to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for animal
facilities. In addition, the Property Owner/Developer would be requir ed to pay City Hall & Public
Works fees, Community Center Fees, and Marina Facilities Fees prior to the issuance of building
permits. Therefore, potential impacts associated with other public services and facilities would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC)
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated? (Less than Significant Impact)
The City of Lake Elsinore Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008 – 2030 establishes a goal of
providing five acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The Proposed Project does not include
elements (e.g., residential development) that would result in substantial increased deman ds for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Indirect impacts to park facilities
from commercial development would be the occasional use of a park during a lunch or dinner
break. As shown on Figure 3.15-1 – Parks of the General Plan EIR, there are no parks located
within a half mile of the Project Site. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Proposed Project would
increase the use of existing parks. As described in Section XIV(d), the Property Owner/Developer
would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving and
maintaining parkland within the City. Since the Proposed Project does not propose new housing,
any impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the
appropriate park fees. The Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, potential impacts associated with parks or
recreational facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR Figure 3.15-1 - Parks)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No
Impact)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 95 of 109
The Proposed Project involves the construct three (3) industrial buildings that are 91,140 square
foot (SF) in total. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to pay park fees to the City
for the purpose of establishing, improving and maintaining park land within the City. The
Proposed Project does not include recreational facilities and does not require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment. Therefore, no impacts associated with recreational facilities would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, Project Description)
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
A Traffic Impact Analysis was completed to determine potential impacts to traffic associated with
the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix I - Focused Traffic Evaluation, Pennington
Industrial Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated July 29, 2019 ).
On December 28, 2018, updates to the CEQA Guidelines were approved by the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL). As part of the updates to the CEQA Guidelines, thresholds of
significance for evaluation of impacts to transportation have changed. The CEQA Guidelines
update eliminated the threshold of significance for evaluating impacts due to changes to air
traffic patterns and consolidated the evaluation of impacts due to a conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs into an analysis of impacts due to a conflict with programs, plans,
ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system (i.e., new Thresho ld a.). However, new
Threshold b. of the CEQA Guidelines for Transportation and Traffic requires an evaluation of
impacts due to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMTs), instead of evaluating impacts based on Level of
Service (LOS) criteria, as required by California Senate Bill (SB) 743. LOS has been used as the
basis for determining the significance of traffic impacts as standard practice in CEQA documents
for decades. In 2013, SB 743 was passed, which is intended to balance the need for LOS for traffic
planning with the need to build infill housing and mixed -use commercial developments within
walking distance of mass transit facilities, downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater
flexibility to local governments to balance these sometimes-competing needs. At full
implementation of SB 743, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is
expected to replace LOS as the metric against which traffic impacts are evaluated, with a metric
based on VMTs. As a component of OPR’s revisions to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018,
lead agencies will be required to adopt VMT thresholds of significance by July 2020. At the time
this Initial Study/MND was prepared, a VMT metric was not published by OPR, and the City of
Lake Elsinore in its capacity as Lead Agency, as well as surrounding local agencies in which the
Proposed Project’s traffic would circulate, use LOS as the significance criteria for evaluating a
project’s traffic impacts. For this reason, a LOS metric and not a VMT metric is appropriately used
in this Initial Study/MND.
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 96 of 109
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities ? (Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated)
A Focused Traffic Evaluation dated July 29, 2019 was prepared for the Project by Urban
Crossroads to evaluate the proposed Project’s impacts on traffic. The trips generated by the
Project have been estimated based on trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportatio n
Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation (10th Edition, 2017). The trip generation rates used
to estimate the proposed Project traffic are shown in Table 13. Table 13 also shows the Project
trip generation, which consist of 71 trips in the AM peak hour, 78 trips in the PM peak hour, and
455 daily trips (passenger car equivalents).
Table 13: Project Trip Generation Summary (06/17/2019)
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 Vehicle Mix Source: City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study for LU 150 (Light Warehouse), August 2003. PCE rates are per SANBAG.
Project Trip Distribution
Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes
that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses
and surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify the route where the Pro ject
traffic would distribute. The Project trip distribution was developed based on anticipated travel
patterns to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the
geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the
regional freeway system. Appendix H, Exhibit 3 illustrates the Project trip distribution patterns.
