HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA 2018-78 - Exhibit G ISMND
LAKE STREET STORAGE
Planning Application No. 2018-78
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 37550
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2018-22
Commercial Design Review (CDR) No. 2018-16
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2019-02
(INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
Prepared By:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Applicant:
LAKE STREET PROPERTIES, LP
2279 EAGLE GLEN PARKWAY, SUITE 112-470
CORONA, CA 92883
Environmental Consultant:
Sagecrest Planning+Environmental
2400 East Katella Avenue, Suite 800
Anaheim, CA 92806
January 2020
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
A. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................... 1
B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ....................................................................... 1
C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................... 2
D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY ................................................................................................ 2
E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 3
F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES .............. 4
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 7
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ........................................................................................ 7
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 8
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................................. 35
A. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 35
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ......................................................... 37
C. DETERMINATION ................................................................................................................. 37
D. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ................................................................................................... 38
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 46
I. AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................... 46
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .............................................................. 50
III. AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................. 53
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 65
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 84
VI. ENERGY .............................................................................................................................. 88
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................................................................... 94
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................ 100
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................ 103
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................ 108
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................... 114
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 116
XIII. NOISE ...................................................................................................................... 118
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................... 128
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ..................................................................................................... 130
XVI. RECREATION ............................................................................................................ 134
XVII. TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................. 136
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 162
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 165
XX. WILDFIRE ......................................................................................................................... 168
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................................... 171
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ...................................................................... 174
VII. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 176
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figures
Figure 1: Regional Location Map ................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3: Tentative Parcel Map (1) .............................................................................................. 15
Figure 4 - Tentative Parcel Map (2) ............................................................................................. 16
Figure 5: Conceptual Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 17
Figure 6: Monument Sign ............................................................................................................ 18
Figure 7: Floor, Mezzanine and Roof Plan ................................................................................... 19
Figure 8: Elevations ..................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 9: Section Elevation .......................................................................................................... 21
Figure 10: Materials Board .......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 11: Renderings ................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 12: Proposed Conceptual Geometric Plan (Ultimate) ....................................................... 24
Figure 13 - Conceptual Landscape Plan (1) .................................................................................. 25
Figure 14 - Conceptual Landscape Plan (2) .................................................................................. 26
Figure 15 - Conceptual Landscape Plan (A) ................................................................................. 27
Figure 16 - Conceptual Landscape Plan (B) ................................................................................. 28
Figure 17 - Conceptual Landscape Plan (C) ................................................................................. 29
Figure 18 - Conceptual Landscape Plan (D) ................................................................................. 30
Figure 19 - Conceptual Landscape Plan (E) .................................................................................. 31
Figure 20 - Conceptual Lighting ................................................................................................... 32
Figure 21 - Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan ............................................................................... 33
Figure 22 - Sensitive Receiver Locations ................................................................................... 120
Figure 23 - Operational Noise Source and Receiver Locations .................................................. 123
Tables
Table 1 – Lot Summary .................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2 – Development Summary ................................................................................................. 9
Table 3 – Maximum Daily Emissions Regional Thresholds .......................................................... 53
Table 4 – Maximum Daily Emissions Localized Thresholds ......................................................... 54
Table 5 – Overall Construction Emissions Summary (Without Mitigation) .................................. 59
Table 6 – Summary of Operations Emissions .............................................................................. 60
Table 7 – Localized Significance Summary Construction (Without Mitigation) ........................... 61
Table 8 – Localized Significance Summary of Operations ............................................................ 62
Table 9 – Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies .............. 92
Table 10 – Total Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual) .................................................. 101
Table 11 - Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary ................................... 121
Table 12 - Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance ............................... 121
Table 13 - Daytime Operational Noise Level Compliance .......................................................... 124
Table 14 - Nighttime Operational Noise Level Contributions .................................................... 124
Table 15 – Unmitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ........................................... 126
Table 16 – Trip Generation Rates .............................................................................................. 137
Table 17 – Trip Generation Results ........................................................................................... 137
Table 18 – Intersection Analysis for Existing (2017) Conditions ................................................ 142
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 19 – Deficient Intersections in the E+P Condition............................................................ 143
Table 20 – Intersection Capacity Analysis (EAP) ........................................................................ 144
Table 21 – Queuing Analysis (EAP) ............................................................................................ 145
Table 22 – Freeway Ramp Junction Analysis (EAP) .................................................................... 145
Table 23 – Intersection Capacity Analysis (EAPC) ...................................................................... 146
Table 24 – Queuing Analysis (EAPC) .......................................................................................... 147
Table 25 - Freeway Ramp Junction Analysis (EAPC) .................................................................. 148
Table 26 – Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) Without Project Conditions ............. 150
Table 27 – Freeway Ramp Junction Merge/Diverge Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) Conditions
.................................................................................................................................................. 151
Table 28 – Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) With Project Conditions ................... 152
Table 29 – Left Turn Storage Lengths at Project Entry and Interchange Area for Horizon Year
(2035) With Project Conditions ................................................................................................. 153
Table 30 – Summary of Fair Share Cost of Improvements ........................................................ 157
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 | Page
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the Lake Street Storage 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 proposal has the potential to substantially degrade quality of the environment.
• The proposal has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
• The proposal has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable.
• The proposal could cause direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.
According to Section 21080(c)(1) of CEQA and Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, 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 Section 21080(c)(2) of CEQA and Section 15070(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted if it is determined that although the Initial
Study identifies that the project may have potentially significant effects on the environment,
revisions in the project plans and/or mitigation measures, which would avoid or mitigate the
effects to below the level of significance, have been made or agreed to by the applicant.
This Initial Study has determined that the Proposed Project may result in potentially
significant environmental effects but that said effects can be reduced to below the level of
significance through the implementation of mitigation measures and therefore, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary
environmental evaluations and clearance.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 | Page
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, 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 City Council is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section
15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon
the environment.
C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents which are
intended to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision-makers, other responsible or interested
agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project.
The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate
environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or
reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to
avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible agencies must balance
adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social
goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021).
The City of Lake Elsinore City Council, as Lead Agency, has determined that environmental
clearance for the Proposed Project can be provided with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
Initial Study and Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments
received on the document will be considered by the Lead Agency before it acts on the Proposed
Project.
D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and
environmental implications of the Proposed Project.
I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of
Lake Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review,
environmental procedures, and incorporation by reference documents.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the Proposed Project. A description of discretionary
approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 | Page
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 sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to the Proposed Project.
2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project implementation will have
the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels
of thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required.
3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less
Than Significant Impact”. The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and
explain how the measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
4. Potentially Significant Impact: Future implementation will have impacts that are considered
significant and additional analysis and possibly an EIR are required to identify mitigation
measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 | Page
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.
a) Tiered Documents
As permitted in Section 15152(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, information and discussions from
other documents can be included into this document. Tiering is defined as follows:
“Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as the
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.”
For this document, the “Lake Elsinore General Plan Final EIR” (prepared in 1990) serves as the
broader document, since it analyzes the entire City area, which includes the Project Site.
However, as discussed, site-specific impacts, which the broader document (Lake Elsinore
General Plan Final EIR) 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.
Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines,
which discourages redundant analyses, as follows:
“Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate
but related projects including the general plans, zoning changes, and development projects.
This approach can eliminate repetitive discussion of the same issues and focus the later EIR or
negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review.
Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan,
policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser
scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration.”
Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
“Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance
consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to
or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative
declaration on the later project to effects which:
(1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or
(2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in
the project, by the imposition of conditions or other means.”
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
5 | Page
b) Incorporation by Reference
Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs and is most appropriate
for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background
information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This
procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly-drafted
EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners
Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration
relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative
Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology
Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). This document
incorporates by reference the document from which it is tiered, the Lake Elsinore General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report, published in 1990. This document is referred to as the
“General Plan EIR”.
When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation
must comply with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
• The incorporated document must be available to the public or be a matter of public record
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]). The General Plan EIR shall be made available, along with
this document, at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South
Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674-3124.
• This document must be available for inspection by the public at an office of the lead agency
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b]). This document is available at the City of Lake Elsinore,
Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph.
(951) 674-3124.
• This document must summarize the portion of the document being incorporated by reference
or briefly describe the information that cannot be summarized. Furthermore, this document
must describe the relationship between the incorporated information and the analysis in the
General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]). As discussed above, the General Plan EIR
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 is cited in the
appropriate sections.
• This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]). The State Clearinghouse Number for the General Plan EIR
is 91122065.
• The material to be incorporated in this document will include general background information
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[f]).
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6 | Page
c) Technical Studies
Appendix A – Air Quality Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, October 3, 2019
Appendix B – Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the Lake Street Storage Project, Soar Environmental
Consulting, March 25, 2019
Appendix C1 – MSHCP Consistency Findings, LEAP 2018-02/Lake Street Project, City of Lake
Elsinore, February 15, 2019.
Appendix C2 – Joint Project Review (JPR 18-08-29-01) for the LEAP 2018-02/Lake Street Project,
Regional Conservation Agency (RCA), April 8, 2019.
Appendix C3 – Western Riverside County MSHCP Joint Project Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service & California Department of Fish and Wildlife, April 23, 2019.
Appendix D – Cultural Resources Desktop Review of the Lake Street Storage Project, Soar
Environmental Consulting, November 26, 2017
Appendix E – Consumption of Energy Resources Analysis, Vista Environmental, October 21, 2019
Appendix F – Feasibility Study Proposed RV Storage Facility, Southern California Geotechnical,
January 5, 2017
Appendix G – Report of Mass Grade Compaction Testing, South Shore Testing & Environmental,
May 3, 2018
Appendix H – Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Urban Crossroads, October 3, 2019
Appendix I – Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report, PIC Environmental Services, January
18, 2017
Appendix J – Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.,
June 26, 2019
Appendix K – Department of Conservation Release, California Department of Conservation,
Division of Mine Reclamation, July 17, 2019
Appendix L – Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, October 15, 2019
Appendix M – Addendum to Traffic Impact Analysis, David Evans and Associates Inc., October 10,
2019
Appendix N – Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, September 10, 2018
Appendix O – Will Serve Letter, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, July 11, 2019
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
7 | Page
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The Proposed Project is in the City of Lake Elsinore (City); in the western portion of Riverside
County, California (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Project Site is within the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) “Alberhill, California” 7.5 minute quadrangle (1992) and located in the northeast
portion of the City, north of State Route 74 (SR-74) and west of Interstate 15 (I-15). The Project
Site is one parcel (APN 390-130-018) approximately 14.44 gross acres (13.16 net acres) in size.
The Project Site is located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) and has a Land Use
Designation of Commercial Specific Plan (C-SP).
The Project Site was previously disturbed and developed by mining and associated mineral
mining and processing uses. The Project Site was occupied until 2015 by WYROC Materials, a
crushed aggregate mining and processing company. Sources included mined materials from on-
site and recycled concrete and asphalt from off-site sources. All improvements associated with
the previous use have been removed, except for an existing billboard and well in the northeast
portion of the Project Site, which would remain. The Project Site is situated at an elevation of
approximately 1,230 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the eastern and western portion of the
Project Site to approximately 1,280 feet above msl in the north central portion of the Project Site.
Surface water runoff and drainage at the Project Site flows to Temescal Wash which flows west-
southwesterly and empties into Lake Elsinore approximately six-miles downstream of the Project
Site.
The Project Site is bounded to the west by Lake Street and undeveloped land designated as
Commercial-Specific Plan (C-SP) beyond, the I-15 and Caltrans right-of-way to the north and east,
and the Temescal Wash to the south. Undeveloped land with a Specific Plan designation of
Suburban Village, Single Family Residential I, and Golf Course/Open Space are located to the
south, albeit not adjacent, of the Project Site beyond the Temescal Wash. Beyond the I-15 and
Caltrans right of way to the north of the Project Site is land designated Commercial-Specific Plan
and Open Space. Vehicular Access to the Project Site would be immediately taken from Lake
Street, located to the West. The Project Site can be accessed from the I-15 freeway, via Lake
Street and SR-74 via Collier Avenue and Lakeshore Drive.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
8 | Page
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Project consists of applications for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 37550, a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2018-22, and a Commercial Design Review (CDR) No. 2018-16
which collectively are being processed under Planning Application (PA) No. 2018-78.
Tentative Parcel Map
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the existing site into four lots (Figure 3 and 4) via TPM 37550
as shown in Table 1 – Lot Summary:
Table 1 – Lot Summary
Lot Number Gross Acreage Net Acreage
1 1.11 0.94
2 11.65 10.63
3 1.14 1.09
4 0.54 0.50
Total 14.44 13.16
Development Proposal
The Applicant proposes to construct the following improvements (Figure 5) as shown in Table 2
– Development Summary:
Lot 1: Monument sign (Figure 6), a 3,528 SF service station with convenience store, fuel canopy
with six (6) fuel pumps which could serve 12 vehicles, and two (2) underground storage tanks
(USTs) on .94 net acres.
Lot 2: New 90,000 square foot (SF), single-story indoor recreational vehicle and boat storage
facility, with 24,000 SF of mezzanine and 192 surface RV parking spaces partially covered with
three canopies with solar panels on 10.63 net acres (Figure 7). The maximum height of the
building and structures would be 44-feet including the proposed mechanical equipment for the
RV and boat storage facility (Figures 8 and 9). Building materials for the proposed RV and boat
storage facility would include brick and tile veneer and red tile roof accents (Figures 10 and 11).
Lot 3: 14 stall parking lot and vehicle access aisle on 1.09 net acres (Figure 3).
Lot 4: No development is proposed on Lot 4 on 0.50 net acres.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
9 | Page
Table 2 – Development Summary
Proposed Lot
Number
Proposed
Gross Acres
Proposed
Net Acres
Proposed Development
(Conceptual)
Proposed
FAR
1 1.11 0.94
• Service Station and
Convenience Store (3,528 sf)
• Fuel Canopy with 6 fuel
pumps/12 vehicle fuel spaces
• Two (2) underground fuel
tanks
• 21 Parking spaces
• Bicycle parking
• Trash enclosure
• Site lighting
• Monument Sign (51.75 SF)
.08
2 11.65 10.63
• RV/Boat Storage Facility with
ancillary office (90,000 sf)
• 200 parking spaces (104
covered/88 uncovered RV
spaces; 8 standard spaces)
• 3 Canopy shade structures for
parking areas w/ PV panels
• Support facilities
o Propane station
o Dump station
o Covered wash station and
wash bay equipment
o Pick-up/drop-off staging area
o Boat lift
• Max. 8’-10” fencing/wall and
access gates
• Site lighting
• Trash enclosure
• Roof mounted mechanical
equipment
• Septic system
.19
3 1.14 1.09
• 14 parking spaces (4 RV
temporary parking spaces; 10
standard stall)
• Max. 6’-0” solid wall
• Access aisle (“A” Street)
N/A
4 0.54 0.50 • No development proposed as
a part of this project. N/A
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
10 | Page
Street Improvements
Off-site street improvements within the public right-of-way on Lake Street, along the Project
Site’s frontage, would conform with the City’s roadway design standards. On the northbound
approach, Lake Street would be 40’ wide with one 12’ lane in each direction, a 4’ sidewalk in each
direction, and a median that would taper to a width of 8’ as it approaches the driveway to the
Project Site (Figure 12) . The vehicular driveway would be 40 feet wide and be improved with
pedestrian curb ramps and a crosswalk. In the southbound direction from the I-15 ramps, the
existing intersection would be widened to accommodate a 12’ dedicated thru lane and a
dedicated 12’ wide northbound right turn lane onto the on-ramp to the I-15 south, and the
existing traffic signal pole would be relocated (Figure 12). There would be no sidewalk along the
frontage of the Project Site to the north of the driveway. In the southbound direction, a 12-foot-
wide median would taper to a striped median approaching the driveway to the Project Site. The
road would accommodate a 3’ sidewalk, 12’ thru lane, and 12’ dedicated left turn lane into the
Project Site driveway, which would be 200’ south of the off ramp from the I-15 south.
Parking
The Project Site would include 21 vehicular parking spaces, two of which would be reserved for
ADA, for the service station and convenience store on Lot 1; 192 outdoor RV Storage spaces, 104
of which would be covered by canopies with solar panels, and 8 auto parking spaces, one of which
would be reserved for ADA on Lot 2; and 14 parking spaces on Lot 3 for a total of 236 parking
spaces, which exceeds the City’s parking requirements (Figure 3 and 5). Of the total 236 parking
spaces, 39 are standard automobile spaces and the remaining 197 are RV sized parking spaces.
Of the 39-standard automobile parking spaces, three would be for Handicap parking (two on Lot
1 and one on Lot 2) . In addition, support facilities are proposed on Lot 2, such as RV pick up and
drop off staging areas, a covered wash bay, and a dump station. An access easement is proposed
from the end of the drive aisle (Figure 4), which takes access from Lake Street, through Lot 2, in
order to provide access to the Golf Course/Open Space lot located to the southeast of the Project
Site and would be controlled by security and access gates. Pedestrian access would be provided
along the street fronting the Project Site to the south of the driveway, and on the west side of
the street to the north and south of the driveway. Bicycle parking would be provided at the
service station convenience store.
Additional Site Improvements
The Proposed Project includes approximately 145,378 SF of landscaping, which is 23.1%
landscape coverage. Landscaping would be in the street setback and along the perimeter of the
Project Site, as well as around the western frontage of the proposed RV/boat storage building
(Figures 12 through 19). The undeveloped portion of Lots 3 and all of Lot 4 would be hydroseeded
until future buildout. The northern edge of the Project Site slopes down from the freeway on-
ramp and would have a boulderscape along the slope to approximately the eastern edge of the
RV and boat storage building, where it would transition to hydroseed along the RV storage
parking area, and then transition back to a boulderscape along the eastern edge of the Project
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
11 | Page
Site. Lot 1 would include a trash enclosure. Lot 2 would also include a trash enclosure, propane
tank and a septic system to serve the RV dump station. Paved areas would cover 400,316 SF, or
63.62% of the Project Site. The entire site would include on-site stormwater management
improvements, area lighting, walls and fencing, and security and access gates (Figures 20 and 21).
Grading
The Project Site is generally flat and has already been rough graded. Building pad areas were
overexcavated to a minimum of 5-feet below finish grade elevation and recompacted and filled.
Precise grading is anticipated to balance on-site, with no import or export of fill soils.
Operation
Operation of the Proposed Project would be 24-hours per day, seven (7) days per week. The
proposed convenience store would be single-story and include restrooms and retail space. The
proposed gas station would entail six (6) fuel pumps, servicing up to 12 vehicles at one time. The
proposed RV and boat storage facility would include a mezzanine level comprised of boat storage
and a ground floor consisting of RV storage space and a portion of office and administrative area.
The office and administrative area includes an office storage area, conference and office rooms,
reception, lounge and bathrooms. The mezzanine portion includes a boat lift used for moving
boats to the upper mezzanine level (Figure 7).
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
12 | Page
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 1: Regional Location Map
Source: Google Maps
Project Site
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map
Source: Google Maps
Project Site
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 3: Tentative Parcel Map (1)
Source: Hunsaker and Associates
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 4: Tentative Parcel Map (2)
Source: Hunsaker and Associates
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 5: Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 6: Monument Sign
Source: Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 7: Floor, Mezzanine, and Roof Plan
Source: Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 8: Elevations
Source: Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 9: Section View
Source: Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 10: Conceptual Materials Board
Source: Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 11: Conceptual Renderings
Source: Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 12: Conceptual Geometric Plan (Proposed)
Source: David Evans and Associates
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 13: Conceptual Landscape Plan (1)
Source: RLA, Hunsaker and Associated, and Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 14: Conceptual Landscape Plan (2)
Source: RLA, Hunsaker and Associated, and Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 15: Conceptual Landscape Plan (A)
Source: RLA, Hunsaker and Associated, and Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 16: Conceptual Landscape Plan (B)
Source: RLA, Hunsaker and Associated, and Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 17: Conceptual Landscape Plan (C)
Source: RLA, Hunsaker and Associated, and Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 18: Conceptual Landscape Plan (D)
Source: RLA, Hunsaker and Associated, and Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 19: Conceptual Landscape Plan (E)
Source: RLA, Hunsaker and Associated, and Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 20: Conceptual Lighting
Source: Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Figure 21: Conceptual Fence and Wall Plan
Source: RLA, Hunsaker and Associates, and Chipman Architects
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
34 | Page
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
35 | Page
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Lake Street Storage 2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Attn: Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner
(951) 674-3124 dabraham@lake-elsinore.org 4. Project Location:
Undeveloped site bounded to the west by Lake Street, the I-15 freeway to the north and east,
and the Temescal Wash to the south in the City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside; Assessor’s
Parcel Number [APN] 390-130-018. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Lake Street Properties, LP
2279 Eagle Glen Parkway, Suite 112-470
Corona, CA 92883 6. General Plan Designation: Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 7. Zoning: The project site is currently located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and has
a land use designation of Commercial - Specific Plan (C-SP). Allowable uses in the C-SP Zone
include service stations and recreational vehicle storage, the latter subject to a Conditional Use
Permit. The Proposed Project would be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the
C-SP Zone. 8. Description of Project:
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the existing site into four lots via TPM 37550 and
construct the following improvements via CUP 2018-22 and CDR 2018-16:
Lot 1: Monument sign, a 3,528 SF service station with convenience store, fuel canopy with six
(6) fuel pumps which could serve 12 vehicles, and two (2) underground storage tanks (USTs)
on .94 net acres.
Lot 2: New 90,000 square foot (SF), single-story indoor recreational vehicle and boat storage
facility, with 24,000 SF of mezzanine and 192 surface RV parking spaces partially covered with
three canopies with solar panels on 10.63 net acres. The maximum height of the building and
structures would be 44-feet including the proposed mechanical equipment for the RV and boat
storage facility. Building materials for the proposed RV and boat storage facility would include
brick and tile veneer and red tile roof accents.
Lot 3: 15 stall parking lot and vehicle access aisle on 1.09 net acres
Lot 4: No development is proposed on Lot 4 on 0.50 net acres.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
36 | Page
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The Project Site is bounded to the west by Lake Street and undeveloped land zoned
Commercial-Specific Plan (C-SP) beyond, the I-15 and Caltrans right-of-way to the north and
east, and the Temescal Wash to the south. Undeveloped land with a Specific Plan designation
of Suburban Village, Single Family Residential I, and Golf Course/Open Space are located to the
south, albeit not adjacent, of the Project Site beyond the Temescal Wash. Beyond the I-15 and
Caltrans right of way to the north of the Project Site is land designated Commercial-Specific
Plan and Open Space. Vehicular Access to the Project Site would be immediately taken from
Lake Street, located to the West. The Project Site can be accessed from the I-15 freeway, via
Lake Street and SR-74 via Collier Avenue and Lakeshore Drive.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1?
