Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice of Decision for Planning Application No. 2022-15 Page 1 of 2 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Jason Simpson, City Manager Prepared by: Damaris Abraham, Assistant Community Development Director Date: October 10, 2023 Subject: Notice of Decision - Planning Commission Approval of Planning Application No. 2022-15 (Lake Pointe Apartments) Approving a Residential Design Review to Develop a 152-unit Multi-family Residential Apartment Complex with 336 Parking Spaces and Related Improvements on an 8.27-acre Site Recommendation Receive and file the Notice of Decision for Planning Application No. 2022-15 approved by the Planning Commission on September 19, 2023. Background Planning application No. 2022-15 (Residential Design Review No. 2022-04) proposes to develop a 152-unit multi-family residential apartment complex within eleven (11) buildings on the 8.27 acre site. The eleven (11) buildings are 158,786 sq. ft. in total and include nine (9) multi-family residential structures (two (2) three-story buildings and seven (7) two-story buildings), ranging in size from 8,544 sq. ft. to 25,632 sq. ft., a 2,212 sq. ft. clubhouse, and a 780 sq. ft. maintenance building. The project will provide 336 total parking spaces including 152 covered parking spaces. The proposed project is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, on the westerly side of Riverside Drive, and adjacent to Lakeside High School, more specifically referred to as Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022. On September 19, 2023 the Planning Commission, by a 3-0 vote: 1. Adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND NO. 2016-01, SCH NO. 2016071001) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-15 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-04); 2. Adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 2022-15 (Lake Pointe Apartments) Page 2 of 2 2022-15 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-04) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN; and 3. Adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-15 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-04) PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGNS, PROJECT AMENITIES AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR A 152-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT APN: 379-090- 022. Discussion The Planning Commission voted 3-0 to approve the project at its regular meeting on September 19, 2023. There were no public comments. Only the applicant attended the hearing. The Commission’s decision is final, and no action by the City Council is required unless the City Council, by majority vote, elects to review and reconsider the Commission’s decision by ordering the matter set for a future noticed public hearing according to Section 17.410.110.F of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), or the applicant or an interested person files a complete appeal application within 15 days of this notice appearing on the City Council’s Agenda. Fiscal Impact The time and cost related to processing this application have been covered by fees paid for by the applicant. No. General Fund budgets have been allocated or used in the processing of this application. Project approval does not fiscally impact the City’s General Fund. Mitigation Measures to protect the City fiscally have already been included in the Conditions of Approval. Attachments Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Staff Report Page 1 of 7 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission From: Damaris Abraham, Assistant Community Development Director Prepared by: Carlos Serna, Associate Planner Date: September 19, 2023 Subject: Planning Application No. 2022-15 (Lake Pointe Apartments) – Requesting to develop a 152-unit multi-family residential apartment complex with 336 parking spaces and related improvements on an 8.27-acre site Applicant: George Mears, Legacy Financial Group, LP Recommendation 1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND NO. 2016-01, SCH NO. 2016071001) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-15 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-04); 2. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-15 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-04) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN; and 3. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-15 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-04) PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGNS, PROJECT AMENITIES AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR A 152-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT APN: 379-090- 022. Project Location The proposed project is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, on the westerly side of Riverside Drive, and adjacent to Lakeside High School, more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022. PA 2022-15 (Lake Pointe Apartments) Page 2 of 7 Environmental Setting EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING Project Site Vacant Residential Mixed Use (RMU) Residential Mixed Use (RMU) North Vacant Residential Mixed Use (RMU) Residential Mixed Use (RMU) South RV Park Recreational (R) Recreational (R) East Shopping Center Residential Mixed Use (RMU) Residential Mixed Use (RMU) West High School Public/Institutional (P/I) Public/Institutional (P/I) Table 1: Environmental Setting Background On August 9, 2016, the City Council approved Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 2016- 01 (SCH No. 2016071001) and Residential Design Review (RDR) No. 2014-05 for the Lake Pointe Apartments Project to develop a 150-unit multi-family residential apartment complex consisting of ten (10) individual buildings totaling 162,283 sq. ft., 336 total parking spaces with 152 covered parking spaces, an amenity area consisting of a clubhouse, pool, and tot-lot. Between 2018 and 2020, RDR 2014-05 received City discretionary approvals totaling two (2) years and an automatic legislative extension (AB 1561) totaling 1.5 years. RDR 2014-05 expired on February 9, 2022. On June 22, 2022, the applicant submitted the subject application with a proposal to make minor changes to the original project which are summarized below: • Building size reduction – the new project reduces the size of the project from 162,283 sq. ft. to 158,786 sq. ft. (a 3,497 sq. ft. reduction from the original). • Increase of density by two (2) dwelling units – The project as originally approved included 150 units (18.13 du/ac), as proposed 152 units (18.4 du/ac). • Change in unit types – the unit types on the previous approval consisted of 34 1-bedroom, 88 2-bedroom, and 28 3-bedroom units. As proposed, the new unit types include 42 1- bedroom (increase of 8 units), 88 2-bedroom (no change) and 22 3-bedroom units (decrease of 6 units). • Changes to Architecture – previously plans showed Spanish Colonial Architecture with one color, current proposal shows Spanish Monterey Architecture with two main colors. • Changes to Site Plan – the new site design keeps the same basic layout as the original approved plans with some notable differences. The primary access is now a driveway instead of a dedicated street and is still located adjacent to the shopping center to the north. The driveway from Riverside Drive terminates at a round-a-bout at the project mid- point, where