Approximately fifty percent (50%) of the project traffic is anticipated to travel to and from the
northwest, via Chaney Street to/from Collier Avenue.
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code
Quantity2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
Manufacturing 140 91.14 TSF 0.48 0.14 0.62 0.21 0.46 0.67 3.93
80.3% Passenger Cars 0.39 0.11 0.50 0.17 0.37 0.54 3.16
5.2% 2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5)
4.5% 3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0)
10.0% 4-Axle+ Trucks (PCE = 3.0)
0.04
0.04
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.19
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.14
0.05
0.06
0.20
0.31
0.35
1.18
Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code
Quantity2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
Manufacturing 140 91.14 TSF
Passenger Cars: 35 10 45 15 34 49 288
Truck Trips:
2-Axle Trucks
3-Axle Trucks
4-Axle Trucks
3
4
13
1
1
4
4
5
17
1
2
6
3
4
13
4
6
19
28
32
107
TOTAL 55 16 71 24 54 78 455
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 97 of 109
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
The Existing plus Project (E+P) scenario is intended to identify the significant Project impacts
associated with the proposed Project on the existing circulation system. The E+P traffic conditions
include existing traffic in addition to the traffic generated by the proposed Project. Appendix H,
Exhibit 2 also shows the weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes
for Existing (2019) With Project traffic conditions.
Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Volumes
To provide an assessment of the potential project‐related and cumulative traffic impacts, the
“buildup” method was used to develop traffic forecasts for Opening Year (2021) traffic condit ions
for Existing plus Ambient Projects plus Cumulative Projects plus Project (EAPC). The EAPC
scenario is intended to identify near‐term cumulative impacts on the planned near‐term
circulation system. The EAPC traffic conditions include background traffic within the study area
and the traffic generated by the proposed Project.
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 4.04% for
2021 traffic conditions (2% per year compounded annually). The ambient growth factor is
intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing
traffic volumes to account for area‐wide growth not reflected by cumulative development
projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic vol umes on surrounding
roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been
approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are
under consideration by governing agencies.
Intersection Analysis
The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 14, which indicates that the
intersection of Collier Avenue at Chaney Street is currently operating at acceptable LOS during
the peak hours. Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak
hour intersection turning volumes. The intersection of Collier Avenue at Chaney Street currently
warrants a traffic signal for Existing traffic conditions.
Table 14: Collier Avenue (NS) / Chaney Street (EW) Intersection Analysis Results
ANALYSIS SCENARIO
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
Existing (2019) Traffic Conditions CCS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 27.2 19.5 D C
E+P Traffic Conditions CSS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 28.6 21.4 D C
EAPC Traffic Conditions
- Without Improvements CSS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 >100 79.9 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 36.0 25.7 D C
1When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles
to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1 = Improvement
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all
way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or moveme nts sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 98 of 109
LOS calculations were conducted to evaluate operations of the intersection of Collier Avenue at
Chaney Street under Existing (2019) Plus Project conditions. Table 14 contains the results of this
analysis. Collier Avenue at Chaney Street is anticipated to experience acceptable operations for
Existing Plus Project conditions.
LOS calculations were conducted for Collier Avenue at Chaney Street to evaluate operations
under Opening Year (2021) Plus Project conditions. Intersection operations analysis worksheet s
for EAPC (2021) conditions are included in Attachment 6 of this letter. Table 14 contains the
results of this analysis.
Collier Avenue at Chaney Street is anticipated to experience deficient operations for Opening
Year Plus Project conditions, and a cumulative impact is found. Cumulative traffic impacts are
deficiencies that are not directly caused by the Project, but occur as a result of regional growth
combined with that or other nearby cumulative development projects or if the Project is
anticipated to contribute traffic to a deficient intersection under pre‐project conditions.