If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of
significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality,
etc.?: In accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City sent notification
to six Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area on
March 18, 2019. Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the Pechanga Band
of Luiseño Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested formal government-to-
government consultation under AB 52. Consultation was concluded on May 10, 2019 with
Rincon, and on December 13, 2019 with both Pechanga and Soboba. The proposed Project site
has been heavily disturbed due to mining activities and the ground disturbances associated
with the Lake Street Project will stay within the existing disturbances. 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.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
38 | Page
D. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. 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 of 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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
39 | Page
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
result in conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district 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) 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?
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
40 | Page
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5 of the California Code of
Regulations?
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 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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
41 | Page
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise 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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
42 | Page
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces in a manner
which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
(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 applicable 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 of noise levels in
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
43 | Page
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or other applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
V. 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 program, ordinance or policy
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
44 | Page
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?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause 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?
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
45 | Page
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to 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 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?
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
46 | Page
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
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 area, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact: A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a
highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Project Site is relatively flat,
and mostly undeveloped, except for an existing well and billboard sign. The Project Site is
bounded by vacant property to the north, west, south, and east. The Project Site contains no
views of scenic vistas on site and there are no visual resources on the Project Site.
The General Plan EIR identifies the most notable aesthetic resource in the City as Lake Elsinore
itself, a 3,000-acre natural lake. Additionally, the City’s General Plan Figure 4.10 – Viewshed and
Vantage Points identifies vantage points of Lake Elsinore that are to be maintained visually. The
Project Site is not identified as a vantage point. 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,
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
47 | Page
bathhouse, and military academy. General Plan Goal 12 recommends policies to preserve valued
public views throughout the City.
The Project Site is located over three miles 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. Views
of the mountains and ridgelines can be seen from the Project Site; however, the Proposed Project
would be subject to the maximum building height permitted by the zoning which is limited to 45
feet. The maximum height of the proposed RV/boat storage structure would be 44 feet.
The RV/boat storage structure would be set back over 200 feet from Lake Street and the service
station and ancillary structures would be set back over 50 feet from Lake Street, minimizing
impacts to surrounding mountain views from the adjacent streets. A 4’-6” tall monument sign is
proposed at the Lake Street frontage and would not have visual impacts to scenic vistas due to
its low height. Views of the scenic resources within and surrounding the City are the prominent
scenic vistas in the area. However, the Proposed Project would not impede any of these views.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with a scenic vista would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan EIR, Google Earth (accessed July 16, 2019), Project Description, Conceptual
Grading Plan
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 Project Site is undeveloped land, except for an existing well
and billboard, on 14.44-acres (gross). The Project Site is located on Lake Street, near the
intersection of Lake Street and I-15.
According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the nearest eligible scenic highways
to the Project Site are the I-15 and SR-74. The Project Site is located adjacent to the I-15, directly
south of the interstate. The portion of the I-15 eligible for listing as a state scenic highway runs
from the southerly border of Riverside County to the SR-91/I-15 exchange located in the
northwest corner of Riverside County. The Project Site is relatively flat and has been previously
disturbed for the mining operation. The Project site does not contain any scenic resources, and
there are no existing rock outcroppings or historic buildings present on the Project Site. Any
potential visual impacts would be addressed through the City’s design review process.
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 existing on the
Project Site. 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. Therefore, through
compliance with local ordinances and the City’s design review process, potential impacts
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
48 | Page
associated with scenic resources within a state scenic highway would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC, CalTrans California Scenic Highway Mapping System (accessed
July 16, 2019)
c) In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality??
Less Than Significant Impact: 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 Project Site and its surroundings. The
Project Site consists a previously disturbed, undeveloped parcel (with exception of an existing
well and billboard) located in a commercially zoned area of the City. The Project Site is
surrounded by vacant property to the north, west, south, and east. The Proposed Project would
include construction of an 90,000 SF RV/boat storage building with ancillary office, support
facilities for the RV/boat storage, a 3,528 SF service station and convenience store with fuel
canopy and pumps, surface parking and drive aisles and landscaping.
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 Project Site. In addition, the Proposed Project would provide street improvements along the
Project Site’s frontage of Lake Street, including curbs, and sidewalks. 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 Project Site or surroundings. Therefore,
potential impacts associated with the visual character or quality of the Project Site and its
surroundings would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Project Description, Site Plan, SCAG U.S. Census Urbanized Areas (accessed July 16,
2019)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
49 | Page
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: 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
– Palomar Lighting Impact Analysis Areas, the Project 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 Project Site. However, the Proposed Project
would be like other uses adjacent to the I-15 in Lake Elsinore and surrounding cities. 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.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: LEMC, General Plan
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
50 | Page
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(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 use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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 or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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 applied to land within the City or Sphere of
Influence (SOI) are considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance by the State of California. There are no agricultural uses adjacent to the Project Site.
The Proposed Project would not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance. Therefore, no impacts associated with conversion of farmland would
occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
51 | Page
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. The Project Site is
located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and is designated as Commercial-Specific Plan (C-
SP) and surrounded by commercial and open space zoning designations. The Proposed Project
would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
Therefore, no impacts associated with agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: DOC WA, General Plan EIR, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact: The Project Site is within the City of Lake Elsinore which does not have zoning
designated for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production within City
limits. The Project Site does not contain forestland or timberland. There is no conflict with
existing zoning and no cause for rezoning of land related to forestland or timberland. Therefore,
no impacts associated with forest land or timberland would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan, Zoning Map, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
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 vacant property to the north, west, south, and
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.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan, Zoning Map, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
52 | Page
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: The historical use of the Project Site consisted of a gravel mine and crushed aggregate
processing plant from the early 1990s until the early 2000s when concrete and asphalt recycling
operations began. Prior to the early 1990s the Project Site was undeveloped. The surrounding
properties historically were undeveloped.
No agricultural activities are presently occurring on-site. The Project site has been subject to
reclamation activities. Reclamation of the Project site was completed on July 17, 2019 allowing
for the subject site to be developed. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the existing
zoning designation of Commercial - Specific Plan (C-SP). 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 H), Project Description, Zoning Map
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
53 | Page
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
An Air Quality Analysis was completed to determine potential impacts to air quality associated
with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix A -Lake Street/I-15 Property Air Quality
Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, Urban Crossroads, October 2019). The results of the
analysis are based on CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.
The South Coastal Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has developed regional and
localized significance thresholds for regulated pollutants (Table 3 – Maximum Daily Emissions
Regional Thresholds). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (March 2015)
indicate that any projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed
any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively
significant air quality impact. SCAQMD provides a threshold for emissions of lead; however, for
purposes of this analysis no lead emissions are calculated as there are no substantive sources of
lead emissions. The air quality modeling program does not calculate any emissions of lead from
typical construction or operational activities.
Table 3 – Maximum Daily Emissions Regional Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operations
Regional Thresholds
NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
Source: Regional Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds,
March 2015
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
54 | Page
The SCAQMD also established Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) which 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. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator
of significance in its air quality impact analyses. LSTs applicable to the Proposed Project are
summarized on Table 4 – Maximum Daily Emissions Localized Thresholds. Additional information
on LSTs is presented in Section 3.6 of Appendix A.
Table 4 – Maximum Daily Emissions Localized Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operations
Localized Thresholds
NOx 632 lbs/day (Site Preparation) 804 lbs/day 707 lbs/day (Grading)
CO 12,099 lbs/day (Site Preparation) 15,361 lbs/day 13,557 lbs/day (Grading)
PM10 108 lbs/day (Site Preparation) 133 lbs/day
119 lbs/day (Grading)
PM2.5 44 lbs/day (Site Preparation) 55 lbs/day
49 lbs/day (Grading)
Source: Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology, July 2008
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The following section
discusses the Proposed Project’s consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.
SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan
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 SCAQMD
AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the Proposed Project
with the AQMP.
The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the
assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the Proposed Project would
interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the
decision-makers determine that the Proposed Project is inconsistent, the lead agency may
consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
55 | Page
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 be 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
Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in Appendix A, short-term regional
construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional
thresholds of significance or local thresholds of significance. The ongoing operation of the
Proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional
basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance.
The Proposed Project would not exceed the applicable LST. The analysis for long-term local air
quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to exceed the
air quality standards. Therefore, a less than significant long-term impact would occur and no
mitigation would be required.
Based on the information provided above, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the
first criterion.
Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions In The AQMP
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the
Proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure
the analyses conducted for the Proposed Project is based on the same forecasts as the AQMP.
The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the RTP/SCS and FTIP.
The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network
within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by federal and state
requirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long-range
planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or
federal funds within Southern California. Local governments are required to use these plans as
the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA.
Development consistent with the growth projections in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan is
consistent with the AQMP. Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely
independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
56 | Page
maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the Project Site’s land use designation,
development of the Project Site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of
the entire site occurring during construction activities. As per the City of Lake Elsinore’s General
Plan, the Project site is located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) and is designated
as “Commercial Specific Plan (C-SP)”. As per the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, the C-SP land use
designation is intended to accommodate retail commercial, office, and light industrial uses that
are relatively free of nuisance and do not handle hazardous materials. It is intended that these
uses be located within the more visible areas of Alberhill Ranch, along major thoroughfares and
the freeway. It is anticipated these uses will play an important role in establishing an identity of
the Alberhill Ranch area and the City. The Proposed Project would include construction of an
90,000 SF RV/boat storage building with ancillary office, support facilities for the RV/boat
storage, a 3,528 SF service station and convenience store with fuel canopy and pumps, surface
parking and drive aisles and landscaping. 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.
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 Impact Analysis (Appendix A), Alberhill Ranch Specific 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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
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 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, PM2.5, PM10
particulate matter and lead. 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;
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
57 | Page
• Project consistency with existing air quality plans; and
• Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
58 | Page
Consistency with Project Specific Thresholds
Construction-Related Impacts
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 the following construction
activities:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
The duration of construction activity was estimated based on CalEEMod model defaults, past
project experience, and a 2020 project buildout year. The construction schedule utilized in the
analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the
respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis
year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent. The Project Site-specific
construction fleet (Appendix A, p. 36) may vary due to specific project needs at the time of
construction. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment both represent a
reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA guidelines.
Dust is typically a major concern during rough grading activities. Because such emissions are not
amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive
emissions”. Fugitive dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil
moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation,
etc.). However, SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for the
Proposed Project would include but are not limited to: Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) and
Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). Construction emissions for construction worker vehicles traveling to and
from the Project Site, as well as vendor trips (construction materials delivered to the Project Site)
were estimated based on CalEEMod.
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized on
Table 5 – Overall Construction Emissions Summary (Without Mitigation). Under the assumed
scenarios, emissions resulting from the Proposed Project construction would not exceed criteria
pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
59 | Page
Table 5 – Overall Construction Emissions Summary (Without Mitigation)
Year VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2019 4.85 54.59 34.10 0.08 9.64 6.13
2020 47.44 32.00 28.65 0.08 4.82 2.15
Maximum Daily Emissions 47.44 54.59 34.10 0.08 9.64 6.13
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Operational-Related Impacts
Operational activities associated with the Proposed Project would result in emissions of VOCs,
NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following
primary sources (Appendix A):
• Area Source Emissions (p. 37)
• Energy Source Emissions (p. 38)
• Mobile Source Emissions (p. 38)
• Gasoline Dispensing Emissions (p. 38)
Table 6 – Summary of Operations Emissions summarizes the Proposed Project’s daily regional
emissions from on-going operations. During operational activity, the Proposed Project would not
exceed any of the thresholds of significance.
The greatest cumulative operational impact on the air quality to the Air Basin would be the
incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial,
and industrial development. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not
exceed SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do
not add to the overall cumulative impact. The regional ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions
created from the on-going operations of the Proposed Project were calculated and are detailed
in Table 6. Development of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant regional
emissions of VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5 during operation. Therefore,
potential cumulative impacts associated with operation of the Proposed Project would be less
than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
60 | Page
Table 6 – Summary of Operations Emissions
Operational Activities – Summer Scenario Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 4.13 4.00E-04 0.04 0.00 1.50E-04 1.50E-04
Energy Source 0.01 0.10 0.08 5.90E-04 7.47E-03 7.47E-03
Mobile 4.22 26.75 31.03 0.11 6.91 1.91
Gasoline Dispensing 2.90 0 0 0 0 0
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 11.26 26.85 31.15 0.11 6.92 1.92
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Operational Activities – Winter Scenario Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 4.13 4.00E-.04 0.04 0.00 1.50E-04 1.50E-04
Energy Source 0.01 0.10 0.08 5.90E-04 7.47E-03 7.47E-03
Mobile 3.50 26.55 28.99 0.10 6.90 1.92
Gasoline Dispensing 2.90 0 0 0 0 0
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 10.55 26.65 29.11 0.10 6.92 1.92
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Consistency with Air Quality Plans
The Project Site is designated as Commercial Specific Plan (C-SP) of the Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the land use designation and would not
require a General Plan Amendment or a zone change. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not
result in an inconsistency with the current land use designation. The Proposed Project would not
exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project Site and is found to be consistent with the AQMPs
for the Air Basin.
Cumulative Health Impacts
The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5, which means that the
background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards.
The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive
individuals (elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentrations of those
pollutants exceed the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would
experience health effects. The regional analysis found that the Proposed Project would not
exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10
and PM2.5. Therefore, potential cumulative health impacts associated with the Proposed Project
would be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
61 | Page
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: AQ Impact Analysis (Appendix A), Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions
produced in the nearby vicinity of the Project Site, which may expose sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations, have been calculated in Section III(b) for both construction and
operations. The discussion below also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from toxic air
contaminant emissions.
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. Sensitive receptors near the Project Site include an existing
residential home located approximately 1,051 feet southwest of the Project Site boundary
(Appendix A, Exhibit 3-A).
Construction-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts
Construction of the Proposed Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and from toxic air contaminant
emissions created from onsite construction equipment. Table 7 – Localized Significance
Summary Construction identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the
vicinity of the Proposed Project.
Table 7 – Localized Significance Summary Construction (Without Mitigation)
On-Site Site Preparation Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 45.57 22.06 9.43 6.07
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 662 13,426 115 48
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
On-Site Site Mass Grading Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 54.52 33.38 5.77 3.59
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 737 14,946 126 54
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
62 | Page
Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction
The local air quality impacts from construction of the Proposed Project would not exceed the
local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, potential local air quality
impacts associated with construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate
matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the
Proposed Project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics
are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood
that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime would
contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the relatively
limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the short-term construction
schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source
of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition,
California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions
from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no
more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and
provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires
systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial
operator can purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment and by January 2023 no commercial operator
is allowed to purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment
operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year
between years 2014 and 2023. Therefore, potential short-term toxic air contaminant impacts
associated with construction would be less than significant.
Operations-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts
The on-going operations of the Proposed Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations of local CO emission impacts from the project-generated vehicular trips
and from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. Table 8 – Localized
Significance Summary of Operations analyzes the vehicular CO emissions, local criteria pollutant
impacts from onsite operations, and toxic air contaminant impacts.
Table 8 – Localized Significance Summary of Operations
Operational Activity Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 1.43 1.63 0.35 0.10
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 832 16,854 141 61
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod localized operational-source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.2 of Appendix A.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
63 | Page
Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicle 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 impacts to sensitive
receptors. No local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from
the vehicle traffic generated by the Proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts to offsite
sensitive receptors associated with substantial pollutant concentrations from the operation of
the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations
The local air quality impacts from the operation of the Proposed Project would occur from onsite
sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas
appliances. Operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and
PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, potential impacts to local air quality associated with
on-site emissions from the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would be less than
significant.
Operations-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
The Proposed Project includes a service station with six (6) fuel pumps and space for 12 vehicles,
along with ancillary service station equipment including two (2) USTs and has been estimated to
have a throughput of 2 million gallons of gasoline per year. Emissions resulting from the gasoline
service station have the potential to result in toxic air contaminants (TACs) (e.g., benzene,
hexane, MTBE, toluene, xylene) and have the potential to contribute to health risk in the vicinity
of the Project Site. Standard regulatory controls would apply to the Proposed Project in addition
to any permits required that demonstrate appropriate operational controls.
For purposes of this evaluation, cancer risk estimates can be made consistent with the
methodology presented in SCAQMD’s Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1 & 212
which provides screening-level risk estimates for gasoline dispensing operations. The Project Site
is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 25 and is located within 1,051 feet meters of a
residential community. Based on this screening procedure it is anticipated that no residential
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site will be exposed to a cancer risk of greater
than 0.10 in one million which is less than the applicable threshold of 10 in one million. This
screening-level risk estimate is very conservative (i.e. it would overstate rather than understate
potential impacts). Upon entitlement the Proposed Project would be required to obtain requisite
permits from the SCAQMD which would ultimately dictate the maximum annual throughput
allowed. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the TAC emissions and associated cancer
risks to the nearby residents from the proposed gas station would be less than significant.
Potential impacts to sensitive receptors associated with substantial pollutant concentrations
from the operation of the Proposed Project would be a less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
64 | Page
Sources: AQ Impact 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: Based on the Proposed Project’s construction and operational
characteristics, the Proposed Project would not result in odor emissions that could adversely
affect a substantial number of people. There are no other potential sources of emissions
associated with the Proposed Project that could adversely affect a substantial number of people,
aside from the localized emissions that are addressed separately above under Section III.c above.
Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below.
Construction-Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of
coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel
equipment. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process
would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the
Project Site’s boundaries. Due to the transitory nature of construction odors, potential impacts
associated with construction odors would be less than significant.
Potential Operations-Related Odor Impacts
The Proposed Project would include a service station with six (6) fuel pumps and space for 12
vehicles, along with ancillary service station equipment including two (2) USTs, RV and boat
storage facility and ancillary improvements, including two (2) trash enclosures, dump station, and
wash bay. Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the Proposed
Project would primarily occur from odor emissions from gas dispensing activities and from the
trash storage areas. Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 461 the proposed gas station would be required
to utilize gas dispensing equipment that minimizes vapor and liquid leaks and requires that the
equipment be maintained at proper working order, which would minimize odor impacts
occurring from the gasoline and diesel dispensing facilities. Moreover, SCAQMD Rule 402 acts to
prevent occurrences of odor nuisances. Pursuant to City regulations, permanent trash enclosures
that protect trash bins from rain as well as limit air circulation would be required for the trash
storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the Project Site and through
compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 461 and 402 and City trash storage regulations, potential
impacts associated with on-going operational odors would be less than significant.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with other emissions, such as odors, would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: AQ Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
65 | Page
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
A Habitat Assessment and Consistency Analysis was completed to determine potential impacts
to biological resources associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix B –
Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Consistency Analysis for the Lake Street Storage Project, Soar Environmental, March 2019).
A Joint Project Review (JPR) was completed by the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Agency (RCA) to determine consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and identify potential impacts to biological resources
associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix C2 – Joint Project Review
(JPR 18-08-29-01) for the LEAP 2018-02/Lake Street Project, Regional Conservation Agency (RCA),
April 8, 2019).
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
66 | Page
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
provided comments on the JPR review as they relate to the Project’s consistency with MSHCP
Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface). (Appendix C3 – Western
Riverside County MSHCP Joint Project Review 18-08-29-01, Lake Street Storage (LEAP2018-2), City
of Lake Elsinore, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
April 2019).
Pursuant to the provisions of the MSHCP, all discretionary development projects within a Criteria
Area are to be reviewed for compliance with the “Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation
and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy” (LEAP) process or equivalent process. The LEAP process
“ensures that an early determination will be made of what properties are needed for the MSHCP
Conservation Area, that the owners of property needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area are
compensated, and that owners of land not needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area shall
receive Take Authorization of Covered Species Adequately Conserved through the Permits issues
to the County and Cities pursuant to the MSHCP.” A formal and complete LEAP application, LEAP
2018-02 was submitted to the City on May 30, 2018 and a Joint Project Review (JPR) 18-08-29-01
was completed on by the RCA on April 8, 2019 and concurrence from the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (collectively, the Wildlife Agencies) on
April 23, 2019.
The Project Site is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 1 (Estelle Mountain/Indian Canyon). The Project
Site (14.44 acres) is located within Criteria Cells # 3751 and #3572. Surrounding land uses consist
of undeveloped open space and the I-15 highway directly north of the Project Site.
On November 3, 2017, a Soar Environmental Consulting Wildlife Biologist (“Biologist”) visited the
14.44-acre Project site. A thorough assessment of potential habitats within the Project Site was
conducted and the Biologist determined the Project Site does not contain suitable habitat for the
following species listed in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Program (MSHCP): Burrowing Owl, Criteria Area Species (thread-leaved brodiaea, Davidson's
saltscale, Parish's brittlescale, smooth tarplant, round-leaved filaree, Coulter's goldfields, little
mousetail), and Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Munz's onion, San Diego ambrosia, slender-
horned spineflower, many-stemmed dudleya, spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, San
Miguel savory, Hammitt's claycress, Wright's trichocoronis).
The Project Site soil types consisted of Honcut sandy loam, Honcut loam, Temescal rocky loam,
and Tujunga gravelly loamy sand. Due to these soils, the lack of vegetation, and current
hydrology, no vernal pool habitat is present within the Project Site boundaries. Numerous rock
piles along the perimeter and interior of the Project Site provide potential nesting habitat for
Rock Wrens (Salpinctes obsoletus), a species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The
conserved area immediately to the northeast of the Project Site provides suitable habitat for
nesting birds, including Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). The riverine habitat immediately
south of the Project Site is suitable for nesting birds and various riparian species. The Project site
is consistent with the MSHCP Cell Criteria, as there is demonstrated connectivity between the
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
67 | Page
land immediately surrounding it, and Cells 3853 and 3855.
The Project site was an active sand and gravel mine from approximately 1993 to 2005, and, an
aggregate concrete and base processing site from 2005 until 2015. The property currently serves
as a reclaimed mine site. As a result, the Project Site is extensively graded and supports minimal
plant and animal life. Based on the survey conducted as a part of Appendix B, an estimation of
approximately 95-97% of the property is devoid of vegetation. The Project site is intensely
disturbed and predominantly consists of extensively graded coarse-grained alluvium soils. The
habitat immediately surrounding the Project site is foothill grasslands, chaparral, riparian scrub,
and ruderal.
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: Land within the City of Lake Elsinore
and its SOI (“Planning Area”) include properties developed with urban uses (either paved or
occupied by buildings), disturbed vacant land, natural open space and currently undisturbed
vacant parcels (General Plan FEIR, 2011).
The Project site was an active sand and gravel mine from approximately 1993 to 2005, and, an
aggregate concrete and base processing site from 2005 until 2015. The property currently serves
as a reclaimed mine site. As a result, the Project Site is extensively graded and supports minimal
plant and animal life. Approximately 95-97% of the property is devoid of vegetation.