the entrance is located. The entry feature has been enhanced to include a stamped concrete entrance, a gate kiosk/keypad and gated entrance, emergency access point and general circulation are similar to approved plans. Detailed project description of the current proposal is provided below. PA 2022-15 (Lake Pointe Apartments) Page 3 of 7 Project Description Planning application No. 2022-15 (Residential Design Review No. 2022-04) proposes to develop a 152-unit multi-family residential apartment complex within eleven (11) buildings on the 8.27 acre site. The eleven (11) buildings are 158,786 sq. ft. in total and include nine (9) multi-family residential structures (two (2) three-story buildings and seven (7) two-story buildings), ranging in size from 8,544 sq. ft. to 25,632 sq. ft., a 2,212 sq. ft. clubhouse, and a 780 sq. ft. maintenance building. The project will provide 336 total parking spaces including152 covered parking spaces. On-site Amenities The project includes on-site recreational amenities located on both the north and south sides of the proposed Project. The 2,212 sq. ft. clubhouse building will house the leasing office, a conference room, multipurpose room, kitchen, pool equipment, and utility area. The pool will be located to the west of the clubhouse, which also includes an outdoor BBQ facility, cabanas, and a fireplace. The south side of the clubhouse will include an additional open space area and includes a patio trellis and sitting benches. The building and unit breakdowns are shown in Table 2 below: Building # and Building Type Square Feet 1 Bedroom Units 2 Bedroom Units 3 Bedroom Units Total Units 1 – Type A 8,544 - 8 - 8 2 – Type C 17,088 - 16 - 16 3 – Type B 15,272 8 8 - 16 4 – Type C 17,088 - 16 - 16 5 – Type C 17,088 - 16 - 16 6 – Type D 16,360 8 - 8 16 7 – Type F 25,632 - 24 - 24 8 – Type E 22,362 18 - 6 24 9 – Type D 16,360 8 - 8 16 Clubhouse 2,212 N/A N/A N/A N/A Maintenance 780 N/A N/A N/A N/A Totals 158,786 42 88 22 152 Table 2: Building/Unit Breakdown PA 2022-15 (Lake Pointe Apartments) Page 4 of 7 Floor Plans The project includes one (1) to three (3) bedroom units distributed within the nine (9) residual buildings. Each unit will have common living areas, and a private patio or a private balcony. Three (3) floor plans are proposed as specified below: Plan 1: 845 sq. ft. unit with 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom Plan 2: 1,068 sq. ft. unit with 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms Plan 3: 1,204 sq. ft. unit with 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms Architectural Design The RMU zoning of the project site requires varied roofline heights. The project’s buildings would range in height from 30’ – 3 7/8” for the two-story buildings to 40 ft. for the three-story buildings. The clubhouse is 17’ – 1 5/16” in height. The Spanish Monterey Architectural style was elected for the entirety of the project to enhance cohesion amongst the 11 buildings. The elevations feature concrete ‘S’ roof tile, tan or while stucco siding, shaped foam trim, and simulated stone veneer. In addition, enhanced architectural treatments will be provided on all elevations including those that are visible from common areas and the public right-of-way. Landscaping The proposed landscaping plan has been designed to complement the architectural style and to conform to the water efficiency standards under Chapter 19.08 of the LEMC. The project boundary will be landscaped with drought tolerant shrubs and trees that will provide shaded areas and a defined border of the Project site. Trees will also be planted within the interior of the project site to break up the impervious areas and to provide shade within the parking areas. Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan Proposed walls and fencing consist of 6'-0" high wrought iron fence with stone pilasters located along Riverside Drive and the project’s northerly boundary. A 6'-0" high CMU block wall will be provided along the project’s western and southern boundary. Site Access and Circulation Access to the development will be provided by a full-access driveway on a newly constructed street at Riverside Drive on the north side of the project boundary. A two-way gated entrance is proposed at the new driveway which will also include an access easement for the adjoining 5- acre parcel located to the west of the project. A secondary, gated emergency access (right-in/right out driveway) will be provided on the west side of the site exiting onto Riverside Drive, and a drive lane is proposed within the middle of the proposed project and the units will encircle the central parking areas and carports. PA 2022-15 (Lake Pointe Apartments) Page 5 of 7 Street Improvements Riverside Drive is classified as an Urban Arterial Highway in the General Plan, where full-width is 120 feet and curb-to-curb width is 96 ft. The applicant is required to dedicate in fee right-of-way of Riverside Drive adjacent to the property for a total right-of-way of 60 ft. from centerline to the project property line. Street improvements on Riverside Drive along the project site’s frontage would include widened section of new AC pavement and base material, curb and gutter, sidewalks, parkway landscaping, utility undergrounding, utility relocations for street widening, streetlight relocations, and streetlight installations. Riverside Drive shall be restriped and widening shall include transition paving and striping to match existing conditions. Analysis General Plan Consistency The project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Mixed Use (RMU) and is located within the Lake Edge District. The intent of the RMU designation is to provide for a mix of residential and non-residential uses within a single proposed development area with an emphasis on high density residential uses. Uses such as retail, service, civic, and professional office are allowed in a subordinate capacity. Residential densities shall be between 19 and 24 dwelling units per net acre. The application proposes to construct 152 two-story attached residential units on an approximately 8.27-acre parcel at an approximate density of 21.1 dwelling units per net acre. Therefore, the proposed multi-family residential development is consistent with the land use goals and policies of the General Plan and is therefore consistent with the General Plan. Municipal Code Consistency The current zoning for the project site is Residential Mixed Use (RMU). Per Section 17.86.020 (Table of land uses and glossary/definitions) of the RMU zone, apartment units are a permitted uses. Staff has reviewed the proposed project for the relevant development standards as identified in the RMU zone, Section 17.86.100 (Mixed use development matrix) and has detailed the requirements and the proposed development standards as follows: Development Standard Required Proposed Predominant Use Residential development is required to be greater than 70 % of the net lot area 100% Residential development proposed on the entire 8.27-acre site Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 maximum 0.45:1 Residential Density 19 to 24 dwelling units per acre 21.1 dwelling units per acre PA 2022-15 (Lake Pointe Apartments) Page 6 of 7 Setbacks Street Front: 10-foot minimum Rear and side yard: None Riverside Drive: 15 ft. Northern Driveway: 17 ft. Building Height Varied rooflines Three-story Building.: 40 ft. Two-story