The City of Lake Elsinore has created its own local Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program to impose and
collect fees from new residential, commercial and industrial development for the purpose of
funding roadways and intersections necessary to accommodate City growth as identified in the
City’s General Plan Circulation Element. The City’s TIF program includes facilities that are not part
of, or which may exceed improvements identified and covered by the TUMF program. The
intersection of Chaney Street / Collier Avenue, forecasted to be cumulatively impacted by the
Project, has planned improvements through the City’s TIF Program. The Project will be subject to
the City of Lake Elsinore’s TIF fee program, and will pay the requisite City of Lake Elsinore TIF fees
at the rates then in effect pursuant to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
MM Trans 1 requires the Project to pay its fair-share for the construction of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Collier Avenue at Chaney Street, combined with a separate northbound left turn
lane from Collier Avenue to Chaney Street to address the deficiency for EAPC (2021) traffic
conditions. The fair‐share calculations for the traffic signal at Collier Avenue and Chaney Street
and related northbound left turn improvement indicate that the Project contributes 10.20% in
the AM peak hour and 9.15% in the PM peak hour of new vehicle trips to the cumulatively
impacted intersection of Collier Avenue at Chaney Street. With this mitigation, the intersection
is forecast to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour.
With implementation of mitigation measure MM Trans 1, impacts to Cumulative Condition will
be reduced to less than significant
Mitigation Measure:
MM Trans 1: Pay Project Fair-Share. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the Property
Owner/Developer shall pay its fair-share to construct:
a) A traffic signal at the intersection of Collier Avenue at Chaney Street.
b) A separate northbound left turn lane from Collier Avenue to Chaney Street.
(Sources: Focused Traffic Evaluation – Appendix I)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 99 of 109
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Each county in California is required to develop a Congestion Management Program (CMP) that
analyzes the links between land use, transportation and air quality. The Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the County of Riverside’s Congestion Management Agency.
The RCTC prepares and periodically updates the County’s CMP to meet federal Congestion
Management System guidelines and state CMP legislation.
According to Table 2-1-CMP System of Highways and Roadways, in the 2011 Riverside County
Congestion Management Program, the RCTC has defined the CMP ro adway system in Lake
Elsinore to be State Route 74 (SR-74) and Interstate 15 (I-15). All local jurisdictions are responsible
for determining the impacts of local development/land use decisions on the CMP roadway
system. RCTC requires local agencies whose developments impact the CMP system by causing
the Level of Service (LOS) on a non-exempt segment to fall to “F” to prepare deficiency plans.
The Project facilities will not impact any highways or roadways identified in the current CMP.
With MM Trans 1, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulative exceedance of an
established level of service standard. Therefore, with respect to a conflict with the applicable
CMP, no impact will occur.
Mitigation Measure: MM Trans 1, as defined in Item XVII.a, above.
(Sources: General Plan EIR; RCTC CMP; Focused Traffic Evaluation – Appendix I)
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Less than
Significant Impact)
The Proposed Project would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses.
The Proposed Project would be consistent with the on-site and surrounding zoning designations,
and implementation of the Proposed Project would not introduce incompatible uses to the
Project Area. The Proposed Project would not include any offsite features that would extend into
the public right-of-way or otherwise interfere with circulation or result in traffic hazards.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with hazardous geometric design features would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR; Zoning Map; Focused Traffic Evaluation – Appendix I)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 100 of 109
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less than Significant Impact)
The Proposed Project would be constructed on a vacant lot on the southwest corner of Chaney
Street and Minthorn Street, both of which would be improved to their ultimate right -of-way
along the frontage of the Project Site as part of the Proposed Project. The Project Site would be
accessible by emergency vehicles at each of its two driveways, one each on Chaney Street and
Minthorn Street. The proposed Project is required to comply with the City’s development review
process including review for compliance with the all applicable fire code requirements for
construction and access to the site. The Project will be reviewed by t he City Fire Department to
determine the specific fire requirements applicable to the Project and to ensure compliance with
these requirements. This will ensure that the proposed Project would provide adequate
emergency access to and from the site. Further, the City Engineer and the City Fire Department
will review any modifications to existing roadways to ensure that adequate emergency access or
emergency response would be maintained. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project will
not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, Focused Traffic Evaluation – Appendix I)
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). (Less
than Significant Impact)
As noted in Threshold V.a., and V.b., respectively, there were no cultural resources recorded at
the Project site by either a records search nor an intensive pedestrian survey. Therefore, impacts
to historical resources are a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR; Site Visit; Phase I ESA - Appendix C)
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe. (Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), signed into law in 2014, amended CEQA and established new
requirements for tribal notification and consultation. AB 52 applies to all projects for which a
notice of preparation or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 101 of 109
declaration is issued after July 1, 2015. AB 52 also broadly defines a new resource category of
tribal cultural resources and established a more robust process for meaningful consultation that
includes:
prescribed notification and response timelines;
consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact
evaluation, and mitigation measures; and
documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings.