Burrowing Owl
During the Habitat Assessment, no signs of BUOW nor suitable habitat for BUOW were observed.
BUOW exhibit a strong preference for relatively flat or gently rolling, open grasslands with a high
concentration of small mammal burrows, particularly those of California ground squirrels
(Otospermophilus beecheyi). As previously mentioned, approximately 95-97% of the on-site
habitat is intensely disturbed, supporting a minimal amount of flora and fauna. The graded
Project Site is unsuitable for use by burrowing mammals such as California ground squirrels and
BUOW. The habitat immediately surrounding the Project site, though vegetated and not as
disturbed, is not ideal habitat for BUOW. The foothill grasslands to the north, west, and east are
too steep for the species. The chaparral/grassland immediately to the south holds potential for
BUOW; however, the dense vegetation renders it less than ideal. The potential for detecting
BUOW in, or near the Project site, is very low.
MSHCP Criteria Area Species
No MSHCP Criteria Area Species (Thread-leaved brodiaea, Davidson's saltscale, Parish's
brittlescale, Smooth tarplant, Round-leaved filaree, Coulter's goldfields, Little mousetail) were
observed on, or surrounding the Project site. The on-site habitat does not have the potential to
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
68 | Page
support any of these listed species due to its disturbed nature and coarse-grained soils (Appendix
B, Tables C-1 and C-2). Additionally, the habitats immediately outside the property boundary are
less than ideal due to their ruderal nature and the presence of invasive species such as Black
mustard.
Narrow Endemic Plant Species
No Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Munz's onion, San Diego ambrosia, slender-horned
spineflower, many-stemmed dudleya, spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, San Miguel
savory, Hammitt's claycress, Wright's trichocoronis) were detected on, or surrounding the Project
site. The on-site habitat does not have the potential to support any of these species, due to the
absence of clay soils and because the Project Site has been repeatedly disturbed for over 20
years. The habitats immediately outside the Project footprint are less than ideal for these species
due to the absence of clay soils, their ruderal nature, and the presence of invasive species such
as black mustard.
Vernal Pools
The potential for vernal pools and associated species is minimal to non-existent on the Project
site due to the nature of the coarse-grained soil types, and the length of time that the property
has been repeatedly disturbed. There is potential for vernal pools to exist immediately outside
Project Site boundaries, however, during the survey, the wildlife biologist observed no signs of
vernal pools or ephemeral pools.
Nesting Birds
The rock piles along the Project perimeter and interior are potential habitat for Rock Wren
(Salpinctes obsoletus), which may nest in cavities and crevices in and among the rock piles. Two
Rock Wrens were observed on-site during the survey. Other areas with potential for nesting birds
falls outside Project boundaries. One such area is the Temescal Wash, which is located along the
southern border of the property. The presence of tree snags and various riparian plants offers
suitable nesting habitat for riverine species, including House Wrens (Troglodytes aedon) and
Bewick’s Wrens (Thryomanes bewickii). Both wren species were detected during the survey. The
conserved area on the northeast corner of the Project site bears tremendous nesting bird
potential, as the vegetation is dense and is likely to provide ample food sources.
Riverine/Riparian Species
The potential for riverine/riparian species on the Project site does not exist as it is almost entirely
devoid of vegetation from repeated grading and mining operations through the years. However,
Temescal Wash, which runs along the southern border of the property, has the potential to
support a multitude of riparian species in addition to nesting birds.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
69 | Page
In order to prevent potential impacts to any sensitive species on the Project Site, the Habitat
Assessment recommended exclusionary wildlife fencing to be erected and maintained around
the perimeter of the Project Site to prevent entry of wildlife species that may become harmed or
cause a delay in construction activities. Additionally, RCA recommended and the Wildlife
Agencies concurred that in order to achieve this goal, as well as to reduce potential edge impacts
of noise and light to the habitat areas and Least Bell’s Vireo to the south and east of the Project
Site more fully described in Section IV(b), that chain link or tube steel perimeter fencing be
replaced with a 6-foot high masonry wall in areas of the perimeter of the Project Site that may
exceed 65 dBA beyond the Project Site boundaries, as shown on Figure 21 – Wall and Fence Plan.
The Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix L) determined that existing noise levels south of the Project
site adjacent to the potentially suitable habitat area approach 67.8 dBA CNEL (measurement
location L2) and are largely influenced by existing traffic noise levels on I-15 and Lake Street. With
the construction of the proposed buildings, noise levels at this location are anticipated to benefit
from the barrier attenuation provided by the buildings themselves. The FHWA indicates that a
noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver, and it must be
high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. While not a continuous noise
barrier, the proposed buildings would be expected to provide up to 4.5 dBA CNEL of barrier
attenuation within the shadow zone of each building, or the area being shielded, based on
guidance for the first row of intervening buildings provided by the Federal Transit Administration.
The Project buildings are anticipated to provide barrier attenuation for the sensitive habitat area
south of the Project site, where receiver locations are shielded by the buildings themselves.
Additionally, the construction and operational noise analysis demonstrated that noise levels
would not exceed the residential noise standard of 65dBA Leq at the noise-sensitive receiver
locations identified in the Noise Impact Analysis. As a condition of approval to the Proposed
Project, the Applicant included a Project Design Feature on the Wall and Fence Plan (Figure 21)
to show a 6’ high masonry wall along the south west edge of the Project Site, generally along the
parking lot and undeveloped portion of Parcel 3, that would attenuate the noise at that portion
of the property line not attenuated by buildings.
The Project site contains several rock piles along the perimeter and in various areas in the interior
that hold the potential for nesting habitat for Rock Wrens, which are protected by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act. Two of these species were observed during the survey in and near rock piles. As
its name implies, this species is often found near rocks and prefers to nest in cavities and crevices
in and among rocks. In order to prevent potential impacts to nesting Rock Wrens, MM BIO-1
would require that prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall survey all
rock piles prior to any disturbance, especially if the movement is taking place during the nesting
season (February through September). If any active or potentially active nests are observed on-
site, the qualified biologist shall monitor construction activities to ensure that no nests, eggs,
juvenile, or adult birds are harmed. If active nests are located, construction activities in the
vicinity should cease until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged. It
may be necessary to implement a buffer around nests until the biologist can ensure that the
young have fledged. A qualified biologist must make this determination based on the birds’
behaviors.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
70 | Page
Therefore, with implementation of the proposed wall and fence plan and MM BIO-1, potential
impacts to any sensitive species on the Project Site would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall survey all rock
piles prior to any disturbance, especially if the movement is taking place during the nesting
season (February through September). If any active or potentially active nests are observed on-
site, the qualified biologist shall monitor construction activities to ensure that no nests, eggs,
juvenile, or adult birds are harmed. If active nests are located, construction activities in the
vicinity should cease until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged. It
may be necessary to implement a buffer around nests until the biologist can ensure that the
young have fledged. A qualified biologist must make this determination based on the birds’
behaviors.
Sources: Habitat Assessment (Appendix B), MSHCP JPR (Appendix C2), Noise Impact Analysis
(Appendix L)
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 With Mitigation Incorporated:
The Habitat Assessment (Appendix B) and the MSHCP JPR (Appendix C2) detail all relevant
policies contained in the MSHCP as they relate to the Proposed Project. The Project Site does not
contain any riparian or other sensitive natural community, is not within a Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Survey Area (NEPSSA), does not have suitable habitat for Criteria Area Species Survey
Area (CASSA) plant species and is not in a burrowing owl survey area. The consistency review
found that the Proposed Project is consistent with the MSHCP Criteria and specifically, is subject
to MSHCP Section 6.1.4 – Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface due to is
location directly north of Temescal Wash.
Temescal Creek lies immediately south of the Project Site and flows along the entirety of the
approximate 1,800-foot southern Project Site boundary. The entire eastern boundary is adjacent
to riparian habitat dominated mitigation lands. These areas contain riparian habitat suitable for
riparian bird species, including least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat. In
order to mitigate potential adverse effects on the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Areas, MM BIO-
2 would require implementation of guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. MM BIO-
3 would require the Property Owner/Developer to comply with Construction Best Management
Practices from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP. MM BIO-4 would require nesting bird surveys
for the Least Bell Vireo. With implementation of MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, and MM BIO-4, potential
impacts associated with adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
would be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
71 | Page
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include
a note on the plans that outlines the following requirements from Section 6.1.4 of the MHSCP:
Drainage:
1. Prepare and follow a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit
requirements.
2. Implement the measures in the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix
J) to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the Project Site into the MSHCP
Conservation Area:
a. Drainage flows will be captured by the two proposed subsurface infiltration facilities with
pre-treatment BMPs.
b. Washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser and discharge will be collected to
the sanitary sewer and not to a storm drain.
c. Storm drain inlets will be marked “only rain down the storm drain”. Stormwater pollution
prevention information will be provided to new site owners, lessees, or operators. A Lease
agreement will include the following: “tenant shall not allow anyone to discharge
anything to storm drains or store or deposit materials so as to create a potential discharge
to storm drains”.
Toxics:
Follow Guidelines in Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.112.090 pertaining to gasoline
dispensing establishments including a minimum 30-foot setback of gasoline pumps and pump
islands from any property line. Measures identified above to protect water quality will minimize
the effects of runoff of toxics into adjacent habitat areas.
Lighting:
Comply with Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.112.040 Lighting (for Nonresidential
Development) that all outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of 60 watts are oriented and shielded to
prevent glare or direct illumination on adjacent properties. All exterior lighting shall be shielded
away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area
from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient
lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased.
Noise:
The Property Owner/Developer would construct a minimum 6-foot high masonry wall a portion
of the southern property lines of the Project Site, as shown in Figure 21 - Wall and Fence Plan.
Consistent with the recommended Condition of Approval from the Wildlife Agencies (Appendix
C3), the Applicant conducted a noise study (Appendix L) that confirmed that the Walls and Fences
shown in Figure 21 would ensure that project-generated noise levels at adjacent conservation
lands would not exceed residential noise standards. The combined noise levels at the adjacent
sensitive receivers would be below the 65dBA threshold recommended by the Wildlife Agencies
and within both the City’s daytime and nighttime noise standards for commercial land uses.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
72 | Page
Invasives:
The Landscaping Plan shall avoid using plants shown in MSHCP Table 6.2 to ensure that invasive
species are not included in the plant palette. Project landscaping shall be maintained to prevent
invasive plan species from taking rood and going to seed on the Project Site. If possible, the
Landscape Plan should use low water-using plants to be consistent with Assembly Bill 1881.
Barriers:
Use landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms
to discourage public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, excessive noise, or illegal
dumping in adjacent habitat areas.
Manufactured Slopes
Manufactured slopes associated with development of the Project Site shall not extend into the
MSHCP Conservation Area. Site boundaries should be clearly marked in the field when grading
the Project site near the conservation area to ensure no encroachment occurs. Figure A-1 of
Appendix B shows that manufactured slopes from the final mining reclamation activities do not
extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.
Weed Abatement:
Weed abatement and fuel modification activities are not permitted in the Conservation Area,
including designated avoidance areas.
MM BIO-3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include
a note on the plans that outlines the following Construction Best Management Practices from
Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP, shown in italics, and specific requirements in plain text:
Construction Best Management Practices:
1. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a
training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description
of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species
Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the
penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are
being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the
access routes to and Project Site boundaries within which the project activities must be
accomplished.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a
qualified biologist to prepare and implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) to train all Project personnel prior to grading. The details of the training should be
consistent with MSHCP Appendix C Standard BMP No. 1, the general provisions of the
Endangered Species Act, include a detailed discussion of how to identify the potential special-
status plant and animal species that may be encountered during ground disturbance and
construction activities, and necessary actions to take if the species are observed on-site.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
73 | Page
2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance
with RWQCB requirements.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the
City a Project-specific SWPPP prior to initial ground disturbance. The Project-specific SWPPP
shall describe BMPs that will be implemented in pre-, during-, and post-construction phases.
Examples of BMPs may include dust suppression BMPs, Low Impact Developments (LIDs) such
as vegetated swales, and a spill response protocol. The SWPPP is a dynamic document that
shall be amended when site conditions warrant changes to protect natural resources and
prevent discharge of non-stormwater to neighboring parcels.
The Qualified Stormwater Developer (QSD) will develop and implement the SWPPP with site-
specific BMPs to prevent/reduce the potential for erosion, sedimentation, and offsite
discharge of non-stormwater in accordance with the Construction General Permit (CGP),
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit, and a 401 Water
Quality Certification Permit (if applicable). The QSD will provide training to the contractor for
performing regular site inspections, and for pre-, during-, and post-storm events to ensure
that BMPs are functioning as intended.
3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to
sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the
City a construction management plan that demonstrates that the construction footprint will
remain within the limits of the current property boundary, site ingress/egress will be limited
to the least impactful location on Lake Street at the western end of the Project Site. Trackout
(riprap, rumble strips) shall be installed to prevent tracking of sediment to public roadways.
4. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance
on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by
the biologist prior to initiation of work.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the
City a construction management plan that the construction footprint will remain within the
limits of the current property boundary, Project Site boundaries shall be clearly delineated
with visible means (i.e. stakes, rope, flagging, snow fence, etc.). The contractor will adhere to
the measures and conditions in all environmental permits to protect Jurisdictional Waters of
the United States. The Property Owner/Developer shall construct the perimeter Wall and
Fence Plan as shown in Figure 21 - Wall and Fence Plan first to serve as wildlife exclusionary
fencing (WEF) around the Project perimeter to reduce the potential for accidental take of
species that may enter the Project Site during construction.
5. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the
stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by
target species of concern.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
74 | Page
The Habitat Assessment found that no habitat for target species was observed within the
Project Boundaries. The Project Site does not contain stream channels, gravel bars, or
streambanks. The coarse-grained soil onsite has insufficient clay/fines and does not allow
standing water to persist in durations sufficient to support many of the target species. All
Project-related construction activities would occur within the property boundaries and no
equipment or personnel would work outside the clearly identified Project boundaries.
6. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive
habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global
Species Objective No. 7.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a
qualified wildlife biologist to monitor ground disturbance activities that would occur during
the nesting season. The Habitat Assessment found that no sensitive habitats were observed
within the Project boundaries, including riparian habitat. The Construction Contractor shall
take are to ensure that construction activities do not negatively impact potentially sensitive
habitats or species surrounding the Project Site. Construction equipment and personnel shall
be made aware of MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7 as part of the WEAP training and
would always remain within Project Site boundaries.
7. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or
other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping
materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the
transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned
out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be
exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning
to the stream.
No water diversion activities are proposed during Project activities. The Property
Owner/Developer shall implement erosion and sediment control BMPs as identified in the
WQMP throughout the Project site to reduce/prevent sediment from impacting the Temecula
Wash in pre-, during- and post-construction phases. Personnel would be educated during
WEAP training as to the importance of preventing impacts to the Wash from construction
activities.
8. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal
risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas
shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat.
Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic
substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported
to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and
CDFG, RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to an
approved disposal areas.
Ongoing during construction and operation, all project activities shall occur within the
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
75 | Page
property boundary and outside of the Temescal Wash. Equipment storage, fueling and
staging areas shall be located outside any sensitive habitats and in areas with no risk of direct
drainage into the surrounding wash and other sensitive habitats. All fuel storage tanks shall
have secondary containment to retain fuel spills. Construction equipment and materials shall
be staged as far from the Temescal Wash as practical. The Project Site-specific SWPPP shall
have BMPs designed to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface
waters or bare soil, as required by the RWQCB. All potentially hazardous materials shall be
stored appropriately on-site away from sensitive habitats or Waters of the United States.
Concrete washouts and active/inactive materials stockpiles shall have secondary
containment BMPs to prevent the accidental release of hazardous substances to bare soil.
The SWPPP is required to have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) to
describe necessary actions that should occur in the event of a spill or release of potentially
hazardous substances. Spills or releases of toxic substances greater than five gallons shall be
reported to the RWQCB, DTSC, Local Municipalities, and/or federal agencies, as appropriate.
9. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other
similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks.
No erodible fill material shall be deposited into or stockpiled near the Temescal Wash.
Materials stockpiles shall be located away from sensitive areas. Inactive materials stockpiles
shall be covered and bermed to prevent windborne dust or accidental release. The SWPPP
shall describe BMPs to prevent fugitive dust from migrating to neighboring parcels or the
Wash.
10. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the
project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental
disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a
qualified wildlife biologist to monitor ground disturbance activities to ensure that all
measures to protect species on and off site are being implemented during construction
activities, including wildlife exclusionary fencing, rock wren surveys (MM BIO-1), and nesting
bird surveys (MM BIO-4). Additional protective measures recommended by the qualified
wildlife biologist shall be implemented as necessary by the Property Woner/Developer to
avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.
11. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated
with appropriate native species.
No clearing and grubbing of native vegetation would be anticipated during the Project
activities as the Project site is almost entirely devoid of vegetation.
12. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently
removed from the site to the extent feasible.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
76 | Page
No exotic species were encountered during the Project habitat assessment and none would
be utilized in any revegetation efforts. The final landscaping design may incorporate native
plant species; however, regular landscape maintenance shall prevent exotic, or noxious
plant species from taking root on the Project Site.
13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the Project Site shall be kept as clean
of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and
regularly removed from the site(s).
The SWPPP shall contain BMPs for trash storage and removal, including containment of
sanitation facilities (e.g. portable toilets), and covering waste disposal containers at the end
of every business day and before rain events. Trash cans shall have a fastenable lid to
prevent animals from accessing or spreading trash onsite. The Project-QSD should consult
the MSHCP Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices, RWQCB recommendations,
and any applicable environmental permit measures and conditions when developing the
Project SWPPP.
14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and
construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and
routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete
the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced
with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all
construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the
construction areas.
In accordance with the WEAP, all Project activities would occur within the clearly delineated
property boundaries. Construction activities shall be confined to the Project footprint, and
approved routes of travel shall be established, including ingress/egress points. Exclusion
fencing shall be utilized throughout the Project duration.
15. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including
any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including
these BMPs.
The Contractor shall allow the Permittee access to the construction site. All visitors shall
check in with the Project Engineer (or Site Supervisor) prior to accessing the construction
site and will be escorted within Project boundaries during normal business hours when
construction activities are occurring.
MM BIO-4: Least Bell’s Vireo Nesting Survey
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified
biologist to conduct focused surveys along the Temescal Wash immediately south of the Project
Site.
If ground disturbing activities are to occur outside the LBV nesting season (September 16-March
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
77 | Page
14), a qualified biologist shall perform a presence/absence survey along the Temescal Wash
immediately south of the Project site, and continue these surveys on a monthly basis, especially
as breeding season commences.
If ground disturbing activities are to take place during the LBV nesting season (March 15-
September 15) and the survey findings are negative, project activities may proceed without the
implementation of any specific mitigation measure for protecting LBV. If the survey findings are
positive, the biologist shall perform additional surveys to determine whether nesting is taking
place within 300 feet of the Project site. If LBV are located, but nesting cannot be confirmed,
Project activities shall not occur within 100 feet of the suitable habitat area(s) until the nesting
season has ended. If nesting is confirmed, Project activities shall not occur within 150-200 feet of
the nest site until the biologist confirms that the young have fledged, and the nest is no longer
active. The qualified biologist shall always be present when construction crews are working
within 1/8 mile surrounding a LBV nest site to ensure that the birds do not react unfavorably to
Project activities. If the qualified biologist observes signs of agitation stemming from Project
activities, he or she should request that the activities cease and not resume until the birds’
behavior normalizes. If the birds continue to exhibit signs of agitation, Project activities shall be
adjusted to accommodate the nesting birds’ needs.
In the presence of LBV nests, the noise level from Project activities shall not exceed 65 dBA. If
this is not possible, a noise barrier shall be constructed to avoid adverse impacts to the LBV
nest(s). During the LBV breeding season, artificial light shall not be cast into LBV habitat when
night work is occurring.
Sources: Habitat Assessment (Appendix B), MSHCP JPR (Appendix C2), Wildlife Agencies JPR
(Appendix C3) Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix L)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact:
“Waters of the U.S.”/“Waters of the State”
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 1602 of the California Fish and
Game Code regulate activities affecting resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the
CDFW, respectively. “Waters of the U.S.”, under the jurisdiction of the USACE include navigable
coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries; interstate waters and their
tributaries; wetlands adjacent to such waters; intermittent streams; and other waters that could
affect interstate commerce. The CDFW has jurisdictional authority over resources associated
with rivers, streams, and lakes. Section 401 of the CWA provides the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) with the authority to regulate, through a Water Quality Certification, any
proposed federally permitted activity that may affect water quality. The RWQCB also has
jurisdiction over isolated wetlands and waters under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
78 | Page
No drainages, waterbodies, or other water resources under the regulatory authority of the
USACE, the CDFW, or the RWQCB were observed in the survey area. Riparian habitat is adjacent
to the south and east. Therefore, there would be no impacts on jurisdictional resources and no
permits, agreements, or certifications would be required from these agencies.
Vernal Pools
As defined by Section 6.1.2 the MSHCP, vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in sunken
areas that have wetland soils, vegetation, and hydrology during the wetter portion of the growing
season, but lack hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the year. The Project
Site soil types consisted of Honcut sandy loam, Honcut loam, Temescal rocky loam, and Tujunga
gravelly loamy sand. Due to these soils, the lack of vegetation, and current hydrology, no vernal
pool habitat is present within the Project boundaries.
Therefore, potential impacts on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation Measures Required.
Sources: Habitat Assessment (Appendix B), MSHCP JPR (Appendix C2)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
79 | Page
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 With Mitigation Incorporated: Indirect impacts, often called “edge
effects”, are those that affect the quality of nearby wildlife habitat resulting from disturbance by
construction (such as noise, dust, and urban pollutants) and/or the long-term use of the Project
Site. The Temescal Wash immediately to the south of the Project Site, and the conservation area
immediately to the east of the Project Site, could experience edge effects.
During construction, runoff carrying excessive silt or petroleum residues from construction
equipment could potentially impact water quality and, in turn, affect plant and wildlife species
using habitat adjacent to the Project Site. Grading and other construction activities would disturb
soils and result in the accumulation of dust on the surface of the leaves of trees, shrubs, and
herbs. Temporary construction noise has the potential to disrupt foraging, nesting, roosting,
and/or denning activities for a variety of wildlife species.
Following construction, urban runoff from project infrastructure or landscaping could
permanently impact water quality during operation of the Proposed Project. Landscaping
associated with the Proposed Project may introduce new, invasive species to the surrounding
open space. An increase in the number of nighttime light and glare sources could affect the
behavioral pattern of nocturnal and crepuscular (i.e., active at dawn and dusk) wildlife.