Building: 30.32 ft. Clubhouse: 17.11 ft. Table 3: Development Standards Parking Analysis The project complies with the on-site parking standards listed in Chapter 17.148 (Parking Requirements) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) as outlined in Table 4 below: Parking Standard Required Proposed • 2 or more bedrooms: 2.33 spaces (1 covered plus 1.33 open spaces) • One bedroom: 1.66 spaces (1 covered plus 0.66 open space) 152 covered 176 open 152 covered 184 open Total = 328 Total = 336 Table 4: Parking Standard Design Review The architectural design of the proposed building complies with the Residential Development Standards (Chapter 17.44) of the LEMC. The architecture of the building has been designed to achieve harmony and compatibility with the surrounding area. The colors and materials proposed will assist in blending the architecture into the existing landscape and are compatible with other colors and materials used on other properties near the project site. The proposed landscaping improvements enhance the building designs and soften building elevations' portions, providing shade and break-up pavement expanses. The Design Review Committee, which includes staff from Planning, Building and Safety, Fire, and Engineering, has reviewed the proposed project, and have conditioned the project to ensure compliance with the general plan, the LEMC, and the related environmental document. Environmental Determination Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and no new environmental documentation is necessary because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND No. 2016-01) prepared for the Project. MND No. 2016-01 (SCH No. 2016071001) was adopted by the City Council on August 9, 2016. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum providing minor additions and changes to MND No. 2016-01 has been prepared for the project and is included as Attachment 5 to this staff report. All potentially significant effects have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to MND No. 2016-01 (SCH No. 2016071001) and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred. PA 2022-15 (Lake Pointe Apartments) Page 7 of 7 MSHCP Consistency The project is consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell area and therefore is not subject to Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and Joint Project Review (JPR) requirements. The project complies with all other requirements of the MSHCP Public Outreach In October 2022 and September 2023, the applicant mailed advance notice of the development proposal to neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Public Notice Notice of the hearing for this application has been published in the Press-Enterprise newspaper and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. As of the writing of this report, no written comments concerning this application have been received by staff. Attachments Attachment 1 – CEQA Resolution Attachment 2 – MSHCP Resolution Attachment 3 – RDR Resolution Attachment 4 – Conditions of Approval Attachment 5 – MND Addendum Attachment 6 – GIS Package Attachment 7 – Design Review Package Attachment 8 – Public Notice Materials RESOLUTION NO. 2023-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND NO. 2016-01, SCH NO. 2016071001) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-15 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-04) Whereas, George Mears, Legacy Financial Group, LP, has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2022-15 (Residential Design Review No. 2022-04) for the design and construction of a 152-unit multi-family residential apartment complex within nine (9) residential buildings including two (2) three-story buildings and seven (7) two-story buildings. The project also proposes a 2,212 sq. ft. clubhouse and a 780 sq. ft. maintenance building and other related site improvements on an 8.27-acre site located in the Residential Mixed Use Zoning District. The proposed project is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, on the westerly side of Riverside Drive, and adjacent to Lakeside High School, more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022; Whereas, the project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: “CEQA”) and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: “CEQA Guidelines”) because the project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code Section 21065); Whereas, pursuant to CEQA, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND No. 2016-01) to address the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Lake Pointe Apartments Project (RDR 2014-05); Whereas, on August 9, 2016, the City Council (Council) adopted MND No. 2016-01 (SCH- No. 2016071001) and a corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts, but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2023- 01), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare an Addendum for the project; Whereas, an Addendum to MND No. 2016-01 (SCH No. 2016071001) (Addendum) has been prepared to provide an evaluation of potential project-specific environmental effects that could result from the project in relation to the effects disclosed by MND No. 2016-01, and the Addendum concludes that the project would not result in new significant effects or increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects; Margins are set at .05 on all sides. Please do not expand the margins as the left side may be too wide to punch for binding without punching part of the text. Use 11 pt Arial font, full justification and spacing is to be exactly 11 pt. To change this spacing, go to Format/ Paragraph/ Line Spacing – Exactly - 11pt. Please note that some titles of the report are bold and some are in regular print. If your report is 2 or more pages, a header must be inserted, in the upper left hand corner, on subsequent pages. The header must contain a shortened version of the title of the report, the meeting date and page number: Ex: Washington Firehouse May 16, 2001 Page 2 The report should be saved on the F Drive under Agendas and the appropriate meeting date. This template is available at f:/Wsforms/agenda report with descriptions.doc PC Reso. No. 2023-____ Page 2 of 3 Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), the Addendum includes necessary changes and additions to the MND necessary to assess project-specific environmental impacts; and Whereas, on September 19, 2023, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Planning Commission (Commission) has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Commission, based upon a thorough review of the proposed Addendum to MND No. 2016-01 and the evidence received to date, does determine as follows: 1. That in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the proposed project does not present substantial changes or reveal new information that would require subsequent or supplemental EIR analysis. However, some changes or additions to the information contained in the adopted MND is necessary in order to adequately evaluate the potential of environmental impacts resulting from the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to MND No. 2016-01 has been prepared to provide an evaluation of potential project-specific environmental effects in comparison to those effects described in MND No. 2016-01, and concluded that the significant effects that would result from the project have been addressed in the previously adopted MND. 2. That the Addendum was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 3. That, based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration have occurred; specifically: a. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed project is undertaken that require major revisions of the CEQA documents due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or b. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time MND No. 2016-01 was adopted, that shows any of the following: i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in MND No. 2016-01; ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in MND No. 2016-01; iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in MND No. 2016-01 would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. PC Reso. No. 2023-____ Page 3 of 3 Section 2: The Commission has evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed the Addendum. The Commission hereby finds and determines that all public comments have been addressed. Section 3: The Commission hereby finds that the Addendum is adequate and has been completed in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and City procedures concerning implementation of CEQA. Section 4: Based upon the evidence presented and the above findings, the Commission hereby adopts the Addendum. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Passed and Adopted on this 19th day of September, 2023. Michael Carroll, Chairman Attest: ___________________________________ Damaris Abraham Assistant Community Development Director STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Damaris Abraham, Interim Assistant Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2023-__ was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held on September 19, 2023 and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Damaris Abraham Assistant Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 2023-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-15 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-04) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Whereas, George Mears, Legacy Financial Group, LP, has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2022-15 (Residential Design Review No. 2022-04) for the design and construction of a 152-unit multi-family residential apartment complex within nine (9) residential buildings including two (2) three-story buildings and seven (7) two-story buildings. The project also proposes a 2,212 sq. ft. clubhouse and a 780 sq. ft. maintenance building and other related site improvements on an 8.27-acre site located in the Residential Mixed Use Zoning District. The proposed project is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, on the westerly side of Riverside Drive, and adjacent to Lakeside High School, more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022; Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the Joint Project Review (JPR) to analyze the scope of the proposed development and establish a building envelope that is consistent with the MSHCP criteria; Whereas, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP further requires that the City adopt consistency findings demonstrating that the proposed discretionary entitlement complies with the MSHCP Criteria Cell, and the MSHCP goals and objectives; Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.415.050.E (Major Design Review) and of the LEMC, the Planning Commission (Commission) has the responsibility of reviewing and approving, conditionally approving, or denying design review applications; and Whereas, on September 19, 2023, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Commission has considered the project and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to adopting Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. Section 2: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Commission makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: 1. The proposed development is a project under the City’s MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. PC Reso. No. 2023-____ Page 2 of 4 The project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell. However, the property is within the Elsinore Plan Area and must be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP “Plan Wide Requirements,” including Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines. 2. The project is subject to the City’s LEAP and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority’s (RCA) Joint Project Review (JPR) processes. As stated above, the project site is not located within a Criteria Cell and therefore is not subject to LEAP and JPR procedures. 3. The project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. According to the site reconnaissance survey by City Staff, no riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools were identified. Therefore, the project is consistent with the requirements for the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, and no additional surveys or mitigation is required. 4. The project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The project site is located outside the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas as shown on Figure 6-1 of the MSHCP. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP and no additional surveys or mitigation is required. 5. The project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The project site is not located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Additional survey areas for amphibians, mammals, burrowing owl, or any special linkage areas. In addition, the project site is not located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA) pursuant to Section 6.3.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 6. The project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The project site is not located within or adjacent to a Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area; therefore, the project site is not required to address Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 7. The project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. There are no resources located on the project site requiring mapping as set forth in MSHCP Section 6.3.1. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. 8. The project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. As stated above, the project site is completely surrounded by developed area. Therefore, the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the project. 9. The project will be conditioned to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. A condition of approval has been added requiring payment of the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of building permit issuance for the project. 