A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of
projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide
written, formal notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 da ys of determining
that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond
to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in
consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30
days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either 1) the parties
agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural
resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual
agreement cannot be reached. AB 52 also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per
Public Resources Code §21082.3(c).
On August 28, 2019, the City provided written notification of the Project in accordance with AB
52 to all of the Native American tribes that requested to receive such notification from the City.
Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians,
and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested formal government -to-government
consultation under AB 52. The City met with Soboba on October 1, 2019 and with Rincon on
October 24, 2019. The Phase I cultural resources inventory of the project indicates that there is
very low potential for the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources during groundbreaking
activities. The EIC records indicate that no cultural resources have been recorded within the
project site, and no resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. The report concluded
that given the level of disturbance at the site, it is very unlikely that intact archaeological
resources are still present subsurface. On November 7, 2019, the City sent recommended
mitigation measures to Pechanga, Rincon and Soboba that address unanticipated discoveries of
cultural resources and human remains during groundbreaking activities. Consultation was
concluded on November 8, 2019 with Rincon and on December 13, 2019 with both Pechanga and
Soboba. As a result of these consultations, with implementation of MM Cul 1 and MM Cul 2 in
Section V, Cultural Resources of this Initial Study, AB52 consultation with Rincon, Soboba, and
Pechanga have been concluded and potential impacts associated with Tribal Cultural Resources
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: MM Cul 1 and MM Cul 2, as defined in Section V above.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore; Phase I Cultural Report - Appendix B)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 102 of 109
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
(Less than Significant Impact)
The Proposed Project would be within the service boundary for the Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District (EVMWD). The EVMWD issued Service Planning Letter #3223-0 (Appendix J) to the
Applicant on May 20, 2019, in which the EVMWD determined that water is available to serve the
Proposed Project and the project would need to connect to the sewer mainline in Chaney Street
at the manhole in front of the Project. The Proposed Project would be served by the existing
water and wastewater treatment facilities, and the Property Owner/Developer would pay all
development impacts fees associated with water and wastewater service. Therefore, potential
impacts associated with water or wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC, EVMWD Service Planning Letter - Appendix J)
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years ? (Less than Significant
Impact).
EVMWD obtains its potable water supplies from imported water from Metro politan Water
District (MWD), local surface water from Canyon Lake, and local groundwater from the Elsinore
Basin. According to EVMWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), EVMWD has
determined that its current and anticipated future supplies are suffi cient to meet the projected
dry-year and multiple dry-year demand. The EVMWD issued Service Planning Letter #3223-0
(Appendix I) to the Applicant on May 20, 2019, in which the EVMWD determined that water is
available to serve the Proposed Project and a sewer line extension would be required on Collier
Avenue, which would be constructed as part of the Proposed Project. There are sufficient water
supplies as well as water shortage contingency plans to protect existing and future water needs
within the EVMWD service area. Therefore, potential impacts associated with water supplies
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, EVMWD Service Planning Letter - Appendix J)
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less than Significant Impact)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 103 of 109
The EVMWD is responsible for the City’s wastewater treatment plant. The EVMWD issued Service
Planning Letter #3223-0 (Appendix I) to the Applicant on May 20, 2019 , in which the EVMWD
determined that water is available to serve the Proposed Project and a sewer line extension
would be required on Collier Avenue, which would be constructed as part of the Proposed
Project. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to pay development impacts fees.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: EVMWD Service Planning Letter - Appendix J)
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals ?