The Property Owner/Developer would be required to follow the Urban/Wildlands Interface
Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP to minimize urban/wildlands interface issues in the
nearby Temescal Wash and conservation areas as outlined in MM BIO-2 and Construction Best
Management Practices from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP as outlined in MM BIO-3. These
include measures related to indirect impacts such as water quality (drainage), use of toxics, night
lighting, indirect noise, invasive plant and wildlife species, protection of habitat areas (barriers),
and grading/land development adjacent to habitat areas.
Trees in the survey area and immediate vicinity have potential to be used for nesting by the Least
Bell Vireo. The noise and disturbance associated with construction may disturb a nesting Least
Bell Vireo if present immediately adjacent to the project impact area. In accordance with MM
BIO-4, If construction would be initiated during the Least Bell Vireo nesting season (generally
between March 15-September 15), a pre-construction survey would be required to ensure that
no Least Bell Vireo nests are impacted. If an active nest is present, construction may be
temporarily restricted in the immediate vicinity of the nest until Least Bell Vireo nesting is
complete.
Therefore, with implementation of the recommendations in the Habitat Assessment, consistent
with the MSHCP and LEMC, MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, and MM BIO-4, potential impacts associated
with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species would be less than
significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
80 | Page
Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, and MM BIO-4.
Sources: Habitat Assessment (Appendix B), MSHCP JPR (Appendix C2), LEMC
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would be consistent with local policies and
ordinances related to biological resources. The City’s Municipal Code includes a City Tree
Preservation Ordinance (Ord. 1256) that protects the City’s streetscape and trees. There are no
trees growing on the Project Site. Ord. 1256 requires that a City business license be obtained
prior to pruning, treating, or removing street or park trees within the City. Additionally, no species
other than those included in the City’s official street tree species list would be planted without
written permission of the City Tree Committee. Tree spacing, distance from curbs and sidewalks,
and other aesthetic guidelines shall be followed in accordance with Ord. 1256. 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.
In addition, the MSHCP requires that Project Sites be evaluated for several factors to assess how
they meet MSHCP criteria. This information is used to determine whether a Project Site should
be acquired as part of the habitat reserve or whether it should be allowed for development. The
biological resources evaluation also assists the Lead Agency in determining whether additional
mitigation would be required for Criteria Area or Additional Survey Needs Species. According to
the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator, the
Proposed Project is in designated MSHCP “Criteria Area” Cell 3751 and 3752. The general habitat
assessment for the Proposed Project includes assessments for riparian/riverine areas (and
associated species) and vernal pools (and associated species) pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2;
urban/wildlands interface issues pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.4; and areas under the
jurisdictions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as discussed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. This report has been prepared in
accordance with the MSHCP guidelines. Therefore, potential impacts associated with conflict
with local policies or ordinances would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Habitat Assessment (Appendix B), MSHCP JPR (Appendix C2), 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 Impact With Mitigation Incorporated: The Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that Project Sites be evaluated for
a number of factors to assess how they meet MSHCP criteria. This information is used to
determine whether a Project Site should be acquired as part of the habitat reserve or whether it
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
81 | Page
should be allowed for development. The biological resources evaluation also assists the Lead
Agency in determining whether additional mitigation would be required for Criteria Area or
Additional Survey Needs Species. The habitat assessment for the Proposed Project includes
assessments for riparian/riverine areas (and associated species) and vernal pools (and associated
species) pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2; urban/wildlands interface issues pursuant to MSHCP
Section 6.1.4; and areas under the jurisdictions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as discussed in MSHCP Section
6.1.2.
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved the MSHCP in 2003 and received permitting
approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in June 2004. This plan establishes
Criteria Areas (i.e., reserves) to adequately conserve many species listed as Threatened and
Endangered by the USFWS and the CDFW. Impacts on Covered Species would be considered fully
mitigated with the City’s participation in the MSHCP program. Except for a few species (e.g., least
Bell’s vireo, which is a Riparian/Riverine species), focused surveys are not required for Covered
Species and no additional permitting would be necessary. According to the Riverside County
Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator, The Project site is located
the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP, specifically within Subunit 1 – Estelle Mountain/Indian
Canyon, Cell Group J, Cells 3751 and 3752.
The focus of reserve assembly for these cells and cell groups is Proposed Core 1. Proposed Core
1 exists in two blocks, one east and one west of the I-15. The Project is located within the western
block of Proposed Core 1. Connections are made from Proposed Core to Proposed Linkage 1,
Proposed Linkage 2 (Alberhill Creek), Proposed Linkage 3, and Existing Core C (Lake
Mathews/Estelle Mountain). Key planning species potentially located within Proposed Core 1 are
Coastal California Gnatcatcher, Cactus Wren, Tri-colored Blackbird, Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher, Munz’s onion, and many-stemmed dudleya.
The total target acreage for Proposed Core 1 is approximately 7,740 acres. The proposed Project
meets the reserve assembly and cores/linkages connectivity goals for Proposed Core 1 by being
consistent with the goals and objectives of its local Cell Group (Cell Group J of the Estelle
Mountain/Indian Canyon Subunit of the Elsinore Area Plan). Project development will not impede
the completion of Proposed Core 1, as the conservation acreage goals for Cell Group J have
already been met.
The Project Site is located within Subunit 1, Estelle Mountain/Indian Canyon. The target acreage
for Additional Reserve Lands within Subunit 1 is 4,100 to 6,030 acres. Planning species within
Subunit 1 include Bell’s Sage Sparrow, Coastal California Gnatcatcher, Cooper’s Hawk, Least Bell’s
Vireo, Loggerhead Shrike, Mountain Quail, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, White-tailed Kite,
Yellow-breasted Chat, Yellow Warbler, bobcat, mountain lion, Stephen’s kangaroo rat, many-
stemmed dudleya, and Munz’s onion.
There are 10 Biological Issues and Considerations pertinent to Subunit 1, including:
1. Provide connection between the Santa Ana Mountains, the Temescal Wash, and the foothills
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
82 | Page
north of Lake Elsinore (Estelle Mountain, Sedco Hills); existing connections appear to be at
Indian Canyon, Horsethief Canyon, and open upland areas southwest of Alberhill.
2. Conserve wetlands including Temescal Wash.
3. Conserve clay soils supporting many-stemmed dudleya and Munz's onion.
4. Conserve foraging habitat for raptors, providing a sage scrub-grassland ecotone.
5. Maintain Core Area for bobcat.
6. Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for mountain lion east of I-15.
7. Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for Stephens' kangaroo rat east of I-15.
8. Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly.
9. Maintain connection to mountains to provide movement opportunities for Mountain Quail.
10. Conserve habitats for Coastal California Gnatcatcher and other coastal sage scrub and
chaparral species.
The proposed Project meets the connectivity and conservation goals for Subunits 1 and 2 by
maintaining connectivity to Temescal Wash, and by providing no negative impacts to wetlands
features within the Temescal Wash, located south of the Project site. The biological issues and
considerations for Subunits 3 through 10 are not applicable as the Project site does not support
suitable habitat for these referenced species. During the Habitat Assessment, the Soar
Environmental biologist conducted specific surveys to determine the potential for the presence
of Munz’s onion and many-stemmed dudleya. The wildlife biologist reported that suitable habitat
for each of these special-status species is not present within the Project site. Wildlife connectivity
through the Project site has been heavily impacted by decades of continuous mining activities.
The proposed Project would not provide further impacts to wildlife connectivity through the
Project Site.
The MSHCP sets forth conservation criteria for each Cell Group within an area plan. The
conservation criteria for Cell Group J states the following:
Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to assembly of Proposed Core 1. Conservation
within this Cell Group will focus on coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, riparian scrub,
woodland and forest habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to upland
habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #3853 and #3855, and Cell Group O all to the south, to
coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group L to the east, to riparian
habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group I to the west, and to existing PQP Lands to the
north and west. Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 75%-85% of the Cell Group
focusing in the western and northern portions of the Cell Group. (MSHCP, Section 3.3.3, Table 3-
4)
Cell Group J is comprised of 12 cells totaling 1,920 acres. In accordance with the cell criteria,
conservation acreage totals range from 1,440 to 1,632 acres (75% to 85%), primarily in the
western and northern portions of Cell Group J. At this time, approximately 1,593 acres (83%) of
land within Cell Group J is conserved under the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation
Authority (RCA).
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
83 | Page
The Project site does not support the habitat types targeted for conservation within Cell Group
J. RCA conserved lands immediately south of the Project site provide connectivity from Cell Group
J to upland habitat in Cells #3853 and #3855. Other previously conserved lands within Cell Group
J accomplish most connectivity goals for this cell, including connecting to Cell Group O to the
south, Cell Group L to the east, and existing Public/Quasi-Public lands to the north and west. The
Project accomplishes the final connectivity goal of Cell Group J criteria by not impacting riparian
habitat connectivity to Cell Group I to the west.
The Project appears to be consistent with the MSHCP Cell Criteria, as the conservation acreage
goals for Cell Group J have already been accomplished, and the Project does not conflict with the
connectivity goals for Cell Group J. In order to be fully consistent with the MSHCP, the Project
must comply with all regulations set forth in Section 6.1.4, Land Use Guidelines Pertaining to
Urban/Wildlands Interface, of the MSHCP, included in MM BIO-2.
The Property Owner/Developer would be required to follow the Urban/Wildlands Interface
Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP to minimize urban/wildlands interface issues in the
nearby Temescal Wash and conservation areas as outlined in MM BIO-2 and Construction Best
Management Practices from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP as outlined in MM BIO-3. These
include measures related to indirect impacts such as water quality (drainage), use of toxics, night
lighting, indirect noise, invasive plant and wildlife species, protection of habitat areas (barriers),
and grading/land development adjacent to habitat areas.
Trees in the survey area and immediate vicinity have potential to be used for nesting by the Least
Bell Vireo. The noise and disturbance associated with construction may disturb a nesting Least
Bell Vireo if present immediately adjacent to the project impact area. In accordance with MM
BIO-4, If construction would be initiated during the Least Bell Vireo nesting season (generally
between March 15-September 15), a pre-construction survey would be required to ensure that
no Least Bell Vireo nests are impacted. If an active nest is present, construction may be
temporarily restricted in the immediate vicinity of the nest until Least Bell Vireo nesting is
complete.
Therefore, with implementation of the recommendations in the Habitat Assessment, consistent
with the MSHCP and LEMC, MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, and MM BIO-4, the Proposed Project would
not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan and potential impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, and MM BIO-4
Sources: Habitat Assessment (Appendix B), MSHCP JPR (Appendix C2), LEMC
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
84 | Page
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5 of the California Code of
Regulations?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
A Cultural Resources Desktop Review was completed to determine potential impacts to cultural
resources associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix D – Cultural
Resources Desktop Review of the Lake Street Storage Project, Soar Environmental, November
2017).
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The cultural resources desktop review
included a historical records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), which
included the area of potential effects (APE) for the Proposed Project. The APE is defined by the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 800.16(d), as the geographic area or areas within which
an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character of use of historic
properties, if any such property exist. The cultural resources desktop review identified the APE
for search purposes as a total of approximately 15-acres, of which, the entire Project Site is
included. According to the results of the records search, no historical resources have been
previously identified within the boundaries of the APE. A total of 14 cultural resource studies
have been conducted within a half-mile radius of the project area, with two studies involving the
project area and three studies providing overviews of cultural resources located within one half-
mile of the project area. Additionally, six cultural resources have been previously documented
outside of the boundaries of the project area, within a one half-mile radius. However, the
Proposed Project would be limited to the boundaries of the Project Site and would not result in
any alterations to the previously recorded historical resources.
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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
85 | Page
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
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: Cultural Resources Desktop Review (Appendix D)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Soar Environmental performed a records
search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), which included the area of potential effects, as
shown in Appendix D. According to the results of the records search, no cultural resources have
been previously identified within the boundaries of the Project Site. Six cultural resources have
been previously documented outside of the boundaries of the project area, within a one half-
mile radius. However, the Proposed Project would be limited to the boundaries of the Project
Site and would not result in any alterations to the previously recorded cultural resources.
Additionally, due to the high ground disturbing nature of the previous gravel mining operations
on the Project Site, the possibility of finding buried cultural deposits on-site is very low.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
86 | Page
Soar Environmental requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) records search from the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC), who responded indicating that no known resources were within
the project area. Soar Environmental prepared consultation invitation letters to the Native
American Tribes on the NAHC list that were mailed on November 6, 2017. The City prepared
consultation invitation letters to the Native American Tribes on the City’s AB52 consultation list
that were mailed on March 18, 2019. The City received a response from three tribes, and a
summary of the consultation is provided in Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources.
Based on the record searches performed by the NAHC and the EIC, no cultural resources are
present on the Project Site, which has been highly disturbed as an active gravel mine. The
possibility of finding buried cultural deposits on the Project Site are very low and no further
archaeological studies are necessary.
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 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 appropriate regulatory agency and/or tribal group. With implementation
of MM CUL-1, potential impacts associated with archeological resources would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: Unanticipated Resources. Defined in Section V.a. above.
Sources: Cultural Resources Desktop Review (Appendix D)
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The Project Site was subject to high levels
of disturbance during its operation as a gravel mine, and the possibility of finding human remains
is very low. In the unexpected event human remains are found, those remains would require
proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. Procedures of conduct following the
discovery of human remains on non-federal lands have been mandated by California Health and
Safety Code (CHSC) §7050.5, PRC §5097.98 and the California Code of Regulations (CCR)
§15064.5(e). According to the provisions in CEQA, should human remains be encountered, all
work in the immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the
integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The County Coroner would be immediately
notified. The Coroner must then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the
Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who would, in turn, notify the person they
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
87 | Page
identify as the most likely descendent (MLD) of any human remains. Further actions would be
determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours from being allowed access
to the Project Site to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following
notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within
48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property
secure from further disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s
recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. 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: Cultural Resources Desktop Review (Appendix D), City of Lake Elsinore
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
88 | Page
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
An energy resources analysis was completed to determine potential impacts to energy resources
associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix E – Consumption of Energy
Resources Analysis, Lake Street/I-15 Property Project, City of Lake Elsinore, Vista Environmental,
October 2019). The results of the analysis are based on CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.
The Proposed Project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. Energy
resources that would be potentially impacted include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum-
based fuel supplies and distribution systems. Appendix E includes a discussion of the potential
energy impacts of the Proposed Project, with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient,
wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. A general definition of each of these energy
resources is found in Appendix E.
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:
Construction Energy
The construction activities for the Proposed Project would include grading of the Project Site,
building construction and application of architectural coatings to the proposed buildings, and
paving of the proposed parking lot and driveways. The Proposed Project would consume energy
resources during construction in three (3) general forms:
1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on
the
Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and
haul truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off-site reuse and disposal facilities);
2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project
construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary
lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities
necessitating electrical power; and,
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
89 | Page
3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete,
pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Construction-Related Electricity
During construction the Proposed Project would consume electricity to construct the new
building and infrastructure. Electricity would be supplied to the Project Site by Southern
California Edison and would be obtained from the existing electrical lines in the vicinity of the
Project Site. The use of electricity from existing power lines rather than temporary diesel or
gasoline powered generators would minimize impacts on energy use. Electricity consumed
during project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the
construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity
associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust
control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during
construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical
power. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the
completion of construction. Overall, construction activities associated with the Proposed Project
would require limited electricity consumption that would not have an adverse impact on
available electricity supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, the use of electricity during project
construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Since the Project Site already has electrical service, it is anticipated that only nominal
improvements would be required to Southern California Edison distribution lines and equipment
with development of the Proposed Project. Where feasible, the new service installations and
connections would be scheduled and implemented in a manner that would not result in electrical
service interruptions to other properties. Compliance with City’s guidelines and requirements
would ensure that the Proposed Project fulfills its responsibilities relative to infrastructure
installation, coordinates any electrical infrastructure removals or relocations, and limits any
impacts associated with grading, construction, and development. Construction of the Proposed
Project’s electrical infrastructure is not anticipated to adversely affect the electrical
infrastructure serving the surrounding uses or utility system capacity.
Construction-Related Natural Gas
Construction of the Proposed Project would not involve the consumption of natural gas. Natural
gas would not be supplied to support construction activities, so there would be no demand
generated by construction. Since the Project Site is in a developed community that has natural
gas line in the vicinity of the Project Site, construction of the Proposed Project would be limited
to installation of new natural gas connections within the Project Site if any are required for the
Proposed Project. Development of the Proposed Project would not require extensive
infrastructure improvements to serve the Project Site. Construction-related energy usage
impacts associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined
to trenching in order to place the lines below surface. In addition, prior to ground disturbance,
the Proposed Project would notify and coordinate with SoCalGas to identify the locations and
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
90 | Page
depth of all existing gas lines and avoid disruption of gas service. Therefore, construction-related
impacts to natural gas supply and infrastructure would be less than significant.
Construction-Related Petroleum Fuel Use
Petroleum-based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially
consumed during construction, which would be utilized by both off-road equipment operating
on the Project Site and on-road automobiles transporting workers to and from the Project Site
and on-road trucks transporting equipment and supplies to the Project Site.
The off-road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off-road
equipment assumptions and fuel use assumptions detailed in Appendix E, which found that the
off-road equipment utilized during construction of the Proposed Project would consume 55,387
gallons of fuel. The on-road construction trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the
construction vehicle trip assumptions and fuel use assumptions detailed in Appendix E, which
found that the on-road trips generated from construction of the Proposed Project would
consume 54,033 gallons of fuel. The combined fuel used from off-road construction equipment
and on-road construction trips for the Proposed Project would result in the consumption of
59,908 gallons of fuel. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be
required to adhere to all State and SCAQMD regulations for off-road equipment and on-road
trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. Construction activities for the Proposed
Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy
resources because of the State and SCAQMD regulations. Therefore, potential impacts regarding
transportation energy would be less than significant.
Development of the Proposed Project would not result in the need to manufacture construction
materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the Proposed Project. It
is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as
asphalt, steel, and concrete; however, it is reasonable to assume that the production of building
materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation
practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Therefore, potential impacts
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
construction would be less than significant.
Operational Energy
The on-going operation of the proposed RV and boat storage facility and convenience market
and gas station would require the use of energy resources for multiple purposes including, but
not limited to, gas pumps, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting,
appliances, and electronics. Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water
usage, solid waste disposal, landscape equipment and vehicle trips.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
91 | Page
Operations-Related Electricity
Operation of the Proposed Project would result in consumption of electricity at the Project Site.
Appendix E determines the Proposed Project would consume 1,029,334 kilowatt-hours per year
of electricity. The Proposed Project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements
related to the consumption of electricity, including but not limited to, CCR Title 24, Part 6 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards. The
CCR Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency measures to be
incorporated into the proposed buildings, including enhanced insulation, use of energy efficient
lighting and appliances as well as requiring a variety of other energy-efficiency measures to be
incorporated into all of the proposed structures. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be
designed and built to minimize electricity use and that existing and planned electricity capacity
and electricity supplies would be enough to support the Proposed Project’s electricity demand
and impacts related to electrical supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant.
Operations-Related Natural Gas
Operation of the Proposed Project would result in increased consumption of natural gas at the
Project Site. As detailed in Appendix E, the Proposed Project would consume 366 MBTU per year
of natural gas. The Proposed Project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements
related to the consumption of natural gas, including but not limited to, CCR Title 24, Part 6
Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building
Standards. The CCR Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency
measures to be incorporated into the proposed structures, including enhanced insulation as well
as use of efficient natural gas appliances and HVAC units. Therefore, it is anticipated the Proposed
Project would be designed and built to minimize natural gas use and that existing and planned
natural gas capacity and natural gas supplies would be sufficient to support the Proposed
Project’s natural gas demand and impacts related to natural gas supply and infrastructure
capacity would be less than significant.
Operations-Related Transportation Energy
Operation of the Proposed Project would result in increased consumption of petroleum-based
fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the Project Site. Appendix E states the Proposed
Project would consume 124,320 gallons of transportation fuel per year. The Proposed Project
would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of
transportation energy, including but not limited to, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part
11 California Green Building Standards which require all new parking lots provide preferred
parking for clean air vehicles. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be designed and built to
minimize transportation energy through the promotion of the use of electric-powered vehicles
and it is anticipated existing and planned capacity and supplies of transportation fuels would be
sufficient to support the Proposed Project’s demand and impacts related to transportation
energy supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
92 | Page
The Proposed Project would comply with regulatory compliance measures outlined by the State
and City related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), Transportation/Circulation, and
Water Supply. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with all
applicable City Building and Fire Codes which require efficiency and energy conservation.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Energy Impact Analysis (Appendix E).
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The applicable energy plan for the proposed
project is the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, adopted December 13, 2011 as summarized in
Table 9 – Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies.
Table 9 – Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies
Policy
No. General Plan Policy Proposed Project Implementation Actions
12.1
Coordinate with the utility agencies to provide for the
continued maintenance, development and expansion of
electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications
systems to serve residents and businesses.
Consistent. The project applicant has
received “Will Serve” letters from Southern
California Edison and SoCal
Gas verifying that the energy utilities are
able to accommodate the additional
demand for service.
12.2
Encourage developers to contact Southern California
Edison early in their planning process, especially for
large-scale residential and non-residential development
or specific plans, to ensure the projected electric loads
for these projects are factored into SCE’s load forecasts
for the community.
Consistent. The project applicant has
informed Southern California Edison of the
proposed project.
12.3
Encourage developers to incorporate energy efficient
design measures into their projects and pursue
available energy efficiency assistance programs from
SCE and other utility agencies
Consistent. The proposed project is
required to be design to meet the Title 24
Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
that require the incorporation of energy
efficient building features. The City requires
a Title 24 report to be completed that
shows compliance with the current Title 24
requirements, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Source: City of Lake Elsinore, 2011.
As shown in Table 9, the Proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable energy-related
policies from the General Plan. Therefore, potential impacts associated with obstructing a state
or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
93 | Page
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Energy Impact Analysis (Appendix E), General Plan (2011).
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
94 | Page
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause to 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
A Geotechnical Feasibility Study was completed to determine potential impacts to geology and
soils associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix F – Feasibility Study
Proposed RV Storage Facility, Southern California Geotechnical, January 2017).
A Report of Mass Grade Compaction Testing was completed to address geotechnical conditions
for final foundation design minimums for proposed structures of the Proposed Project (Appendix
G – Report of Mass Grade Compaction Testing, South Shore Testing & Environmental, May 2018)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
95 | Page
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: According to the California Earthquake Hazards Zone map, the
nearest fault zones to the Project Site are the Alberhill and Glen Ivy North fault zones which are
located approximately 1.6 miles to the southwest. Although the Project Site is not within an
Earthquake Fault Zone, it is in a seismically active area of Southern California. The type and
magnitude of seismic hazards that may affect the Project Site are dependent on both the distance
to causative faults and the intensity and duration of the seismic event. Although the probability
of primary surface rupture is considered low, ground shaking hazards caused by earthquakes
along regional active faults do exist and are accounted for in the design and construction of the
proposed structures. Structures proposed for the Project Site would be constructed to the
standards prescribed by the California Building Code (CBC), which would reduce risks associated
with seismic activity. Therefore, potential impacts associated with people or structures from a
surface rupture would be less than significant
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (accessed July 16, 2019), General Plan,
Geotechnical Feasibility Study (Appendix F)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is situated in a seismically active area that has
historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion.