10. The project is consistent with the MSHCP. PC Reso. No. 2023-____ Page 3 of 4 The project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Criteria Cell or conservation areas, and, as described above, the Project complies and is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 3: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, the Commission hereby finds that the project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 4: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Passed and Adopted on this 19th day of September, 2023. Michael Carroll, Chairman Attest: ___________________________________ Damaris Abraham, Assistant Community Development Director PC Reso. No. 2023-____ Page 4 of 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Damaris Abraham, Interim Assistant Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2023-__ was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held September 19, 2023 and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Damaris Abraham, Assistant Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 2023- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-15 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-04) PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGNS, PROJECT AMENITIES AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR A 152-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT APN: 379- 090-022 Whereas, George Mears, Legacy Financial Group, LP, has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2022-15 (Residential Design Review No. 2022-04) for the design and construction of a 152-unit multi-family residential apartment complex within nine (9) residential buildings including two (2) three-story buildings and seven (7) two-story buildings. The project also proposes a 2,212 sq. ft. clubhouse and a 780 sq. ft. maintenance building and other related site improvements on an 8.27-acre site located in the Residential Mixed Use Zoning District. The proposed project is generally located southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, on the westerly side of Riverside Drive, and adjacent to Lakeside High School, more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022; Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) the Planning Commission (Commission) has the responsibility of reviewing and approving, conditionally approving, or denying design review applications; and Whereas, on September 19, 2023 at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Commission has reviewed and analyzed the proposed project pursuant to the California Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 59000 et seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP), and the LEMC and finds and determines that the proposed project is consistent with the requirements of California Planning and Zoning Law and with the goals and policies of the GP and the LEMC. Section 2: The Commission finds and determines that an Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 2016-01 (SCH No. 2016071001) is necessary based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2023-01), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164., Whereas all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed by both an earlier Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and its Addendum. All potentially significant impacts have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the earlier MND and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 exist. MND No. 2016-01 (SCH No. 2016071001) was adopted in 2016 for the Project and evaluated environmental impacts that would result from development of the project area. The Addendum evaluated the potential environmental impacts pertaining to the minor changes made to the project total build out. Section 3: That in accordance with Section 17.415.050.G of the LEMC, the Commission makes the following findings regarding Planning Application No. 2022-15 (Residential Design Review No. 2022-04): PC Reso. No. 2023-____ Page 2 of 3 3 5 5 8 6 1. The project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the zoning district in which the project is located. The project site is in the Residential Mixed Use (RMU) General Plan designation. The intent of the RMU designation is to provide for a mix of residential and non-residential uses within a single proposed development area with an emphasis on high density residential uses. Uses such as retail, service, civic, and professional office are allowed in a subordinate capacity. Residential densities shall be between 19 and 24 dwelling units per net acre. The application proposes to construct 152 two-story attached residential units on an approximately 8.26 gross acres (7.21 acres net) at a density of 21.1 dwelling units per net acre. Therefore, the proposed multi-family residential development is consistent with the land use goals and policies of the General Plan and is therefore consistent with the General Plan. 2. The project complies with the design directives and all applicable provisions contained in the LEMC. The project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments. The architectural style proposed will create a distinctive street scene within the project site. Sufficient setbacks and onsite landscaping have been provided thereby creating interest and varying vistas. In addition, safe and efficient on-site circulation would be achieved. 3. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Section 17.415.050.G.3 of the LEMC, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Section 17.415.050. Pursuant to Section 17.415.050.E of the LEMC, the project was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on September 19, 2023. The project, as reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City divisions, departments, and agencies, will provide a high-quality residential development within the surrounding community. Section 4: Based upon the evidence presented and the above findings, the Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. 2022-15 (Residential Design Review No. 2022-04). Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Passed and Adopted on this 19th day of September, 2023. Michael Carroll, Chairman PC Reso. No. 2023-____ Page 3 of 3 3 5 5 8 6 Attest: ___________________________________ Damaris Abraham, Assistant Community Development Director STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Damaris Abraham, Assistant Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2023-__ was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held September 19, 2023 and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Damaris Abraham, Assistant Community Development Director Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 1 of 17 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PROJECT: PA 2022-15 | RDR 2022-04 PROJECT NAME:Lakepointe Apartments PROJECT LOCATION:APNs: 379-090-022 APPROVAL DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: GENERAL 1. Planning Application No. 2022-15 (Residential Design Review No. 2022-04) proposes the design and construction of a 152-unt multi-family residential apartment complex within nine (9) residential buildings including two (2) three-story buildings and seven (7) two-story buildings. The project also proposes a 2,212 sq. ft. clubhouse and a 780 sq. ft. maintenance building and other related site improvements on an 8.27-acre site located in the Residential Mixed Use Zoning District. The proposed project is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, oh the westerly side of Riverside Drive, and adjacent to Lakeside High School, more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022. 2. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, Agents, and its Consultants (Indemnitees) from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning approval, implementation and construction of RDR 2022-04, which action is bought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Sections 65009 and/or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code Section 21167, including the approval, extension or modification of RDR 2022-04 or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant's indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys' fees, penalties and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City. If the project is challenged in court, the City and the applicant shall enter into formal defense and indemnity agreement, consistent with this condition. 3. Within 30 days of project approval, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 4. The applicant shall submit a check for $2,814.00 made payable to the County of Riverside for the filing of a Notice of Determination. The check shall be submitted to the Planning Division for processing within 48 hours of the project’s approval. Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 2 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 PLANNING DIVISION 5. Residential Design Review No. 2022-04 shall lapse and become void two years following the date on which the design review became effective, unless one of the following: (1) prior to the expiration of two years, a building permit related to the design review is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion; or (2) prior to the expiration of two years, the applicant has applied for and has been granted an extension of the design review approval pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.050.I.1. Notwithstanding conditions to the contrary, a design review granted pursuant to LEMC Section 17.415.050.I.2 shall run with the land for this two- year period, subject to any approved extensions, and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site, which was the subject of the design review application. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain and submit a “Will Serve” letter from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to the Director of Community Development. The “will serve” letter shall specifically indicate the specific water flow volumes for both domestic and fire protection water supply. 7. The applicant shall provide all project-related on-site and off-site improvements as required by these Conditions of Approval. 8. All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans prior to their acceptance by the Building and Safety Division, Community Development Department. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan and elevations. The applicant shall meet all required development standards as set forth in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). Any other revisions to the approved site plan or building elevations shall be subject to the review of the Community Development Director or his designee. All plans submitted for Building Division Plan Check shall conform to the submitted plans as modified by these conditions of approval. 10. All materials and colors depicted on the approved plans shall be used. If the applicant wishes to modify any of the approved materials or colors depicted on the plans, the applicant shall submit a proposal setting forth the modifications for review by the Community Development Director or his designee. 11. All future development proposals shall be reviewed by the City on a project-by-project basis. If determined necessary by the Community Development Director or designee, additional environmental analysis will be required. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable City codes and ordinances. 13. A cash bond of $1,000.00 shall be required for any construction trailers placed on the site and used during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers and restoration of the site to a state acceptable to and approved by the Community Development Director or his designee. 14. The Applicant shall comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and no construction activity shall occur on Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays. Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 3 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 15. Any exterior air conditioning or other mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted and screened so as to be invisible from neighboring property or public streets. Air conditioning units and related equipment may not encroach more than two feet (2') into the required minimum side yard setback. 16. Prior to issuance of a building permit, one (1) digital set of the Final Landscaping / Irrigation Detail Plans shall be submitted with appropriate fees to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development Director or his designee. a) All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with 50% plant coverage using a drip irrigation method. b) All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch (6”) high and six inch (6”) wide concrete curb. Runoff shall be allowed from paved areas into landscape areas. Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than twenty-four inches (24"). c) Landscape planters shall be planted with an appropriate parking lot shade tree pursuant to the LEMC and Landscape Design Guidelines. d) No required tree planting bed shall be less than 5 feet wide. e) Root barriers shall be installed for all trees planted within 10 feet of hardscape areas to include sidewalks. f) Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. g) The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City’s adopted Landscape Guidelines. h) All landscape improvements shall be bonded 100% for material and labor for two years from installation sign-off by the City. Release of the landscaping bond shall be requested by the applicant at the end of the required two years with approval/acceptance reviewed by the Landscape Consultant and approved by the Community Development Director or Designee. i) All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. j) Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. k) Final landscape plans to include planting and irrigation details. l) Final landscape plans shall include drought tolerant planting consistent with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District standards subject to plan check and approval by the City’s landscape plan check consultant. m) No front-yard grass turf shall be permitted. 17. Walls or fencing adjacent to the public right-of-way shall be constructed of decorative masonry block wall (e.g., split-face block) pursuant to LEMC 17.44.080. Wrought iron or combination block and wrought iron fencing may be utilized upon review and approval of the Community Development Director. Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 4 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 18. All walls and/or fencing shall not be located on the property line. If the applicant proposes to place any walls and/or fencing on the property line, he/she must submit a notarized agreement between the subject project owners to the Planning Department prior to installing the fence. 19. The building address shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high and shall be easily visible from the public right-of-way. Care shall be taken to select colors and materials that contrast with building walls or trim. 20. Any planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than thirty- six inches (36") above grade. 