(Less than Significant Impact)
CR&R, Inc. Environmental Services is the solid waste disposal service provider for the City of Lake
Elsinore and parts of Riverside County. Riverside County Department of Waste Resources
(RCDWR) facilitates waste management services for Riverside County. These services are
provided on a countywide basis, and each private or public entity determines which landfill or
transfer station to use, which is mostly based on geographic proximity. The landfills typically used
by the City of Lake Elsinore are the El Sobrante, Badlands, and Lamb Canyon Landfills. All three
of the landfills are Class III municipal solid waste landfills. El Sobrante Landfill is expected to reach
capacity by 2045. Badlands Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2024 and Lamb Canyon
Landfill by 2021. Both Badlands and Lamb Canyon Landfills have the potential to expand their
facilities and capacity. Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC requires that project applicant divert a
minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris, and the Property
Owner/Developer would meet this requirement. The existing landfills have sufficient capacity to
serve the Proposed Project, and recycling and green waste collection would reduce overall solid
waste generated. Therefore, potential impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC)
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? (Less than Significant Impact)
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes
of 1989 as amended [IWMA]) under the Public Resource Code requires that local jurisdictions
divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000, and 50% diversion each
year following. As of 2006, the City achieved a 50 percent waste diversion rate. In addition,
Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC requires that project applicant divert a minimum of 50 percent of
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 104 of 109
construction and demolition debris, and the Property Owner/Developer would meet this
requirement. The Proposed Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, potential impacts associated with solid waste
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: General Plan EIR, PRC, LEMC)
XX. WILDFIRES
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (No Impact)
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (No Impact)
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (No
Impact)
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage
changes? (No Impact)
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Riverside County Fire
Hazard Severity Zone Maps and the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR Figure 3.10 -2 (City of
Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility), the Project Site is not located in a High or Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone. The Project Site is vacant and bound by vacant land to the northwest, south
and west and by commercial/industrial uses to the northeast and east. As part of the plan check
process, the Project Site plan would undergo a fire, life, and safety review by the City Fire
Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance with
these requirements. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildland fires would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Riverside County Fire Hazard
Severity Zone Maps, General Plan EIR Figure 3.10-2 - City of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility)
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA
and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 105 of 109
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the proposed Project area contains some sensitive
biological resources that could potentially be affected by the proposed Project. All potentially
significant impacts to biological resources would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant
impact with the implementation of mitigation measures MM Bio 1 through MM Bio 3 identified
in this initial study as well as design features and measures already incorporated into the Project.
The presence of any previously recorded or potential cultural resources was not found on the
proposed Project site. Further, the site has been previously disturbed and it is highly unlikely that
any cultural resources exist. However, in order to provide protection in the unlikely event that
cultural resources or human remains are unearthed during Project construction, implementation
of mitigation measures MM Cul 1 through MM Cul 2 will reduce potential impacts to less than
significant.
Thus, the proposed Project’s will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, impacts are less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures: MM Bio 1 through MM Bio 3 and MM Cul 1 through MM Cul 2
(Sources: Above Initial Study)
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The Proposed Project would result in potentially significant project-specific impacts to biological
resources, cultural resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and transportation/traffic impa cts.
However, all mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce these impacts to less
than significant levels. The Air Quality and Transportation/Traffic analyses of this document
considered cumulative impacts in their respective analyses, and mitigation measures would be
required to reduce cumulative impacts associated with Transportation/Traffic. No additional
mitigation measures would be required to reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 106 of 109
levels.
Mitigation Measures: MM Trans 1
(Sources: Above Initial Study)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Effects on human beings were evaluated as part of this analysis of this initial study and found to
be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures in biological resources,
cultural/paleontological resources, geology and soils, noise, and traffic. With implementation of
MM NOI 1, noise will not increase due to the Project. Based on the analysis and conclusions in
this initial study, the proposed Project will not cause substantial adverse effects directly or
indirectly to human beings. Therefore, potential direct and indirect impacts on human beings
that result from the proposed Project are considered less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Mitigation Measures: MM NOI 1
(Sources: Above Initial Study)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 107 of 109
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this
document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines.