The Project 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 Feasibility Study (Appendix F)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
96 | Page
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless,
saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes
equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential
for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics,
relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground
shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface
improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface.
Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands. Clayey soils or soils
which possess clay particles in excess of 20-percent are generally not considered to be
susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater
table. According to Appendix F, the Project Site has a low to moderate potential for liquefaction
as groundwater is expected to be greater than 30 feet below the existing site grades, and soil
materials are dense alluvium, older alluvium, and bedrock. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the Property Owner/Developer of the Proposed Project would be required to submit
grading and foundation plans to the City for review to demonstrate compliance with the City’s
grading requirements as well as any applicable recommendations contained in the geotechnical
feasibility study. 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 Feasibility Study (Appendix F), LEMC
iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant 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 Proposed Project’s design. The California
Department of Conservation GIS map does show a landslide overlay on the Project Site; however,
the portions encompassed in the area showing the overlay include the Santa Ana Mountains. The
California Department of Conservation GIS map does not show parcel-level specific data. The
geotechnical feasibility study concludes there is no evidence of landslides or deep seeded slope
instability for the Project Site; however, loose granular soils on sloping ground surfaces were
observed and could be prone to superficial failures. The Proposed Project would involve newly
constructed fill slopes, comprised of property compacted engineered fill, at inclinations of 2h:1v
or less, which would possess adequate gross stability. Additionally, prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer of the Proposed Project would be required to
submit grading and foundation plans to the City for review to demonstrate compliance with the
City’s grading requirements as well as any applicable recommendations contained in the
geotechnical feasibility study. The Proposed Project would be designed and constructed in
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
97 | Page
accordance with CBC requirements which would reduce risks associated with landslides.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan EIR, Riverside County GIS, Geotechnical Feasibility Study (Appendix F)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is previously disturbed and unimproved.
Construction activity associated with development may result in wind driven soil erosion and loss
of topsoil due to grading activities. However, all construction and grading activities would comply
with City’s grading ordinance (LEMC 15.04) using BMPs, including the use of fiber rolls, street
sweeping, sandbag barriers, straw bale barriers, and storm drain inlet protection. The Proposed
Project would implement BMPs to control project runoff and protect water quality, which would
limit operational impacts as a result of the Proposed Project. Upon project completion, the
Project Site would be developed with a RV/boat storage building and support facilities, service
station and ancillary structures, paved surfaces, and landscaping, which would prevent
substantial erosion from occurring. Therefore, potential impacts associated with soil erosion
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: LEMC, 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: Lateral spreading is caused by the lateral displacement of surficial
blocks of sediment, as a result of liquefaction in subsurface layers. Lateral spreading is associated
with areas prone to liquefaction. The Project Site has a low to moderate liquefaction
susceptibility, with the moderate portion located on the western portion of the Project Site. The
Project Site is generally flat and there is no substantial slope. The potential for other geologic
hazards, such as seismically induced settlement, lateral spreading, and subsidence affecting the
Project Site is considered low due to the shallow bedrock and the elevation of the Project Site.
The Proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with the recommendations in the
geotechnical feasibility study and the CBC. Therefore, potential impacts associated with unstable
soil would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Geotechnical Feasibility Study (Appendix F)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
98 | Page
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact: Based on the geotechnical feasibility study, the near-surface soils
within the Project Site are generally anticipated to possess a Low expansion potential. High
expansion soils were observed within fill soils located at only one trench location in the north-
central portion of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would be constructed to the
recommendations in the geotechnical feasibility study and to the standards prescribed by the
CBC, as amended by the City. Therefore, potential impacts associated with expansive soils would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Geotechnical Feasibility Study (Appendix F)
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 with Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project will be served by an
onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS). The Property Owner/Developer would be required
to submit an OWTS report including a percolation test that measures water absorption of the soil
to establish the dispersal system design. The OWTS shall be prepared by a qualified service
provider (QSP) State Licensed Contractor with knowledge and competency in OWTS design,
construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring and shall be submitted to the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health. With implementation of MM GEO-1, potential
impacts associated with associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit
to the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health, a completed application for the
onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) for review and approval. The an OWTS report shall
be prepared by a Qualified service provider (QSP) State Licensed Contractor with knowledge and
competency in OWTS design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring.
Sources: Project Description, RIVCOEH
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. Previous operations
on the Project Site involved those related to a gravel mine and processing plant, which resulted
in substantial ground disturbance. There are no unique geologic features on the Project Site and
the possibility of finding buried paleontological deposits on-site is very low. Therefore, potential
impacts to a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature would be less than
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
99 | Page
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Riverside County GIS
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
100 | Page
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis was completed to determine potential impacts to
greenhouse gas emissions associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix
H – Lake Street/I-15 Property Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, Urban Crossroads,
October 2019). The results of the analysis are based on CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would result in emissions of CO2 and
CH4 from construction activities. The report Lake Street/I-15 Property Air Quality Impact Analysis
Report, Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Appendix A) contains detailed information regarding construction
activity.
For construction phase project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the
Proposed Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Proposed Project, the SCAQMD
recommends calculating the total greenhouse gas emissions for the construction activities,
dividing it by a 30- year project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase
GHG emissions. Construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the
annual operational phase GHG emissions.
Operations Emissions
Operational activities associated with the Proposed Project would result in emissions of CO2, CH4,
and N2O from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions (e.g. Landscape maintenance equipment)
• Energy Source Emissions (e.g. Combustion emissions)
• Mobile Source Emissions (e.g. Vehicles)
• Solid Waste
• Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
101 | Page
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The Proposed
Project would include construction of an 90,000 SF RV/boat storage building with ancillary office,
support facilities for the RV/boat storage, a 3,528 SF service station and convenience store with
fuel canopy and pumps, surface parking and drive aisles and landscaping.
The City of Lake Elsinore has not adopted its own numeric threshold of significance for
determining impacts with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A screening threshold of
3,000 MTCO2e per year to determine if additional analysis is required is an acceptable approach
for small projects. This approach is a widely accepted screening threshold used by the County of
Riverside and numerous cities in the South Coast Air Basin and is based on the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary
source emissions for non-industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG
Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG
Threshold”). The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determine
whether additional analysis is required.
Table 10 – Total Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
Emissions Source CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2E
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years
41.84 0.01 0.00 41.99
Area 0.01 3.00E-04 0.00 0.01
Energy 347.50 0.01 3.16E-03 348.79
Mobile 1,741.57 0.14 0.00 1,745.14
Waste 25.14 1.49 0.00 62.28
Water Usage 136.89 1.00 0.02 169.28
Total CO2E (All Sources) 2,367.48
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: CalEEMod™ model output, See Appendix 3.1 for detailed model outputs.
Note: Totals obtained from CalEEMod™ and may not total 100% due to rounding.
Table results include scientific notation. e is used to represent times ten raised to the power of (which would be
written as x 10b") and is followed by the value of the exponent
As shown in Table 10 – Total Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual), the Proposed Project
would result in approximately 622.35 MTCO2e per year from construction, area, energy, waste,
and water usage. The Proposed Project has the potential to result in an additional 1,745.14
MTCO2e per year from mobile sources if the assumption is made that all vehicle trips to and from
the Project Site are “new” trips resulting from the development of the Proposed Project. Table
10 shows the Proposed Project has the potential to generate a total of approximately 2,367.48
MTCO2e per year and would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended numeric threshold of
3,000 MTCO2e. Therefore, potential impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions would
be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
102 | Page
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: AQ and GHG Impact Analysis (Appendix A and 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. In 2006,
California adopted AB 32, which requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990
levels by 2020, a reduction target that was introduced in EO S-3-05. In 2016, California adopted
SB 32, which requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by
2030, a reduction target that was introduced in EO B-30-15. AB 32 and SB 32 codified state targets
and directed state regulatory agencies to develop rules and regulations to meet the targets; AB
32 and SB 32 do not stipulate project-specific requirements. Specific requirements are codified
in rules and regulations developed by regulatory agencies such as CARB and SCAQMD, and local
City actions such as the City of Lake Elsinore CAP.
The City’s CAP, adopted in 2011, certified that the City’s target is consistent with AB 32’s 2020
goals. The City CAP ensures that the City will be providing local GHG reductions that will
complement state efforts to reduce GHG emissions to the AB 32 target. The Proposed Project
would not conflict with the applicable CAP reduction measures, as shown in Appendix H (p. 46-
51) nor would it conflict with AB 32, SB 32, or ARB’s Scoping Plan, as outlined in Appendix H (p.
51-54). Appendix H also discusses consistency with AB 32. Although the CAP was prepared prior
to the adoption of SB 32, it is still an applicable plan.
Appendix H 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. Appendix H also includes a list of Proposed Project’s consistency with AB 32. The
Proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable local measures provided in the Climate
Action Plan. 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 Impact Analysis (Appendix H)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
103 | Page
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 or excessive noise 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed to determine potential impacts to
hazards and hazardous materials associated with the development of the Project Site (Appendix
I - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 31000 Lake Street, Lake Elsinore, California
92530, PIC Environmental Services, January 2017).
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
104 | Page
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: During construction, there would be a minor level of transport, use,
and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes that are typical of construction projects. This
would include fuels and lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, etc., as well as
for the transport of the gas and diesel fuels to the Project Site. The proposed fuel storage tanks
associated with the service stations would be required to follow specific protocols for handling,
transporting, and storing the fuel onsite. All hazardous materials are required to be utilized and
transported in accordance with their labeling pursuant to federal and state law. Routine
construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage,
application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up would be enough to reduce
potential impacts to less than significant.
The operation of the proposed RV and boat storage facility would not be expected to generate
hazardous waste or create the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The
use would be required to comply with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, including Chapter 14.08
– Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
The operation of the proposed convenience store would not be expected to generate hazardous
waste or create the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Proposed
Project would involve the installation of Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) to serve the fueling
station. Rule 461 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) governs the
operation of gasoline stations and requires that all underground storage tanks are equipped with
a “CARB certified” enhanced vapor recovery system, all fill tubes are equipped with vapor tight
caps, all dry breaks are equipped with vapor tight seals, a spill box shall be installed to capture
any gasoline spillage, and all equipment is required to be properly maintained per CARB
regulations. All gasoline dispensing units are required to be equipped with a “CARB certified”
vapor recovery system, the dispensing system components shall always maintain vapor and liquid
tight connections and the breakaway coupling shall be equipped with a poppet valve that shall
close when coupling is separated. Rule 461 also provides several additional requirements
including detailed maintenance, testing, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for all gas
stations.
The gas station would also be subject to permit and inspection by the Hazardous Materials
Division of the County Fire Department. Sections 2729 through 2732 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) provide requirements for the reporting, inventory, and release response plans
for hazardous materials. These requirements establish procedures and minimum standards for
hazardous material plans, inventory reporting and submittal requirements, emergency
planning/response, and training. In addition, all regulated substance handlers are required to
register with local fire or emergency response departments per the California Accidental Release
Prevention Program (CalARP). Locally, this is overseen by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Branch. The division reviews and approves an
Emergency/Contingency Plan for regulated facilities. The plan outlines precautions and
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
105 | Page
procedures necessary to protect the facility from accidental release of hazardous materials and
provides emergency remediation to minimize effects should an accidental spill occur. Annual
updates and review of the plan are required to ensure compliance and adequacy. The Riverside
County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Branch administers the
CalARP Program in the area. The CalARP Program was established to prevent accidental release
of substances that pose the greatest risk of immediate harm to the public and the environment.
The Program requires facilities to proactively prevent and prepare for chemical accidents. The
proposed facility would be subject to Program requirements for regulated substances including
preparation of a risk management plan (RMP) to include an off-site consequence analysis,
compliance audit, certified program elements, and a seismic assessment. Existing risk
management and response requirements would ensure potential risks associated with accidental
releases of hazardous materials are minimized. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the
risk of exposure of the public and/or the environment to hazardous waste, either used or
transported on site, would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: CCR, Code of Federal Regulations, Health and Safety Code, Phase I ESA (Appendix I)
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: 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 associated with the gas station would reduce the potential for exposure. Once the fuel
storage tanks are constructed, there would be continued routine maintenance. Rule 461 of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) governs the operation of gasoline
stations and requires that all underground storage tanks are equipped with a “CARB certified”
enhanced vapor recovery system, all fill tubes are equipped with vapor tight caps, all dry breaks
are equipped with vapor tight seals, a spill box shall be installed to capture any gasoline spillage,
and all equipment is required to be properly maintained per CARB regulations.
The operation of the proposed convenience store would not be expected to generate hazardous
waste or create the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The operation of
the proposed RV and boat storage facility would not be expected to generate hazardous waste
or create the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The use would be
required to comply with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, including Chapter 14.08 –
Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls. The use of hazardous materials
on the Project Site post-construction would consist of those commonly used in a residential
setting for routine maintenance and cleaning. Proper handling of the use and disposal of
hazardous materials would reduce the potential for exposure. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
106 | Page
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?
No Impact: There are no existing or proposed schools within a quarter mile of the Proposed
Project. The closest school site is Luiseno Elementary School, located approximately one mile to
the southwest. 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 associated with the gas station would reduce the potential for exposure of
any school in proximity to the Project Site to hazardous materials. Therefore, no impact
associated with hazardous materials within on-quarter mile of a school would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Google Maps
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: 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. The Project Site was not identified in the
database search as a site of environmental concern. No evidence was observed that the Project
Site has been adversely impacted by contamination and no evidence of recognized
environmental conditions existing on the Project Site (Appendix I). Therefore, potential impacts
associated with hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Phase I ESA (Appendix I), CalEPA
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 or excessive noise 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 excessive noise in proximity to an airport would occur.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
107 | Page
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan, Google Earth, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix L)
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would be required to comply with all
applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the Project 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. This review would ensure that the
Proposed Project would provide adequate emergency access to and from the Project Site. The
City Engineer and the City Fire Department would review any modifications to existing roadways
to ensure that adequate emergency access and/or emergency response would be maintained.
The Proposed Project does not propose any changes that would impact the City’s Emergency
Preparedness Plan or the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Therefore, potential impacts associated with interference with an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan would be 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 California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection and the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR Figure 3.10-2 - City of Lake Elsinore
Wildfire Susceptibility, the Project Site is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project Site
is vacant and bounded by vacant land to the south and west and by I-15 to the north and
northeast. The Proposed Project would be subject to the plan check process and would undergo
a fire, life, and safety review by the City Fire Department to determine the specific fire
requirements applicable to ensure compliance with Fire Department requirements. The
Proposed Project would not involve the construction or operation of a use which involves open
flame or a fire related use. The proposed site plan would include landscaped areas with irrigation
to ensure vegetation does not dry out and become susceptible to immediate combustion.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildland fires would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, General Plan EIR
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
108 | Page
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) (Appendix J - Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., June 2019) was completed to determine
potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
109 | Page
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 Proposed 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 Project 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 more 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 (Appendix J), the impervious area would
be 505,285 SF, or 80.5 percent impervious, and the balance of the Project Site, 123,926 SF or 19.5
percent, would be pervious with the use of landscape areas. All drainage flows would be captured
by a subsurface infiltration/detention facility and the Proposed Project would preserve flow
patterns of the existing site. The Preliminary WQMP has been submitted to the City Public Works
Department for review. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the Property
Owner/Developer would be required to submit a final WQMP to the City for approval.
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
possible, for natural filtration. Most of the flows from the Project Site would occur over
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
110 | Page
impervious surfaces that discharge a proposed subsurface infiltration/detention facility.
Infiltration and Bioretention BMPs are also included to treat storm water runoff before it leaves
the Project Site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with violations of water quality or water
discharge requirements would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: PWQMP (Appendix J)
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Less Than Significant Impact: According to General Plan EIR, the Project Site is located within the
Lee Lake 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, potential impacts associated with depletion
of or interference with groundwater would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan EIR, PWQMP (Appendix J)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would preserve the existing drainage pattern
on the Project Site. Per the PWQMP, the pre-project site drains southerly to Temescal Creek and
westerly to Lake Street. Surface flows would be captured and flow to a subsurface
infiltration/detention facility. The proposed site conditions would preserve flow patterns on-site
. Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not significantly alter the existing
drainage pattern of the Project Site or increase the amount of runoff. The Proposed Project would
not involve an alteration of the course of a stream or river. Erosion and siltation impacts
potentially resulting from the Proposed Project would, for the most part, occur during the
Proposed Project’s site preparation and earthmoving phase. However, implementation of the
NPDES permit requirements, as they apply to the Project Site, would reduce potential erosion,
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
111 | Page
siltation, and water quality impacts. Therefore, potential impacts associated with erosion or
siltation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: PWQMP (Appendix J)
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the Project Site. In addition, the Proposed Project would not involve an
alteration of the course of a stream or river. A subsurface infiltration/detention facility would be
installed in Drainage Management Area (DMA) 1 and 2 to capture and treat runoff. Therefore,
potential impacts associated with an increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff resulting in
flooding would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: PWQMP (Appendix J)
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
Less Than Significant Impact: The subsurface infiltration/detention facility in DMA 1 and 2 would
retain and treat runoff from the Project Site. 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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
112 | Page
runoff would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan EIR, PWQMP (Appendix J)
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the western portion of the Project Site is within the special flood hazard area, Zone A, and the
remainder of the Project Site is within a 1-percent annual chance flood hazard area, Zone X. The
portion of the Project Site designated as Zone A is consistent with the City’s designation of 100-
year flood plain area according to the General Plan EIR. The Proposed Project is designed to
include drainage basins that would reduce post-development runoff rates in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore and RCFCWCD. Because the Proposed Project has been
designed to attenuate post-development runoff from the Project 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 J); General Plan EIR
d) In flood, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact: According to the City’s General Plan EIR, Figure 4.4 – Hydrological
Resources, the western portion of the Project Site is within a 100-year flood hazard area.
Appendix L details no change in drainage flows for the Project Site under the Proposed Project
and that the Proposed Project would employ infiltration BMPs to retain the Proposed Project’s
BMP volume and also retain the difference in pre and developed condition project runoff, up to
the 100-year event. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response
to ground shaking. The Project Site is surrounded by a relatively flat area, albeit adjacent to the
Temescal Wash. The wash lacks significant potential for a damaging seiche because of its
seasonal water retention and shallow levels. The Project Site is located approximately 3.62 miles
northwest 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 24 miles from the ocean and approximately 1,230 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 Project Site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with
inundation by flood, tsunami, or seiche would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
113 | Page
Sources: General Plan EIR
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
Preliminary WQMP (Appendix J), which demonstrates that the Proposed Project’s drainage plan
would meet all applicable requirements of the Basin Plan, including requirements and conditions
of approval associated with NPDES permits, issuance of WDRs, and Water Quality Certifications.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the Basin Plan, and potential impacts
associated with implementation of a water quality control plan would be less than significant.
According to General Plan EIR, the Project Site is located within the Lee Lake 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 J)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
114 | Page
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The Project Site is located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and is designated
as Commercial/Specific Plan (C-SP). The Project site is surrounded by Commercial/Specific Plan
(C-SP) to the north, Open Space to the north, and Suburban Village, Single Family Residential I
(SFR I) and Golf Course/Open Space zoning designations to the south. The Proposed Project
would subdivide an existing lot into four lots and construct commercial businesses on an
undeveloped parcel surrounded by other vacant lots zoned for commercial, industrial,
residential, and open space uses. The Project Site does not contain any existing residential or
community structures and the property located to the south of the Project Site zoned for
residential is currently vacant. The Proposed Project would not divide any established biological
communities as analyzed in Section IV, Biological Resources. 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, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
and is designated as Commercial/Specific Plan (C-SP). The C-SP designation provides for
commercial retail and service uses, warehouses, manufacturing, offices, wholesale distribution,
and similar and compatible uses. The Proposed Project, which includes a RV/boat storage facility
with office, service station and convenience store, are all supportive and compatible uses with
the other intended uses of the C-SP Land Use Designation. The proposed service station use is a
permitted use in the C-SP designation, and RV/boat storage and outdoor vehicle storage are
permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Proposed Project as designed
meets all development standards as identified in the C-SP Land Use Designation, including but
not limited to setbacks, building heights, parking spaces, drive aisles, and floor area ratio. Future
buildout of proposed lots 3 and 4 must follow development standards set forth in the Alberhill
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
115 | Page
Ranch Specific Plan, and may require approval of entitlement, including, but not limited to,
Conditional Use Permit, Commercial Design Review, and Environmental Review. The Proposed
Project would be consistent with all applicable existing and planned land use policies and
regulations of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, and General Plan.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with conflict with a land use plan, policy or regulation
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan EIR, General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
116 | Page
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The City submitted information to the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Division of
Mine Reclamation for review and concurrence that the Project Site has been reclaimed and is
suitable for development under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). The letter
of concurrence from the CDC is presented as Appendix K. (Appendix K – Concurrence with the
release of SMARA financial assurance Wyroc Lake Street Quarry, CDC, July 2019).
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
Project Site is located within the Mineral Resource Zone 3 Area (MRZ-3), or areas containing
mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The City’s
General Plan delineates mining operations areas by an overlay land use for mining purposes. The
Project Site is within the Extractive Overlay of the General Plan Land Use Map. The Project Site
was occupied from the early 1990s until recently by an aggregate processing and supply
company. Aggregate materials were provided from on-site mining from the early 1990s until
early 2000s, and recycling of used concrete and asphalt from off-site sources began in the early
2000s (Appendix I).
The Project Site’s land use designation is Commercial-Specific Plan (C-SP) as denoted by the
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. According to Appendix K, the Project Site is considered reclaimed
and is suitable for development per the City and the CDC. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan, General Plan EIR, CDC Letter (Appendix K), Phase I ESA (Appendix I)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
117 | Page
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Less Than Significant Impact: The City’s General Plan delineates mining operations areas by an
overlay land use for mining purposes. The Project Site is located within the Extractive Overlay;
however, mineral extraction activity is an interim use which may ultimately transition to
residential, commercial or other development in order to accomplish other goals of the general
plan. The General Plan EIR, Section 4.5.2 states “mining activity is being phased out in accordance
with approved permits”. As stated above, the Project Site is considered reclaimed by both the
City and state. The Proposed Project would 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, potential impacts associated with loss of a mineral resource recovery
site would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan, General Plan EIR, CDC Letter (Appendix K), Phase I ESA (Appendix I)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
118 | Page
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or other applicable standards of other
agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
A Noise Impact Analysis was completed to determine potential impacts to noise associated with
the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix L – Lake Street/I-15 Property Noise Impact
Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, Urban Crossroads, October 2019).