City of Lake Elsinore
Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner
Nick Lowe, PE|MS, Consultant Traffic Engineer
Dina Purvis, Senior Engineering Technician
VII. REFERENCES
The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document.
Except as noted, they are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community
Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674-3124.
AQ Report Air Quality Impact Analysis, Pennington Industrial Project, City of Lake Elsinore,
prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated July 10, 2019. (Appendix A)
Cultural Report Cultural Resources Inventory for the Pennington Project, Lake Elsinore,
California, prepared by DUDEK, dated November 4, 2019
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Lake Elsinore
Jurisdiction Diversion / Disposal Rate Detail, 2006. (Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDive
rsionPost2006, accessed September 2019.)
CAP City of Lake Elsinore, Climate Action Plan, approved December 13, 2011.
(Available at http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=7249,
accessed September 2019.)
CCR California Code of Regulations. (Available at
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Index?transitionType=Default&contextDat
a=%28sc.Default%29, accessed September 2019.)
Code of Federal
Regulations
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 Transportation. (Available at
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49tab_02.tpl,
accessed September 2019.)
DOC California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder.
(Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, accessed September
2019.)
DOC WA California Department of Conservation, Land Conservation (Williamson) Act,
Riverside County Land Conservation Act Map. (Available at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Riverside_w_15_16_WA.pdf, accessed
September 2019.)
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 108 of 109
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Database.
(Available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed September
2019.)
EVMWD Service Planning Letter #3223-0, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, May
20, 2019. (Appendix I)
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Map Number 06065C2036G.
(Available at
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Lake%20Elsinore%2C%20
CA#searchresultsanchor, accessed September 2019.)
General Plan City of Lake Elsinore, City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, adopted December 13,
2011. (Available at http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-
departments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore-general-plan,
accessed September 2019.)
General Plan
EIR
City of Lake Elsinore, City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final
Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report, certified December 13,
2011. (Available at http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-
departments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore-general-
plan/general-plan-certified-eir, accessed September 2019.)
General Plan
LU Map
City of Lake Elsinore, General Plan Land Use Map, adopted December 13, 2011.
(Available at http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24827,
accessed September 2019.)
GHG Report Greenhous Gas Analysis, Pennington Industrial Project, City of Lake Elsinore,
prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated July 10, 2019 (Appendix G)
Geotech Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report Proposed Commercial
Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 377-160-014, South Corner of Chaney
& West Minthorn Streets, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California,
prepared by CW Soils, dated February 27, 2019. (Appendix B)
Health and
Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code. (Available at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=HS
C , accessed September 2019.)
Hydro Preliminary Drainage Report for Pennington Industrial, South Corner of Chaney
& West Minthorn Streets, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California,
prepared by SB&O Inc., dated May 17, 2019. (Appendix D)
LEMC City of Lake Elsinore, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, 2019. (Available at
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LakeElsinore/, accessed September
2019.)
NIA Noise Impact Analysis, Pennington Industrial, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by
Urban Crossroads, dated July 23, 2019. (Appendix F)
P-WQMP Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Pennington Industrial Park,
prepared by SB&O Inc., dated February 27, 2019 (Revised May 17, 2019).
(Appendix E)
Phase I ESA Environmental Site Assessment - Phase I, Undeveloped Property, APN: 377-160-
014, Southern corner of West Minthorn Street and Chaney Street, Lake Elsinore,
California 92530, prepared by California Environmental, dated July 2018.
Pennington Industrial Project - Draft IS/MND (ER 2019 -03)
Page 109 of 109
(Appendix C)
RC GIS County of Riverside, Riverside County Geographic Information System, Map My
County –Riverside County. (Available at
https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public,
accessed September 2019.)
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ
amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, July
17, 2012. (Available at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/c
onstpermits/wqo_2009_0009_complete.pdf, accessed September 2019).
TIA Focused Traffic Evaluation, Pennington Industrial Project, City of Lake Elsinore,
prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated July 29, 2019. (Appendix H)
WQCPSARB State of California, 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River
Basin, February 2016 (Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_pl
an/index.shtml accessed September 2019.)
Zoning Map City of Lake Elsinore, Zoning Map, September 9, 2019. (Available at
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24829, accessed
September 2019)