Since the Project Site is located adjacent to potentially suitable habitat areas for least Bell’s vireo,
to the east and south, project-related noise levels are also evaluated based on a residential 65
dBA Leq threshold established in the LEAP 2018-02/Lake Street Storage Project MSHCP
Consistency Findings.
Existing noise levels south of the Project Site, adjacent to the potentially suitable habitat area,
approach 67.8 dBA CNEL, largely influenced by existing traffic noise levels on I-15 and Lake Street.
With the construction of the Proposed Project buildings, noise levels at this location would
benefit from the barrier attenuation provided by the buildings themselves. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) indicates that a noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the
noise source or receiver, and it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the
noise source. While not a continuous noise barrier, the proposed buildings would be expected to
provide up to 4.5 dBA CNEL of barrier attenuation within the shadow zone of each building, or
the area being shielded, based on guidance for the first row of intervening buildings provided by
the Federal Transit Administration. Therefore, the Proposed Project buildings are anticipated to
provide barrier attenuation for the sensitive habitat area south of the Project Site, where receiver
locations are shielded by the buildings themselves.
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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
119 | Page
ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not expose persons to or generate
noise levels in excess of standards established in the Lake Elsinore General Plan, LEMC Noise
Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. 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.
Construction-Related Noise
Construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include site preparation and
grading of the 14.44-acre Project Site, building construction of the 90,000 SF RV and boat storage
facility, with 24,000 SF of mezzanine, 12-vehicle fueling position gas station (6 fuel pumps) with
fuel canopy and 3,528 SF convenience store, paving of the onsite roads and parking areas, and
application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with
the Proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment,
including a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators. Noise
impacts from this equipment is impacted by equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses,
and the timing and duration of the construction activities.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project include potentially suitable habitat areas as shown
in Figure 22 – Sensitive Receiver Locations. Other sensitive land uses are located at greater
distances than those identified in Appendix L and would experience lower noise levels than those
identified in Figure 14 due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of
intervening structures.
Section 17.176.080(F)(1) of the City’s Municipal Code restricts construction activities from
occurring between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on weekends
or holidays. Noise generated by the Proposed Project construction equipment would occur
during the following phases of the Proposed Project: site preparation, grading, building
constructions, paving, and architectural coating. The construction noise analysis illustrates that
the highest construction noise levels would occur when construction activities take place at the
closest point from primary project construction activity to each of the nearby receiver locations.
Table 11 - Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary shows unmitigated
construction noise levels are expected to range from 37.3 to 63.0 dBA Leq at the potentially
suitable habitat areas, and from 45.4 to 45.8 dBA Lmax at receiver location R5 (e.g., non-noise
sensitive general commercial use).
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
120 | Page
Figure 22 - Sensitive Receiver Locations
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
121 | Page
Table 11 - Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary
Receiver
Location1 Land Use
Construction Stage Hourly Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Paving
Architectural
Coating
Highest
Noise
Levels2
R1
Habitat
Area
37.3 37.3 41.3 39.0 40.6 41.3
R2 59.0 59.0 63.0 60.7 62.3 63.0
R3 53.8 53.8 57.8 55.5 57.1 57.8
R4 56.2 56.2 60.2 57.9 59.5 60.2
Receiver
Location1
Land
Use
Construction Stage Hourly Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Paving
Architectural
Coating
Highest
Noise
Levels2
R5 Gen.
Comm. 45.5 45.5 45.8 45.4 45.8 45.8
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 14 and Exhibit 11-A (Appendix L).
2 Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions.
To evaluate whether the Proposed Project would generate potentially significant short-term
noise levels at off-site sensitive receiver locations, the 65 dBA Leq threshold for sensitive habitat
areas and the City of Lake Elsinore stationary construction equipment noise level standard of 80
dBA Lmax are the acceptable construction noise thresholds at the nearby non-noise sensitive
general commercial receiver locations (R5) since project construction would occur for greater
than 10 consecutive days.
Table 12 - Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Land Use
Category
Highest Construction Activity
Noise Levels (dBA)2 Threshold (dBA)3 Threshold
Exceeded?4 Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
R1 Habitat Area 41.3 - 65 - No
R2 Habitat Area 63.0 - 65 - No
R3 Habitat Area 57.8 - 65 - No
R4 Habitat Area 60.2 - 65 - No
R5 Gen. Comm. - 45.8 - 80 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 14 and Exhibit 11-A.
2 Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions, as shown on Table 11.
3 Construction noise level thresholds by land use category.
4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels meet the construction noise level thresholds?
Table 12 - Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance shows the highest
construction noise levels at the potentially impacted receiver locations would range from 41.3 to
63.0 dBA Leq at the potentially suitable habitat areas and would satisfy the 65 dBA Leq threshold
for sensitive habitat areas. Table 12 also shows that the noise levels of 45.8 Lmax at receiver
location R5 (e.g., General Commercial land use) would satisfy the stationary construction
equipment noise level standard of 80 dBA Lmax. Therefore, potential noise impacts associated with
construction would be less than significant at all receiver locations.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
122 | Page
Operational-Related Noise
The operation of the Proposed Project may create onsite noise from roof-top air conditioning
units, gas station activity, RV storage/parking activity, and vehicle washing (e.g., pressure
washers) activity. Reference noise level measurements for operational noise sources are shown
in Appendix L (p. 49). Figure 23 identifies the receiver locations and noise source locations of
project-related operations noise levels.
Section 17.176.060(A) of the Municipal Code limits onsite noise sources to 65 dBA between 7:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 60 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Section 8.06.060(A) also
provides residential noise standards; however, the nearest residential uses are located over one
mile to the southeast and due to the distance, no noise impacts are anticipated to the nearby
residential uses.
In order to determine the noise impacts from roof-top air conditioning units, gas station activity,
RV storage/parking activity, and vehicle washing, reference noise measurements for each noise
source are shown in Table 13 - Daytime Operational Noise Level Compliance and Table 14 -
Nighttime Operational Noise Level Contributions, which show that the anticipated noise level
from each source at the nearest offsite receptors during daytime and nighttime operation of the
Proposed Project would not exceed thresholds.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
123 | Page
Figure 23 - Operational Noise Source and Receiver Locations
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
124 | Page
Table 13 - Daytime Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location
Unmitigated
Project
Operational
Noise Level
(dBA)2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels
(dBA)4
Combined
Project and
Ambient
(dBA)5
Project
Increase
(dBA)6
Threshold
(dBA)6
Threshold
Exceeded?7
Leq L50 Leq L50 Leq L50 Leq L50
R1 46.2 - L1 58.0 - 58.3 - 0.3 - 5.0 No
R2 47.0 - L2 60.7 - 60.9 - 0.2 - 3.0 No
R3 58.1 - L2 60.7 - 62.6 - 1.9 - 3.0 No
R4 56.7 - L2 60.7 - 62.2 - 1.5 - 3.0 No
R5 - 45.7 L3 - 54.7 - 55.2 - 0.5 5.0 No
1 See Figure 15 for the sensitive receiver locations.
2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Appendix L, Table 10-3 (p.54).
3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Appendix L, Exhibit 5-A.
4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Appendix L, Table 5-1.
5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities.
6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities.
7 FICON significance criteria as defined in Appendix L, Section 4, Table 4-1, based on the ambient noise level
without the Project.
Table 14 - Nighttime Operational Noise Level Contributions
Receiver
Location
Unmitigated
Project
Operational
Noise Level
(dBA)2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels
(dBA)4
Combined
Project and
Ambient
(dBA)5
Project
Increase
(dBA)6
Threshold
(dBA)6
Threshold
Exceeded?7
Leq L50 Leq L50 Leq L50 Leq L50
R1 46.2 - L1 59.4 - 59.6 - 0.2 - 5.0 No
R2 47.0 - L2 61.2 - 61.4 - 0.2 - 3.0 No
R3 58.1 - L2 61.2 - 62.9 - 1.7 - 3.0 No
R4 56.7 - L2 61.2 - 62.5 - 1.3 - 3.0 No
R5 - 45.7 L3 - 53.3 - 54.0 - 0.7 5.0 No
1 See Figure 15 for the sensitive receiver locations.
2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Appendix L, Table 10-3 (p.54).
3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Appendix L, Exhibit 5-A.
4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Appendix L, Table 5-1.
5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities.
6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities.
7 FICON significance criteria as defined in Appendix L, Section 4, Table 4-1, based on the ambient noise level
without the Project.
Tables 13 and 14 show that the project-related operational noise levels would satisfy the exterior
noise level thresholds at all receiver locations and demonstrates that the Proposed Project would
contribute a less than significant operational noise level increase over the existing ambient noise
environment at all nearby sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, potential noise impacts
associated with operation would be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
125 | Page
Traffic
Traffic generated by the operation of the Proposed Project would influence the traffic noise levels
in surrounding off-site areas. To quantify the traffic noise increases on the surrounding off-site
areas, the changes in traffic noise levels on eight roadway segments surrounding the Project Site
were calculated based on the change in the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. The traffic noise
levels provided in Appendix L are based on the traffic forecasts found in the Lake Street / I-15
Property Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Appendix N). To assess the
off-site noise level impacts associated with the proposed Project, noise contour boundaries were
developed for Existing (2017), Existing plus Ambient (EA) 2018, EA plus Cumulative (EAC) 2018,
and Horizon Year 2035 traffic conditions, which are detailed in Appendix L (p. 35-43). Appendix L
concludes the project-related traffic noise level increases under all traffic scenarios would be less
than significant. The Applicant prepared an addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix
M) to address Caltrans comments in a January 8, 2019 Intergovernmental Review Letter to
update the Opening Year analysis to 2019. The addendum found that the analysis in the Traffic
Impact Analysis Addendum (Appendix M) was consistent with the analysis in the original Traffic
Impact Analysis (Appendix N).
Therefore, potential impacts associated with the generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Proposed Project in excess of
standards established would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation Required.
Sources: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix L), Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix
M), Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix N), LEMC, General Plan
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not expose persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The following section analyzes
the potential vibration impacts associated with the construction and operations of the Proposed
Project.
Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include site preparation
and grading of the 14.44-acre Project Site, building construction of the 90,000 SF RV and boat
storage facility, with 24,000 SF of mezzanine, 12-vehicle fueling position gas station (6 fuel
pumps) with fuel canopy and 3,528 SF convenience store, paving of the onsite roads and parking
areas, and application of architectural coatings. The nearest off-site receptors to the Project Site
are the potential habitat uses located as near as 71 feet east of the Project Site. There are
additional habitat sensitive locations and a commercial location shown on Figure 14.
Section 17.176.080(G) of the City’s Municipal Code restricts the operation of any device that
creates a vibration which is above the vibration threshold of any individual at or beyond the
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
126 | Page
property boundary of the source. Since the City’s Municipal Code does not provide a quantifiable
vibration level, the threshold utilized is the Federal Transit Authority guidance detailed in
Appendix L, Sections 6 and 11.
At distances ranging from 91 to 1,104 feet from project construction activities, construction
vibration velocity levels would approach 0.013 in/sec (PPV), as shown on Table 15 - Unmitigated
Construction Equipment Vibration Levels.
Table 15 – Unmitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Receiver
Location
1
Distanc
e to
Const.
Activity
(Feet)
Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)2 RMS
Velocit
y Levels
(in/sec)
3
Threshol
d (RMS)
Threshold
Exceeded?
4
Small
bulldoze
r (<80k
lbs)
Jack-
hamme
r
Loade
d
Trucks
Large
Bulldoze
r (>80k
lbs)
Peak
Vibratio
n (PPV)
R1 1,104 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 No
R2 91 0.000 0.005 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.01 No
R3 165 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.01 No
R4 125 0.000 0.003 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.006 0.01 No
R5 1,051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Figure X and Exhibit 11-A.
2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 6-6, Appendix X.
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?
To assess the human perception of vibration levels in PPV, the velocities are converted to RMS
vibration levels based on the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance
Manual conversion factor of 0.71. Table 15 shows the construction vibration levels in RMS are
expected to approach 0.009 in/sec (RMS) at the nearby receiver locations. Vibration levels at the
closest sensitive receivers to the Project Site are unlikely to be sustained during the entire
construction period, but rather would occur only during the times that heavy construction
equipment is operating at the Project Site perimeter. Therefore, based on the vibration threshold
of 0.01 in/sec and the duration of construction, potential vibration impacts associated with
construction would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix L), LEMC, General Plan
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 located within an airport land use plan or within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest private airport is McConville Airstrip,
located approximately five miles southwest of the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts associated
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
127 | Page
with exposure of people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels would
occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix L)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
128 | Page
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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 the request to subdivide a 14.44-acre site into four
parcels and development of a service station, convenience store, and ancillary improvements on
Lot 1, RV/boat storage with ancillary office and ancillary improvements on Lot 2, parking lot and
drive aisle on Lot 3, and no construction is proposed on Lot 4. The Proposed Project 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
Commercial/Specific Plan (C-SP) land use designation contained in the Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan which is meant to provide area for office, retail commercial, and light industrial uses that
are relatively free of nuisance or hazardous characteristic and to protect these areas from
intrusion by residential and other inharmonious uses. The intent of the C-SP district is to reserve
appropriate locations consistent with the General Plan for the aforementioned land 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, Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact: The Project Site is currently undeveloped and would be subdivided into four lots and
developed with a service station, convenience store, RV/boat storage with ancillary office, and
other site improvements such as paved parking area. In addition, the Project Site is designated
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
129 | Page
Commercial/Specific Plan (C-SP) per the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan land use designation and is
not intended for residential use. Therefore, the development of a commercial 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: Project Description, Zoning Map, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
130 | Page
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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:
Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Other public services/facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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 #85, located approximately 3.6 miles southwest 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 Specific Plan and the General Plan. Therefore, the
construction of the Proposed Project 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
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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
131 | Page
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
Project 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 Proposed
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 6.6 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 Project 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. This would apply
to any potential future buildout of proposed lots 3 and 4 as well. 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 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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
132 | Page
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 option 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, which would apply to potential future buildout of proposed lots 3 and 4 as well.
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 Vick Knight Community
Library at 32593 Riverside Drive, approximately 5.1 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.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
133 | Page
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 required to pay City Hall & Public
Works fees, Community Center Fees, and Marina Facilities Fees prior to the issuance of building
permits, which would apply to potential future buildout of proposed lots 3 and 4 as well.
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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
134 | Page
XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) 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) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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 demands for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Indirect
impacts to park facilities from commercial development would be the occasional use of a park
during a lunch or dinner break. 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, which would apply to potential
future buildout of proposed lots 3 and 4 as well. 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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
135 | Page
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The Proposed Project consists of the request to subdivide a 14.44-acre site into four
parcels and development of a service station, convenience store, and ancillary improvements on
Lot 1, RV/boat storage with ancillary office and ancillary improvements on Lot 2, parking lot and
drive aisle on Lot 3, and no construction is proposed on Lot 4. 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, which would apply to potential future buildout of proposed
lots 3 and 4. 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, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
136 | Page
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
A Traffic Impact Analysis was completed to determine potential impacts to traffic associated with
the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix N - Traffic Impact Analysis, Lake Street/I-15
Property, City of Lake Elsinore, CA, Urban Crossroads, September 10, 2018).
An Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis was completed in response to comments from
Caltrans Intergovernmental Review (IGR) (Appendix M – Addendum to Traffic Impact Analysis,
Lake Street/I-15, City of Lake Elsinore, CA, David Evans and Associates, Inc. October 10, 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 Threshold 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,
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
137 | Page
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.
Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a
development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon
forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the
specific land uses being proposed for a given development. Trip generation statistics published
in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (9th Edition, 2012) manual for
the proposed land use (ITE Land Use Code 151 – Mini Warehouse combined with ITE Land Use
Code 945 – Gasoline/Service Station w/Convenience Market) are shown in Table 16 – Trip
Generation Rates. As shown on Table 17 – Trip Generation Results the proposed development is
anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 2,426 trip-ends per day with 156 AM peak
hour and 210 PM peak hour trips.
Table 16 – Trip Generation Rates
Land Use ITE LU
Code
Quantity0F
1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Mini Warehouse 151 13.34
Acres 1.16 1.42 2.58 1.79 1.78 3.57 35.43
Gasoline/Service Station w/Convenience
Market 945 12 VFP 5.08 5.08 10.1 6.76 6.75 13.5 162.7
Table 17 – Trip Generation Results
Land Use ITE LU
Code
Quantity
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Mini Warehouse 151 13.34
Acres 15 19 34 24 24 48 473
Gasoline/Service Station w/Convenience
Market 945 12 VFP 61 61 122 81 81 162 1,953
Total 76 80 156 105 105 210 2,426
Trip Distribution and Assignment
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
1 AC = Acres; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
138 | Page
and surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify routes the Project traffic
would use.
The Project trip distribution was developed based on anticipated travel patterns to and from the
Project Site. The Project trip distribution patterns were developed based on an understanding of
existing travel patterns in the area, the geographical location of the site, and the site’s proximity
to the regional arterial and state highway system. The Project trip distribution patterns for
opening year traffic conditions are graphically depicted on Exhibit 4-1 (Appendix N). Exhibit 4-2
(Appendix N) illustrates the proposed Project trip distribution patterns under horizon year (2035)
traffic conditions.
Existing Conditions
Roadway Classifications
Lake Street, Temescal Canyon Road, and Nichols Road are classified in the City of Lake Elsinore
Circulation Element of the General Plan as Urban Arterial Highways, which are six lanes with a
minimum right-of-way of 120-feet. These highways are primarily for through traffic where traffic
volumes exceed four-lane capacities. Access from other streets or highways are limited to
approximately one-quarter mile intervals.
Secondary Highways are four lanes with right-of-way of 90-feet. A Street east of Lake Street is
classified as Secondary. Additional four-lane roads in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan area
include A Street, B Street, D Street, and Nichols Road west of Lake Street.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
Bike lanes are included on Urban Arterial highways, Major Highways, and Secondary Highways,
according to the City of Lake Elsinore Roadway Cross-Sections. The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan
identifies bike lanes on A Street and discusses additional multi-use trails. There is a regional trail
along the east side of the I-15 Freeway within the study area. An Historic Trail is shown along
Lake Street. A Combination Trail (Regional and Class I Bikeway) is shown along Temescal Canyon
Road. Class II bike lanes are shown for Lake Street, Temescal Canyon Road, and Nichols Road
within the study area. Field observations conducted in May 2017 indicate nominal pedestrian
and bicycle activity within the study area. There are limited pedestrian and bicycle facilities within
the study area.
Transit Service
The study area is served by the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA), a public transit agency serving
the unincorporated Riverside County region. There are currently no existing bus routes that serve
the roadways within the study area near the Project Site. RTA reviews transit service periodically
to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these
periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
139 | Page
Traffic Impact Analysis Study Area
Project Scenarios
• Existing (2017) Conditions (Baseline)
• Existing plus Project Conditions
• Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) (2018) Conditions (updated to 2019)
• Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2018) Conditions (updated to 2019)
• Horizon Year (2035), Without Project Conditions
• Horizon Year (2035), With Project Conditions
As a result of comments from Caltrans, the Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) (2018)
Conditions and Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2018) Conditions were
updated to 2019, which is reflected in the Addendum to the Traffic Study and the data presented
in this section.
Study Intersections
Eight intersections within the study area - five existing intersections and three future
intersections denoted with an “*” - within the City of Lake Elsinore and Caltrans Jurisdictions
were analyzed.
1. Lake St. / I-15 NB Ramps (Jurisdiction: Caltrans, Lake Elsinore)
2. Lake St. / I-15 SB Ramps (Jurisdiction: Caltrans, Lake Elsinore)
3. Lake St. / Project Access (Jurisdiction: Lake Elsinore)
4. Lake St. / Temescal Cyn. Rd. (Jurisdiction: Lake Elsinore)
5. Lake St. / Nichols Rd. (Jurisdiction: Lake Elsinore)
6. Lake St. / A St. (Jurisdiction: Lake Elsinore)*
7. Lake St. / B St. (Jurisdiction: Lake Elsinore)*
8. Lake St. / D St. (Jurisdiction: Lake Elsinore)*
The Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) (2019) Conditions and Existing plus Ambient plus
Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2019) Conditions analysis includes the study intersections
numbered 1-5. The study intersections 6-7 were included in the Horizon Year (2035), Without
Project Conditions and Horizon Year (2035), With Project Conditions. The intersection analysis
included queuing analysis at the Project entry and nearby interchange area (including Lake Street
at the I-15 Ramps and Lake Street at Project Access).
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
140 | Page
Freeway Mainline Segments
1. I-15 Freeway – Northbound, South of Lake Street
2. I-15 Freeway – Northbound, Between Ramps
3. I-15 Freeway – Northbound, North of Lake Street
4. I-15 Freeway – Southbound, North of Lake Street
5. I-15 Freeway – Southbound, Between Ramps
6. I-15 Freeway – Southbound, South of Lake Street
Freeway Ramp Junctions
1. I-15 Freeway – Northbound, Off-Ramp at Lake Street (Diverge)
2. I-15 Freeway – Northbound, On-Ramp at Lake Street (Merge)
3. I-15 Freeway – Southbound, Off-Ramp at Lake Street (Diverge)
4. I-15 Freeway – Southbound, On-Ramp at Lake Street (Merge)
Impact Analysis
a) Conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facility?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The following types of traffic
deficiencies are significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
• When project traffic, when added to existing traffic, will deteriorate the LOS to below the
target LOS.
• When cumulative traffic exceeds the target LOS.
To determine whether the addition of project traffic to the SHS freeway segments would result
in a deficiency, the following will be utilized:
• The traffic study finds that the LOS of a segment will degrade from D or better to E or F.
• The traffic study finds that the project will exacerbate an already deficient condition by
contributing 50 or more peak hour trips. A segment that is operating at or near capacity
is deemed to be deficient.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
141 | Page
Existing (2017) Conditions (Baseline)
Information for Existing (2017) conditions is disclosed in Appendix N to represent the baseline
traffic conditions as they existed at the time Appendix N was prepared.
Intersections
The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 18 - Intersection Analysis
for Existing (2017) Conditions which indicates that the existing study area intersections are
currently experiencing acceptable operations during the peak hours except for Intersection #1
(Lake Street at I-15 NB Ramps). During the AM peak hour, Intersection #1 operates at LOS “F” for
existing conditions:
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
142 | Page
Table 18 – Intersection Analysis for Existing (2017) Conditions
Intersection 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
1 Lake St. at I-15 NB
Ramps CSS 0.5 0.5 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 1! 0
>80 33.2 F D
2 Lake St. at I-15 SB
Ramps CSS 0 1 0
0.5 0.5 0
0.5 0.5 1
0 0 0
22.3 25.4 C D
3 Lake St. at Project
Access CSS 0 1 0
0.5 0.5 0
0 0 0
1 0 d
0.0 12.0 A B
4 Lake St. at
Temescal Canyon
Rd.
TS 1 1 0
0 1 0
1 0 1
0 0 0
28.0 16.7 C B
5 Lake St. at Nichols
Rd. TS 1 1 1
1 1 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
17.3 23.7 B C
6 Lake St. at A Street Intersection Does Not Exist
7 Lake St. at B Street Intersection Does Not Exist
8 Lake St. at D Street Intersection Does Not Exist
1 When 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! = Shared Left / Through / Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane
2 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, 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 movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 9.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSY = Cross-street Yield (implied); CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All-Way Stop
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
143 | Page
Existing plus Project Conditions
The Existing plus Project (E+P) analysis determines circulation system deficiencies that would
occur on the existing roadway system in the scenario of the Project being placed upon Existing
conditions.
E+P peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on
the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TIA. The intersection
operations analysis results are summarized in Appendix N, Table 5-1. Table 19 – Deficient
Intersections in the E+P Condition shows that two study area intersections are anticipated to
operate at unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under E+P (2017) traffic conditions.
Table 19 – Deficient Intersections in the E+P Condition
ID Intersection Location
1 Lake Street / I-15 Northbound Ramps – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
3 Lake Street / Project Access – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
Intersection #1 (Lake Street at I-15 NB Ramps) continues to experience deficient operations in
the AM peak hour, consistent with Existing conditions. The PM peak hour also experiences
deficient operations at this intersection for E+P conditions. Intersection #3 (Lake Street at Project
Access) is projected to operate at LOS “F” in both the AM and PM peak hours without
improvements for E+P conditions. The remaining existing intersections experience acceptable
operations for E+P conditions. Two locally funded improvements (TRACT28214) were
implemented in 2018/2019, which improved the LOS grade of Intersection #1 to an acceptable
LOS. These improvements were a traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Street/I-15 NB Ramps
(#1) and a separate northbound right turn lane and a separate southbound left turn lane at the
intersection of Lake Street/I-15 SB Ramps (#2).
Caltrans requested that the EAP and EAPC be updated to reflect these improvements, which is
what was analyzed in the Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix M). The addendum
found that the findings in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix N) were still valid. Data from the
Addendum is presented in the following sections.
Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) (2018) Conditions (updated to 2019)
The analysis determines the traffic impacts based on a comparison of the EAP traffic conditions
to Existing Conditions (i.e., baseline conditions). To account for background traffic growth, an
Ambient from Existing Conditions (Year 2017) of 2% annually, 4% growth to Year 2019, is included
for EAP traffic conditions. Cumulative development projects are not included as part of the EAP
analysis. For the purposes of this traffic analysis, the EAP scenario has been utilized to discern
Project impacts consistent with the County of Riverside Traffic Study Guidelines.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
144 | Page
Intersections
The Existing plus Ambient plus Project Conditions Traffic Volumes are illustrated in Appendix M,
Exhibit C and the intersection geometrics are illustrated in Appendix M, Exhibit D. The recently
installed improvements to the intersections of Lake St. at I-15 Northbound Ramps and Lake Street
at I-15 Southbound Ramps include the signalization of each intersection. Recently installed
improvements at the intersection of Lake Street at I-15 Northbound Ramps include an exclusive
northbound left turn lane and exclusive westbound left turn lane. Recently installed
improvements at the intersection of Lake Street at I-15 Southbound Ramps include an exclusive
northbound right turn lane and an exclusive southbound left turn.
An intersection capacity analysis for the Existing plus Ambient plus Project Conditions was
performed using the methodology presented in Appendix N. The resulting LOS for the Existing
plus Ambient Project Conditions of each of the intersections are shown in Table 20 - Intersection
Capacity Analysis (EAP) shows that study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS with
the existing geometrics during the AM and PM peak hours, utilizing the left turn lane evaluated
at the intersection of Lake Street at Project Access. Figure 12 - Proposed Conceptual Geometric
Plan illustrates the exclusive southbound left turning lane included as design feature of the
Proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the intersection capacity under
the Existing plus Ambient plus Project Conditions would be less than significant.
Table 20 – Intersection Capacity Analysis (EAP)
Intersection AM PM
Delay (1) LOS (2) Delay (1) LOS (2)
1 Lake St. at I-15 NB Ramps 31.8 C 21.1 C
2 Lake St. at I-15 SB Ramps 8.2 A 29.5 C
3 Lake St. at Project Access 3.6 A 5.4 A
Mitigation: Exclusive SB Left 5.5 A 6.0 A
4 Lake St. at Temescal Canyon Rd. 39.7 D 15.6 B
5 Lake St. at Nichols Rd. 25.7 C 34.9 C
(1) Delay – In Seconds
(2) LOS – Level of Service
(3) Un-signalized Intersection
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Queuing
A queuing analysis for the Existing plus Ambient plus Project Conditions was performed at the
Project entry and nearby interchange area (including Lake Street at the I-15 Ramps and Lake
Street at Project Access). The 95th percentile maximum queue length results for the Existing plus
Ambient plus Project Conditions for the turn lanes are shown in Table 21 – Queuing Analysis (EAP)
and provided in Appendix M, Attachment C. As shown in Table 21, under Existing plus Ambient
plus Project Conditions the existing and recommended turn bay lengths can accommodate the
weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with the queuing capacity under the Existing plus Ambient plus Project Conditions
would be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
145 | Page
Table 21 – Queuing Analysis (EAP)
Intersection/Turn Storage Lane Storage Length AM (1) PM (1) AM (2) PM (2)
1 Lake Street at I-15 NB Ramps
NBL 280 200 108 - -
2 Lake Street at I-15 SB Ramps
EBR 280 192 422 - -
NBR (200) 73 161 - -
SBL 150 51 64 - -
3 Lake Street at Project Access
SBL (125) - - 105 139
Queue – In feet
(XXX) – Proposed Storage Length
(1) – Queuing Analysis completed with Existing Intersection Geometrics
(2) – Queuing Analysis completed with Proposed Design Feature Intersection Geometrics (Figure 12)
Critical Queue Length is denoted in Bold font
95% - 95 Percentile Queue Length
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Freeway Merge and Diverge Ramps
The measure of effectiveness (reported in passenger cars per mile per lane) of freeway merging
and diverging is calculated based on the existing number of travel lanes, number of lanes at the
on and off ramps both at the analysis junction and at upstream and downstream locations (if
applicable) and acceleration/deceleration lengths at each merge/diverge point. The LOS for the
Existing plus Ambient plus Project Conditions of each Merge and Diverge Ramp location analyzed
is presented in Table 22 - Freeway Ramp Junction Analysis (EAP), which shows that under the
Existing plus Ambient plus Project Conditions, the freeway ramps would operate at an acceptable
LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the freeway
ramp junctions under the Existing plus Ambient plus Project Conditions would be less than
significant.
Table 22 – Freeway Ramp Junction Analysis (EAP)
Freeway Name/Ramp Junction
AM PM
Density
(1)
LOS
(2)
Density
(1)
LOS
(2)
1 I-15 Freeway – Northbound, Off-Ramp at Lake Street
(Diverge)
16.7 B 15.2 B
2 I-15 Freeway – Northbound, On-Ramp at Lake Street (Merge) 14.6 B 14.4 B
3 I-15 Freeway – Southbound, Off-Ramp at Lake Street
(Diverge)
21.1 C 29.0 D
4 I-15 Freeway – Southbound, On-Ramp at Lake Street (Merge) 17.9 B 21.4 C
(1) Density – Highway Capacity Manual (pc/mi/In)
(2) LOS – Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
146 | Page
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
The intersection of Lake Street at Project Access meets the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3
as a result of the AM and PM peak period volumes plotting a point above the rural areas curve in
Figure 4C-4 (Appendix M) for the Existing plus Ambient plus Project Conditions. The traffic signal
warrant worksheets are provided in Attachment D (Appendix M).
Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2018) Conditions (updated to 2019)
Intersections
The Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative Conditions Traffic Volumes are illustrated
in Exhibit G of Appendix M. An intersection capacity analysis for the Existing plus Ambient plus
Project plus Cumulative Conditions was performed using the methodology presented Appendix
N. The resulting LOS for the Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative Conditions of each
of the intersections are shown in Table 23 - Intersection Capacity Analysis (EAPC) which shows
that under Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative Conditions the study intersections
are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the existing geometrics during the AM and
PM peak hours. Figure 12 - Proposed Conceptual Geometric Plan illustrates the exclusive
southbound left turning lane included as design feature of the Proposed Project. Therefore,
potential impacts associated with the intersection capacity under the Existing plus Ambient plus
Project Conditions plus Cumulative Conditions would be less than significant.
Table 23 – Intersection Capacity Analysis (EAPC)
Intersection AM PM
Delay (1) LOS (2) Delay (1) LOS (2)
1 Lake St. at I-15 NB Ramps 34.1 C 21.3 C
2 Lake St. at I-15 SB Ramps 10.0 A 52.5 D
3 Lake St. at Project Access 3.7 A 5.4 A
Project Design Feature: Exclusive SB Left 5.7 A 6.8 A
4 Lake St. at Temescal Canyon Rd. 48.4 D 17.7 B
5 Lake St. at Nichols Rd. 30.2 C 46.6 D
(1) Delay – In Seconds
(2) LOS – Level of Service
(3) Un-signalized Intersection
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Queuing
A queuing analysis for the Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative Conditions was
performed at the Project entry and nearby interchange area (including Lake Street at the I-15
Ramps and Lake Street at Project Access). Table 24 - Queuing Analysis (EAPC) shows that under
Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative Conditions the existing and recommended
turn bay lengths can accommodate the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic
flows. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the queuing capacity under the Existing plus
Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative Conditions would be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
147 | Page
Table 24 – Queuing Analysis (EAPC)
Intersection/Turn Storage Lane Storage Length AM (1) PM (1) AM (2) PM (2)
1 Lake Street at I-15 NB Ramps
NBL 280 222 71 - -
2 Lake Street at I-15 SB Ramps
EBR 280 399 421 - -
NBR (200) 97 198 - -
SBL 150 132 102 - -
3 Lake Street at Project Access
SBL (125) - - 112 151
Queue – In feet
(XXX) – Proposed Storage Length
(1) – Queuing Analysis completed with Existing Intersection Geometrics
(2) – Queuing Analysis completed with Proposed Design Feature Intersection Geometrics (Figure 12)
Critical Queue Length is denoted in Bold font
95% - 95 Percentile Queue Length
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Freeway Merge and Diverge Ramps
The Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative Conditions Merge and Diverge Ramp
Volumes are illustrated in Appendix M, Exhibit I using the methodology presented in Appendix
N. The measure of effectiveness (reported in passenger cars per mile per lane) are calculated
based on the existing number of travel lanes, number of lanes at the on and off ramps both at
the analysis junction and at upstream and downstream locations (if applicable) and
acceleration/deceleration lengths at each merge/diverge point. The resulting LOS for the Existing
plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative Conditions of each Merge and Diverge Ramp location
analyzed is presented in Table 25 - Freeway Ramp Junction Analysis (EAPC), which shows that
under the Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative Conditions, all the freeway ramps
are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better throughout the day. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with freeway merge and diverge volumes under the Existing plus Ambient plus Project
plus Cumulative Conditions would be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
148 | Page
Table 25 - Freeway Ramp Junction Analysis (EAPC)
Freeway Name/Ramp Junction
AM PM
Density (1) LOS
(2)
Density (1) LOS (2)
1 I-15 Freeway – Northbound, Off-Ramp at Lake Street
(Diverge) 16.7 B 15.2 B
2 I-15 Freeway – Northbound, On-Ramp at Lake Street
(Merge) 15.5 B 15.1 B
3 I-15 Freeway – Southbound, Off-Ramp at Lake Street
(Diverge) 21.5 C 29.9 D
4 I-15 Freeway – Southbound, On-Ramp at Lake Street
(Merge) 17.9 B 21.4 C
(1) Density – Highway Capacity Manual (pc/mi/In)
(2) LOS – Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
The intersection of Lake Street at Project Access meets the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3
as a result of the AM and PM peak period volumes plotting a point above the rural areas curve in
Figure 4C-4 (Appendix M) for the Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative Conditions.
The traffic signal warrant worksheets are provided in Attachment D (Appendix M).
Horizon Year (2035) Without Project Conditions
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Horizon Year conditions
are shown in Appendix N, Exhibit 8-1:
• Two additional through lanes in each direction (northbound and southbound) on Lake Street
throughout the study area (to 6 total lanes), including at all Lake Street study area
intersections
• One additional through lane in each direction (eastbound and westbound) on Nichols Road
(to 4 total lanes), with additional turn lanes for the Lake Street / Nichols Road intersection
• One additional through lane in each direction (eastbound and westbound) on Temescal
Canyon Road (to 4 total lanes) , with additional turn lanes for the Lake Street / Temescal
Canyon Road intersection
• Lake Street at I-15 Freeway interchange improvements, including new traffic signals at
northbound and southbound interchange ramps, additional turn and through lanes, pursuant
to Lake Street Alignment Study and shown on Exhibit 8-1
• Turn lane General Plan improvements consistent with Alberhill Villages Specific Plan for Lake
Street / A Street, Lake Street / B Street, Lake Street / D Street
The concept layout of the Project Access for Horizon Year 2035 With Project conditions, including
nearby intersections is shown in Appendix N, Exhibit 8-2. Two alternatives for the Project Access
are shown: full access with traffic signal control, or no left out (with left in and right in/out) access
with modified traffic signal control.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
149 | Page
For the alternative that eliminates left turn out access, traffic signal control would be provided
for the southbound left, northbound through/right, and westbound right turn movements.
Southbound through vehicle flow would remain uncontrolled. This modified traffic signal control
would provide gaps for southbound left turning vehicles to cross the northbound traffic lanes,
while allowing maximum capacity for southbound through vehicles.
Intersections
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under
Horizon Year Without Project conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent
with Appendix N, Section 8.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown in Table 26 - Intersection
Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) Without Project Conditions, no intersections would operate at a
deficient LOS. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the intersection capacity under the
Horizon Year Without Project Conditions would be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
150 | Page
Table 26 – Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) Without Project Conditions
# Intersection 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
1 Lake St. / I-15 NB Ramps
− With Improvements4 TS 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 0 38.5 30.8 D C
2 Lake St. / I-15 SB Ramps
− With Improvements4,5 TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 7.9 53.7 A D
3 Lake St. / Project Access
− With Improvements4 CSS 0 3 0 0.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 1 0 d 0.0 25.8 A D
4 Lake St. / Temescal Cyn. Rd.
− With Improvements4 TS 2 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 37.2 49.4 D D
5 Lake St. / Nichols Rd.
− With Improvements4 TS 1 3 1>> 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1> 32.6 44.9 C D
6 Lake St. / A St.
− With Improvements4 TS 1 3 0 1 3 1> 2 1 1 1 1 1 21.0 27.2 C C
7 Lake St. / B St.
− With Improvements4 TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 12.4 10.0 B A
8 Lake St. / D St.
− With Improvements4 TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 26.2 44.2 C D
1 When 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! = Shared Left / Through / Right Turn Lane; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free-Right Turn
Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
2 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, 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 movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level
of service is calculated using Synchro 9.1 analysis software. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
4 Improvements shown are consistent with the approved Alberhill Villages Specific Plan TIA (October 2015). Prepared by LLG Engineers.
5 A 2nd eastbound right turn lane at this intersection is needed to serve the 2035 baseline without and with project conditions.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
151 | Page
Freeway Merge/Diverge Analysis
Ramp merge and diverge operations were evaluated for Horizon Year Without Project conditions
and the results of this analysis are presented in Table 27 - Freeway Ramp Junction Merge/Diverge
Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) Conditions which shows that all of the study area freeway merge
and diverge ramp junctions would operate at deficient LOS, both with or without the Proposed
Project (i.e., LOS E or worse).
Table 27 – Freeway Ramp Junction Merge/Diverge Analysis for Horizon Year (2035)
Conditions
HORIZON YEAR (2035) WITHOUT
PROJECT CONDITIONS Freeway Direction
Ramp Location
Junction
Type
Lanes
on
Freeway
Lanes
on
Ramp
Volume Density 1 LOS
2
AM PM AM PM AM PM I-15 Freeway NB NB Off Ramp at Lake St.
NB On Ramp at Lake St.
Diverge
Merge
3
3
1
1
591
1,430
380
1,063
39.7
43.1
35.3
38.3
E
E
E
E SB SB Off Ramp at Lake St.
SB On Ramp at Lake St.
Diverge
Merge
3
3
1
1
525
566
1,304
503
28.5
25.4
49.7
37.6
D
C
F
E
HORIZON YEAR (2035) WITH PROJECT
CONDITIONS Freeway Direction
Ramp Location
Junction
Type
Lanes
on
Freeway
Lanes
on
Ramp
Volume Density 1 LOS
2
AM PM AM PM AM PM I-15 Freeway NB NB Off Ramp at Lake St.
NB On Ramp at Lake St.
Diverge
Merge
3
3
1
1
610
1,458
406
1,100
39.9
43.3
35.4
38.6
E
E
E
E SB SB Off Ramp at Lake St.
SB On Ramp at Lake St.
Diverge
Merge
3
3
1
1
552
586
1,341
529
28.6
25.5
50.0
37.8
D
C
F
E
1 Density calculated based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis; (pc/mi/ln) = passenger car per mile per
lane
2 Level of service determined using HCS2010 : Ramps and Ramp Junction software, Version 6.65
BOLD = LOS E or F
Horizon Year (2035), With Project Conditions
Intersections
Table 28 - Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) With Project Conditions summarizes peak
hour LOS for Horizon Year with Project conditions. No additional study area intersections would
experience unacceptable LOS (LOS E or worse) with the addition of Project traffic during one or
more peak hours in addition to those previously identified under Horizon Year Without Project
conditions.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
152 | Page
Table 28 – Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) With Project Conditions
# Intersection 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
1 Lake St. / I-15 NB Ramps
− With Improvements4 TS 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 0 42.3 32.0 D C
2 Lake St. / I-15 SB Ramps
− With Improvements4,5 TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 8.2 53.7 A D
3 Lake St. / Project Access
− Full Access at Project Entry
− No Left-Out/Left-In at Project Entry6
TS
TS
0 3 0
0 3 0
1 3 0
1 3 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 1
0 0 1
5.9
3.9
5.5
4.2
A
A
A
A
4 Lake St. / Temescal Cyn. Rd.
− With Improvements4 TS 2 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 37.5 51.0 D D
5 Lake St. / Nichols Rd.
− With Improvements4 TS 1 3 1>> 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1> 32.6 44.9 C D
6 Lake St. / A St.
− With Improvements4 TS 1 3 0 1 3 1> 2 1 1 1 1 1 21.3 28.1 C C
7 Lake St. / B St.
− With Improvements4 TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 12.7 10.1 B B
8 Lake St. / D St.
− With Improvements4 TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 26.8 45.2 C D
1) When 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! = Shared Left / Through / Right Turn Lane; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free-Right Turn Lane; d =
Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
2) Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, 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 movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 9.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3) TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
4) Improvements shown are consistent with the approved Alberhill Villages Specific Plan TIA (October 2015). Prepared by LLG Engineers.
5) A 2nd eastbound right turn lane at this intersection is needed to serve the 2035 baseline without and with project conditions.
6) With Modified Signal (SB through = Uncontrolled; SB Left & NB Through = Signal Controlled; and WB Right = Stop controlled.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
153 | Page
Queuing
The adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues for the Project entry and
nearby interchange area (including Lake Street at the I- 15 Ramps and Lake Street at Project
Access) were analyzed, as shown in Table 29 - Left Turn Storage Lengths at Project Entry and
Interchange Area for Horizon Year (2035) With Project Conditions. Queuing lengths may be
shorter than for EAPC conditions, as additional lanes are provided for Horizon Year conditions.
As shown in Table 29, the recommended turn bay lengths can accommodate the weekday AM or
weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Horizon Year with Project traffic conditions.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with queuing in the Horizon Year with Project Conditions
would be less than significant.
Table 29 – Left Turn Storage Lengths at Project Entry and Interchange Area for Horizon Year
(2035) With Project Conditions
Full Access at Project Entry
ID Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
Horizon Year (2035) With Project
Storage
Length2
(feet)
95th Percentile
Queue Length
Per Lane (feet)
AM PM Peak
Hour Volume/Lane AM PM
1 Lake St. / I-15 NB Ramps NBL (2x) 1,290 779 AM 645 5253 260 103
2 Lake St. / I-15 SB Ramps NBR
SBL
553
33
406
123
AM
PM
553
123
200
150
48
65
95
121
3 Lake St. / Project Access SBL 46 64 PM 64 125 76 102
No Left-Out/Left-In at Project Entry
ID Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
Horizon Year (2035) With Project
Storage
Length2
(feet)
95th Percentile
Queue Length
Per Lane (feet)
AM PM Peak
Hour Volume/Lane AM PM
1 Lake St. / I-15 NB Ramps NBL (2x) 1,322 821 AM 661 5253 223 266
2 Lake St. / I-15 SB Ramps NBR SBL 553
33
406
123 AM PM 553
123
200
150
98
51
191
101
3 Lake St. / Project Access SBL 46 64 PM 64 125 102 125
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
154 | Page
Traffic Signal Warrants
In addition to the traffic signals previously warranted under Existing and E+P traffic conditions,
the following intersections are anticipated to satisfy traffic signal warrants for Horizon Year
Without Project conditions: Lake Street / A Street, Lake Street / B Street, and Lake Street / D
Street.
Recommended Improvements
Table 30 - Summary of Fair Share Cost of Improvements lists the recommended improvements
necessary to reduce the identified intersection LOS deficiencies by traffic condition. Locally
funded improvements (TRACT 28214) were implemented in 2018-2019 and the Addendum to the
Traffic Impact Analysis reflects the implementation of these improvements for the EAP and EAPC
scenarios:
E+P and EAP (2018) Improvements (TR 28214)
• Traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Street/I-15 NB Ramps (#1)
• Provide a separate northbound right turn lane and a separate southbound left turn lane
at the intersection of Lake Street/I-15 SB Ramps (#2)
•
EAPC (2018) Additional Improvements (TR 28214)
• Provide a separate northbound left turn lane and a separate westbound left turn lane at
the intersection of Lake Street/I-15 NB Ramps (#1)
• Traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Street/I-15 SB Ramps (#2)
Other off-site recommended improvements are included as part of the Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) or City’s Traffic Infrastructure Fee (TIF). The fair share contribution based
on the Proposed Project’s percentage contribution for these improvements has not been
provided. These fees are collected as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that
regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected vehicle trip increases.
The improvements listed in Table 30 are comprised of lane additions/modifications, installation
of signals and signal modifications. The improvements that are covered either by the TUMF
program or the TIF program have been identified as such. Other improvements are consistent
with the recently approved Alberhill Villages Specific Plan TIA. Planned lane additions are shown
as the number of lanes required and the direction of travel. Depending on the width of the
existing pavement and right-of-way, these improvements may involve only striping modifications
or they may involve construction of additional pavement width.
Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms
Transportation improvements throughout the City of Lake Elsinore are funded through a
combination of project mitigation, fair share contributions or development impact fee programs,
such as Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) TUMF program or the City’s TIF
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
155 | Page
program. Identification and timing of needed improvements is generally determined through
local jurisdictions based upon a variety of factors.
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program
The WRCOG is responsible for establishing and updating TUMF rates. The County may grant to
developers a credit against the specific components of fees for the dedication of land or the
construction of facilities identified in the list of improvements funded by each of these fee
programs. Fees are based upon projected land uses and a related transportation needs to address
growth based upon a 2015 Nexus study update.
TUMF is an ambitious regional program created to address impacts of growth throughout
Western Riverside County. Program guidelines are being handled on an iterative basis.
Exemptions, credits, reimbursements and local administration are being deferred to primary
agencies. The County of Riverside serves this function for the proposed Project. Fees submitted
to the County are passed on to the WRCOG as the ultimate program administrator.
TUMF guidelines empower a local zone committee to prioritize and arbitrate certain projects.
The Project Site is in the Southwest Zone. The zone has developed a 5-year capital improvement
program to prioritize public construction of certain roads. TUMF is focused on improvements
necessitated by regional growth.
City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Infrastructure Fee (TIF) Program
The City of Lake Elsinore has created its own local Traffic Infrastructure 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 of Lake Elsinore’s TIF program
includes facilities that are not part of, or which may exceed improvements identified and covered
by the TUMF program.
The City of Lake Elsinore provides a more comprehensive funding and implementation plan to
ensure an adequate and interconnected transportation system. Under the City of Lake Elsinore’s
TIF program, the City of Lake Elsinore may grant to developers a credit against specific
components of fees when those developers construct certain facilities and landscaped medians
identified in the list of improvements funded by the TIF program.
The timing to use the TIF fees is established through periodic capital improvement programs
which are overseen by the City of Lake Elsinore’s Public Works Department. Periodic traffic
counts, review of traffic accidents, and a review of traffic trends throughout the City of Lake
Elsinore are also periodically performed by City of Lake Elsinore staff and consultants. The City of
Lake Elsinore uses this data to determine the timing of implementing the improvements listed in
its facilities list.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
156 | Page
As shown in Table 30, a few of the facilities forecasted to be impacted by the Project are planned
for improvements through the City of Lake Elsinore’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 City of Lake Elsinore’s ordinance. The TIF network
improvement needs were last updated in 2002 with an expected completion date by 2025.
Improvements are identified in the Nexus Study by location rather than with specific geometrics.
Table E of that study identifies TIF improvement locations and eligible program costs but does
not provide discrete improvements. As a result, Table 30 identifies TIF intersections with an
expectation that City of Lake Elsinore, as program administrator, can distinguish if the program
fees are sufficient to cover the fair share impacts for proportionality. In order to mitigate
potential impacts to the roadway system, MM TRANS-1 would require the Property
Owner/Developer to pay its fair share of improvements costs for the improvements identified in
Table 30. With implementation of MM TRANS-1, potential impacts associated with conflicts with
program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facility would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM TRANS-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall pay
its fair share of the cost of the improvements identified in Table 30 to the City of Lake Elsinore.
The Property Owner/Developer’s fair share for improvements for facilities in the TUMF system,
with the exception of Intersection #3 at Lake Street and the Project Site access, would be included
in the TUMF payment for the Proposed Project.
Source: Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix M), Traffic Impact Analysis
(Appendix N), Figure 12 – Proposed Conceptual Geometric Plan
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
157 | Page
Table 30 – Summary of Fair Share Cost of Improvements
Location E+P Recommended
Improvements
EAP (2018)
Recommended
Improvements
EAPC (2018)
Recommended
Improvements
2035 Without Project
Recommended Improvements
2035 With Project
Recommended
Improvements
Improvements
in
TUMF or TIF?1
Fair
Share
%2,3
Roadway Segments
Lake Street,
I-15 to Temescal Canyon Road
None
None
None
None
None
None
add bridge
widen from 2 lanes to 6 lanes
Same
Same TUMF N/A
Lake Street, Temescal Canyon
Road to Mountain Avenue None None None widen from 2 lanes to 6 lanes Same TUMF N/A
Nichols Road, I-15 to Lake St. None None None widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Same TUMF N/A
Temescal Canyon Road, I-
15 to Lake Street
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Reconstruct bridge
realign arterial segment
widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes
Same
Same
Same
TIF & TUMF
N/A
Freeways and Interchanges
Lake Street & I-15
Interchange
None
None
None interchange improvements, per Lake
St Alignment Study, ints below
Same
TUMF
N/A
traffic signal Same Same Same
Lake Street / I-15 NB Ramps
(Int #1)
None
None
None
None
NB left turn lane
None
2 NB left turn lanes
2nd SB through lane Same TUMF 3.0%
None None WB left turn lane Same
None None traffic signal Same
Lake Street / I-15 SB Ramps
(Int #2)
None
NB right turn lane
SB left turn lane
None
Same
Same
None
Same
Same
2nd NB through lane
Same
Same
Same
TUMF
5.0%
None None None 2nd SB through lane
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
158 | Page
Location E+P Recommended
Improvements
EAP (2018)
Recommended
Improvements
EAPC (2018)
Recommended
Improvements
2035 Without Project
Recommended Improvements
2035 With Project
Recommended
Improvements
Improvements
in
TUMF or TIF?1
Fair
Share
%2,3
Arterial Intersections
None
None
None
None
None
None
2nd & 3rd NB through lanes
2nd & 3rd SB through lanes Same TUMF 9.0%
Lake Street / Project Access
(Int #3)
Full Access Signal at Project Entry
− traffic signal Same
− SB left turn lane Same
− WB left turn lane Same
− WB right turn lane Same
OR
Same
Same
Same
Same
None
None
None
None
Full Access Signal at Project Entry
100.0%
− traffic signal
− SB left turn lane
− WB left turn lane
− WB right turn lane
No Left-Out/Left-In Unsignalized at Project Entry
− Cross-Street Stop
− SB left turn lane
− WB right turn lane
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
None
None
None
traffic signal
SB left turn lane
WB left turn lane with
None None None 2nd NB left turn lane
Lake Street / Temescal
Canyon Road (Int #4)
None
None
None
None
None
None
2nd & 3rd NB through lanes
2nd & 3rd SB through lanes Same TUMF 3.0%
None None None 2nd EB left turn lane
Lake Street / Nichols Road (Int
#5)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
2nd & 3rd NB through lanes
NB free right turn lane
2nd SB left turn lane
2nd SB through lane
SB right turn lane
2 EB left turn lanes
2nd EB through lane
EB right turn lane
2 WB left turn lanes
2nd WB through lane
Same
TUMF
1.0%
None None None WB right turn lane with overlap
phase
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
159 | Page
Location E+P Recommended
Improvements
EAP (2018)
Recommended
Improvements
EAPC (2018)
Recommended
Improvements
2035 Without Project
Recommended Improvements
2035 With Project
Recommended
Improvements
Improvements
in
TUMF or TIF?1
Fair
Share
%2,3
None
None
None
None
None
None
traffic signal
NB left turn lane Same
None None None 3 NB through lanes Same TUMF
None None None SB left turn lane Same
None None None 3 SB through lanes Same TUMF
Lake Street / A Street (Int #6) None
None
None
None
None
None
SB right turn lane with overlap phase
2 EB left turn lanes
3.0%
None None None EB through lane
None None None EB right turn lane Same
None None None WB left turn lane
None None None WB through lane
None None None WB right turn lane
Lake Street / B Street (Int #7)
None
None
None
None
None
None
traffic signal
NB left turn lane Same
2.0%
None None None 3 NB through lanes Same TUMF
None None None SB left turn lane Same
None None None 3 SB through lanes Same TUMF
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
EB left turn lane
EB through lane
WB left turn lane
WB through lane
Same
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
160 | Page
Location E+P Recommended
Improvements
EAP (2018)
Recommended
Improvements
EAPC (2018)
Recommended
Improvements
2035 Without Project
Recommended Improvements
2035 With Project
Recommended
Improvements
Improvements
in
TUMF or TIF?1
Fair
Share
%2,3
Lake Street / D Street (Int #8)
None
None
None
None
None
None
traffic signal
NB left turn lane Same
1.0%
None None None 3 NB through lanes Same TUMF
None None None SB left turn lane Same
None None None 3 SB through lanes Same TUMF
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
EB left turn lane
EB through lane
WB left turn lane
WB through lane
Same
1 Improvements are included wholly or partially in one or more of the following: County of Riverside TUMF or City of Lake Elsinore TIF for local, regional, and specific plan
components. Final determination on extent of the improvements included and covered by these fee programs is to be established by the governing lead agency.
2 Fair share percentages indicated as N/A are not shown because the recommended improvements at these locations are included in a pre-existing fee program.
3 Project Fair Share % = (Project Only Traffic / (HY 2035 With Project Traffic - Existing Traffic)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
161 | Page
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. 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. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with conflict or inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Source: City of Lake Elsinore, 2019 CEQA Guidelines
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. As shown in Figures 5 and 12, the Proposed
Project would include improvements onsite and in the public right-of-way which allow for
adequate access and circulation for the proposed uses. Figure 5 depicts adequate truck turning
radius for the Proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with hazardous
geometric design features would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be required.
Source: Figure 5 – Conceptual Site Plan, Figure 12 – Proposed Conceptual Geometric Plan
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would be constructed on a vacant lot on the
southeast corner of Lake Street and I-15 and would include improvements to the 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 the onsite access driveway located on the east side of Lake
Street. An access easement is proposed as a part of the Proposed Project, which would allow for
reciprocal access across the RV and boat storage lot. As stated above, Figures 5 and 12, the
Proposed Project would include improvements onsite and in the public right-of-way which allow
for adequate access and circulation for the proposed uses. Figure 5 depicts adequate truck
turning radius for the Proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts to emergency access would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be required.
Source: Figure 5 – Conceptual Site Plan, Figure 12 – Proposed Conceptual Geometric Plan
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
162 | Page
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Is the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project Site is vacant, and there are no historical structures on the
Project Site. As noted in the Appendix D, the Project Site was previously used as an active gravel mine
and is highly disturbed. The records search did not find any cultural resources at the Project Site.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with historical resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
163 | Page
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), signed into
law in 2014, amended CEQA and established new requirements for tribal notification and
consultation. AB 52 applies to all projects for which a notice of preparation or notice of intent to
adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is issued after July 1, 2015. AB 52
also broadly defines a new resource category of tribal cultural resources and established a more
robust process for meaningful consultation that includes:
• Prescribed notification and response timelines;
• Consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact
evaluation, and mitigation measures; and
• Documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings.
A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of
projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide
written, formal notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 days of determining
that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond
to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in
consultation on the Proposed 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 March 18, 2019, the City provided written notification of the Project in accordance with AB
52 to six Native American tribes that requested to receive such notification from the City. Of the
tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested formal government-to-government consultation
under AB 52. The City met with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on May 3, 2019, which
resulted in conclusion of consultation with no mitigation requested due to the heavy disturbance
on the Project Site due to mining activities. Consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
was concluded on May 10, 2019. On November 13, 2019, the City sent recommended mitigation
measures to Pechanga and Soboba that address unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources
and human remains during groundbreaking activities. Consultation was concluded 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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
164 | Page
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: Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D), City of Lake Elsinore
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
165 | Page
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The Applicant was issued a Will Serve letter by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
(Appendix O – Service Planning Letter #3244-0, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, July 11,
2019).
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?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project would be within the
service boundary for the EVMWD. The EVMWD issued Service Planning Letter #3244-0 (Appendix
O) to the Applicant on July 11, 2019, in which the EVMWD determined that water is available to
serve the Proposed Project. Storm water would be retained on-site, as described in Section X.
The Proposed Project would be served by an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS). MM
GEO-1 would require the Property Owner/Developer to submit an OWTS report prepared by a
Qualified service provider (QSP) State Licensed Contractor with knowledge and competency in
OWTS design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring to the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health. With implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
166 | Page
associated with the construction of the onsite wastewater treatment system would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit
to the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health, a completed application for the
onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) for review and approval. The an OWTS report shall
be prepared by a Qualified service provider (QSP) State Licensed Contractor with knowledge and
competency in OWTS design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring.
Sources: EVMWD, General Plan EIR, LEMC, RIVCOEH, Service Planning Letter (Appendix O)
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 Metropolitan 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
sufficient to meet the projected dry-year and multiple dry-year demand. The EVMWD issued
Service Planning Letter #3244-0 (Appendix O) to the Applicant on July 11, 2019, in which the
EVMWD determined that water is available to serve 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: EVMWD, General Plan EIR, Service Planning Letter (Appendix O)
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 with Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project will be served by an
onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS). The Property Owner/Developer would be required
to submit an OWTS report prepared by a Qualified service provider (QSP) State Licensed
Contractor with knowledge and competency in OWTS design, construction, operation,
maintenance and monitoring to the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health to
ensure that the project site has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand. With
implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: MM GEO-1, as defined in Section XIXa above.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
167 | Page
Sources: General Plan EIR, RIVCOEH
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 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 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
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
168 | Page
XX. WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would be required to comply with all
applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the Project 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. This review would ensure that the
Proposed Project would provide adequate emergency access to and from the Project Site. The
City Engineer and the City Fire Department would review any modifications to existing roadways
to ensure that adequate emergency access and/or emergency response would be maintained.
The Proposed Project does not propose any changes that would impact the City’s Emergency
Preparedness Plan or the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Therefore, potential impacts associated with impairing an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan EIR
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
169 | Page
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impact: According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection and the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR Figure 3.10-2 - City of Lake Elsinore
Wildfire Susceptibility, the Project Site is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The majority
of the Project Site would be graded generally flat, with exception to the surrounding edges within
the project area. Slopes would be maintained on portions of the northern, western, southern
and eastern edges of the lot (Figure 3). The slopes on-site would be graded at a 2:1 slope and
portions of such slopes would be landscaped or boulderscaped, creating fire breaks through the
lack of combustible material. The northern portion of the Project Site is directly adjacent to the
I-15 interstate, which acts as a man-made fire break.
The Project Site is vacant and bounded by vacant land to the south and west and by I-15 to the
north and northeast. The Proposed Project would be subject to the plan check process and would
undergo a fire, life, and safety review by the City Fire Department to determine the specific fire
requirements applicable to ensure compliance with Fire Department requirements. The
Proposed Project would not involve the construction or operation of a use which involves open
flame or a fire related use. The proposed site plan would include landscaped areas with irrigation
to ensure vegetation does not dry out and become susceptible to immediate combustion.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildland fires due to slopes or prevailing winds
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, General Plan EIR Figure 3.10-2 -
City of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact: While the Project Site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone, at the time of construction appropriate measures for removal and installation of
the any permanent or temporary power pole(s) would be taken to reduce the potential for
wildfire risk (e.g. sparks). During construction, temporary power pole(s) may be used until
permanent means of electricity is established to connect the Project Site with that of the existing
infrastructure. Any request for temporary power is required to comply with the building code
and would be subject to a building permit through the City’s Building Division. Therefore,
potential impacts associated with exacerbating fire risk would be less than significant.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
170 | Page
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, General Plan EIR
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is vacant and bound by vacant land to the west,
south and east and by the I-15 to the north. Appendix J details no change in drainage flows for
the Project Site under the Proposed Project and that the Proposed Project would employ
infiltration BMPs to retain the Proposed Project’s BMP volume and also retain the difference in
pre and developed condition project runoff, up to the 100-year event. Therefore, potential
impacts associated with downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Sources: General Plan EIR, Appendix J
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
171 | Page
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
☐ X ☐ ☐
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)?
☐ X ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ X ☐ ☐
The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA
and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
a) Does the project have the potential to 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 endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project would be consistent
with local policies and ordinances related to biological resources, including the MSHCP. The
MSHCP contains a list of standard measures to minimize direct and indirect impacts on biological
resources within and adjacent to project sites. These measures are related to protecting water
quality, controlling dust, minimizing the spread of invasive plant species, minimizing fire hazards,
and other measures. Incorporation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, and MM BIO-4 would
ensure that the Proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of wildlife species, cause wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
172 | Page
According to the cultural resources assessment prepared for the Proposed Project, no cultural
resources have been recorded within the Project Site, and the Project Site does not contain any
resources that are important to major periods of California history or prehistory. 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
appropriate regulatory agency and/or tribal group. MM CUL-2 provides guidance for the
unanticipated discovery of human remains. With implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-
4 and MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, MM BIO-4, MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2
Sources: Lake Street Storage Project 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 with Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project would result in
potentially significant project-specific impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, tribal
cultural resources, and transportation/traffic impacts. 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 levels.
Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS-1
Sources: Lake Street Storage Project Initial Study
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
173 | Page
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: MM GEO-1 would require the Property
Owner/Developer to submit an OWTS report prepared by a Qualified service provider (QSP) State
Licensed Contractor with knowledge and competency in OWTS design, construction, operation,
maintenance and monitoring to the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health.
With implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts associated with the construction of the
onsite wastewater treatment system would be less than significant.
All potential impacts of the Proposed Project have been identified, and mitigation measures have
been provided, where applicable, to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Upon
implementation of mitigation measures, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to
result in substantial adverse impacts on human beings either directly or indirectly.
Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures would be required.
Sources: Lake Street Storage Project Initial Study
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
174 | Page
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
Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Associate, Planning Manager
Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner
Nick Lowe, PE|MS, Consultant Traffic Engineer
Dina Purvis, Senior Engineering Technician
Sagecrest Planning and Environmental
Christine Saunders, Principal
Veronica Morones, Planning Consultant
California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Wildlife
Agencies)
Carly Beck, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Kennon A. Corey
Leslie MacNair
California Department of Transportation
Pat Perez
California Department of Transportation – District 8
Kwasi Agyakwa, Transportation Planner
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Robert Kilpatrick, PE/TE
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Christine Bachinski
Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.
Kris Weber, LEED AP
PIC Environmental Services
Scott Green
Daniel C. Oliver
Regional Conservation Authority, Western Riverside County
Elizabeth Dionne, RCA Ecological Resources Specialist
Wendy Worthey
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
175 | Page
Soar Environmental
Rachel Simmons
Consuelo Sauls, M.A., RPA
Southern California Geotechnical
Daryl R. Kas
John A. Seminara
South Shore Testing & Environmental
John P. Frey
William C. Hobbs
Urban Crossroads
Alyssa Tamase
Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
Haseeb Qureshi
Janette Cachola
John Kain, AICP
Marlie Whiteman, PE
Vista Environmental
Greg Tonkovich, AICP
Marisa Jue
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
176 | Page
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.
Appendix A – Air Quality Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, October 3, 2019
Appendix B – Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the Lake Street Storage Project, Soar Environmental
Consulting, March 25, 2019
Appendix C1 – MSHCP Consistency Findings, LEAP 2018-02/Lake Street Project, City of Lake
Elsinore, February 15, 2019.
Appendix C2 – Joint Project Review (JPR 18-08-29-01) for the LEAP 2018-02/Lake Street Project,
Regional Conservation Agency (RCA), April 8, 2019.
Appendix C3 – Western Riverside County MSHCP Joint Project Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service & California Department of Fish and Wildlife, April 23, 2019.
Appendix D – Cultural Resources Desktop Review of the Lake Street Storage Project, Soar
Environmental Consulting, November 26, 2017
Appendix E – Consumption of Energy Resources Analysis, Vista Environmental, October 21, 2019
Appendix F – Feasibility Study Proposed RV Storage Facility, Southern California Geotechnical,
January 5, 2017
Appendix G – Report of Mass Grade Compaction Testing, South Shore Testing & Environmental,
May 3, 2018
Appendix H – Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Urban Crossroads, October 3, 2019
Appendix I – Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report, PIC Environmental Services, January
18, 2017
Appendix J – Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.,
June 26, 2019
Appendix K – Department of Conservation Release, California Department of Conservation,
Division of Mine Reclamation, July 17, 2019
Appendix L – Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, October 15, 2019
Appendix M – Addendum to Traffic Impact Analysis, David Evans and Associates Inc., October 10,
2019
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
177 | Page
Appendix N – Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, September 10, 2018
Appendix O – Will Serve Letter, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, July 11, 2019
California Department of Conservation. (2017). Important Farmland Data Availability. Retrieved
July 16, 2019, from (https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Riverside.aspx)
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2009). Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones in LRA. Retrieved from (https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)
California Department of Transportation. (2019). California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
Retrieved July 16, 2019, from
(https://web.archive.org/web/20190601183434/https://dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/
scenic_highways/)
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Cortese List Data Resources. Retrieved
November 27, 2019 from (https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/)
City of Lake Elsinore. (2019). Adopted Specific Plans. Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. Retrieved from
(http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community-
development/planning/adopted-specific-plans)
City of Lake Elsinore. (2019). City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map [PDF]. Retrieved from
(http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=15059)
City of Lake Elsinore. (2019). Municipal Code. Retrieved from
(https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LakeElsinore/)
City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. (2011). Retrieved from (http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-
hall/city-departments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore-general-plan)
City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR. (2011). Retrieved from (http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore-
general-plan/general-plan-certified-eir)
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2019). Flood Map Service Center: Search by address.
Retrieved from (https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor)
Google. (2019). Google Earth. Retrieved July 16, 2019, from
(https://earth.google.com/web/@33.72818142,-
117.39031063,379.52370707a,1450.35023958d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=ChQaEgoKL20vMDl2NTZfMx
gBIAEoAg)
Southern California Association of Governments. (2012). Regional Transportation Plan and
Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012-2035. Retrieved July 5, 2019, from
(http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/final/f2012RTPSCS.pdf)
Lake Street Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
178 | Page
Southern California Association of Governments. (2017). U.S. Census Urbanized Areas.
Retrieved July 16, 2019, from (http://gisdata-
scag.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/197b33d52add4c73b6fd3bad46cff0c0_0?geometry=-
128.330%2C32.511%2C-107.423%2C35.694)
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. (2003). Retrieved July 5,
2019, from (http://www.wrc-rca.org/about-rca/multiple-species-habitat-conservation-plan/)