21. For multiple-family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 22. The applicant shall satisfy all conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 23. If any of the conditions of approval set forth herein fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. BUILDING DIVISION General Conditions 24. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety Conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 25. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2022 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes: 2022 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2022 California Energy Codes, 2022 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 26. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. All ground floor units to be adaptable. b. Disabled access from the public way to the entrance of the building. c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as clubhouse, trach enclosure tot lots and picnic areas. Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 5 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 27. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi-family residential projects or a recorded final map for single- family residential projects. It takes 10 days to issue address and notify other agencies. Please contact Sonia Salazar at ssalazar@lake-elsinore.org or 951-674-3124 X 277. 28. Clearance from LEUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Lake Elsinore School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department evidencing the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 29. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 30. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. 31. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. Septic systems will need to be approved from Riverside County Environmental Health Department before permit issuance. 32. House Electrical Meter. Applicant shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. At Plan Review Submittal The Applicant must submit Grading Plans to the Engineering Department prior to submitting plans to the Building Division. Building will not accept plans if they have not been submitted to Engineering first. 33. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety online portal for electronic plan check and permitting: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 5.507, of the 2019 edition of the California Green Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for the persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the e. building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 34. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 35. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. Asbestos report and lead base paint reports are required before demo permit will be issued. Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 6 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 36. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Provide C.D. of approved plans to the Building Division. Prior to Beginning of Construction 37. Pre-Construction Meeting. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GENERAL 38. All new submittals for plan check or permit shall be made using the City’s online Citizen Service Portal (CSSP). 39. All engineering plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer using the City’s standard title block. 40. All required soils, geology, seismic, and hydrology and hydraulic reports shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer, as applicable. 41. All slopes and landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be maintained by the property owner, owner’s association, firms contracted by the property owner’s association, or another maintenance entity approved by the City Council. 42. All open space and slopes except for public parks and schools and flood control district facilities, outside the public right-of-way shall be owned and maintained by the property owner or property owner’s association. 43. Any portion of a drainage system that conveys runoff from open space shall be installed within a drainage easement. 44. Any grading that affects “waters of the United States”, wetlands or jurisdictional streambeds, shall require approval and necessary permits from respective Federal and/or State Agencies. 45. In accordance with the City’s Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R, Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated both during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction and during occupancy. 46. Applicant shall submit a detailed hydrology and hydraulic study for review for the sufficient containment and conveyance of the storm water to a safe and adequate point as approved by the City Engineer. 47. The site will accommodate all construction activity, building activity, vehicles, etc. No staging on public streets, or private property belonging to others shall be conducted without the written permission of the property owner. Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 7 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 48. Minimum good housekeeping and erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as identified by the City shall be implemented. 49. Applicant shall install permanent benchmarks to Riverside County Standards and at locations to be determined by the City Engineer. FEES 50. Applicant shall pay all applicable permit application and Engineering assessed fees, including without limitation plan check and construction inspection fees, at the prevalent rate at time of payment in full. 51. Applicant shall pay all applicable Mitigation and Development Impact Fees at the prevalent rate at time of payment in full. Fees are subject to change. Mitigation and Development Impact Fees include without limitation: a. Master Plan of Drainage Fee – Due prior to grading permit issuance. b. Traffic Infrastructure Fee (TIF) – Due prior to building permit issuance. c. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) – Due prior to occupancy. d. Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee (K-Rat) – Due prior to grading permit issuance. LAND DIVISION 52. Applicant shall dedicate in fee right-of-way of Riverside Drive adjacent to the property for a total right-of-way of 60 feet from centerline to the project property line. Riverside Drive is classified as an Urban Arterial Highway in the City’s General Plan, where full-width is 120 feet and curb-to-curb width is 96 feet. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT / POLLUTION PREVENTION / NPDES Design 53. The project is responsible for complying with the Santa Ana Region National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits as warranted based on the nature of development and/or activity. 54. A Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared using the Santa Ana Region 8 approved template and guidance and submitted for review and approval to the City. The Final WQMP shall be approved by the City prior to any permit for construction. 55. The Final WQMP shall document the following: a. Detailed site and project description. b. Potential stormwater pollutants. c. Post-development drainage characteristics. d. Low Impact Development (LID) BMP selection and analysis. e. Structural and non-structural source control BMPs. f. Treatment Control BMPs. g. Site design and drainage plan (BMP Exhibit). Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 8 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 h. Documentation of how vector issues are addressed in the BMP design, operation and maintenance. i. GIS Decimal Minute Longitude and Latitude coordinates for all LID and Treatment Control BMP locations. j. Hydraulic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) – demonstrate that discharge flow rates, velocities, duration and volume for the post construction condition from a 2-year, 24- hour rainfall event will not cause adverse impacts on downstream erosion and receiving waters, or measures are implemented to mitigate significant adverse impacts downstream public facilities and water bodies. Evaluation documentation shall include pre- and post-development hydrograph volumes, time of concentration and peak discharge velocities, construction of sediment budgets, and a sediment transport analysis. If HCOC applies, the project shall implement measures to limit disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage impacts from urban runoff (Note the facilities may need to be larger due to flood mitigation for the 10-year, 6- and 24-hour rain events). k. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement (using City approved form) as well as documentation of formation of funding district for long term maintenance costs. 56. Parking lot landscaping areas shall be designed to provide for treatment, retention or infiltration of runoff. 57. Project hardscape areas shall be designed and constructed to provide for drainage into adjacent landscape. 58. Project trash enclosure shall be covered, bermed, and designed to divert drainage from adjoining paved areas and regularly maintained. 59. If CEQA identifies resources requiring Clean Water Act Section 401 Permitting, the applicant shall obtain certification through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and provide a copy to the Engineering Department. 60. All storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked “Only Rain in the Storm Drain” using the City authorized marker. 61. The project shall use either volume-based and/or flow-based criteria for sizing BMPs in accordance with NPDES Permit Provision XII.D.4. 62. The project site shall implement full trash capture methods/devices approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This shall include installation of connector pipe screens on all onsite and offsite catch basins to which the project discharges. Construction 63. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit) and compliance with the Green Building Code for sediment and erosion control are required for this project. 64. Prior to grading or building permit for construction or demolition and/or weed abatement activity, projects subject to coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit shall Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 9 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 demonstrate that compliance with the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID). A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at the project site, updated, and be available for review upon request. 65. Erosion & Sediment Control – Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for construction or demolition, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as a separate sheet of the grading plan submittal to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES Program and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. A copy of the plan shall be incorporated into the SWPPP, kept updated as needed to address changing circumstances of the project site, be kept at the project site, and available for review upon request. Post-Construction 66. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and/or occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable NPDES permits for construction, industrial/commercial, MS4, etc. to include: a. Demonstrate that the project has compiled with all non-structural BMPs described in the project’s WQMP. b. Provide signed, notarized certification from the Engineer of Work that the structural BMPs identified in the project’s WQMP are installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications and operational. c. Submit a copy of the fully executed, recorded City approved Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement for all structural BMPs. d. The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement shall: (1) describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for BMPs identified in the BMP Exhibit; (2) identify the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; (3) describe the mechanism for funding the long- term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; and (4) provide for annual certification for water quality facilities by a Registered Civil Engineer. The City format shall be used. e. Provide documentation of annexation into a CFD for funding facilities to be maintained by the City. f. Demonstrate that copies of the project’s approved WQMP (with recorded O&M Plan attached) are available for each of the initial occupants. g. Agree to pay for a Special Investigation from the City of Lake Elsinore for a date twelve (12) months after the issuance of a Certificate of Use and/or Occupancy for the project to verify compliance with the approved WQMP and O&M Plan. A signed/sealed certification from the Engineer of Work dated 12 months after the Certificate of Occupancy will be considered in lieu of a Special Investigation by the City. h. Provide the City with a digital .pdf copy of the Final WQMP. UTILITIES 67. All arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway shall be the responsibility of the applicant, property owner, and/or his agent. Overhead utilities (34.5 kV or lower) shall be undergrounded (LEMC Section 16.64). Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 10 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 68. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.52.030 in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and consistent with the City’s agreement with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 69. Applicant shall apply for, obtain and submit to the City Engineering Department a letter from Southern California Edison (SCE) indicating that the construction activity will not interfere with existing SCE facilities. Non-Interference Letter (NIL) shall be provided prior to issuance of grading permit. 70. Submit a “Will Serve” letter to the City Engineering Department from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project and specify the technical data for the water service at the location, such as water pressure, volume, etc. Will Serve letters shall be provided prior to issuance of grading permit. IMPROVEMENTS 71. Applicant shall implement traffic mitigation measures identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis by RFK Engineering Group, Inc., dated January 7, 2021, as specified in Section 7, Findings and Recommendations. 72. Project will be responsible for the following improvements: a. Construction of ultimate half-width street improvements adjacent to the project frontage on Riverside Drive (120-foot right-of-way). Improvements shall include widened section of new AC pavement and base material, curb and gutter, sidewalks, parkway landscaping, utility undergrounding, utility relocations for street widening, streetlight relocations, and streetlight installations. Riverside Drive shall be restriped and widening shall include transition paving and striping to match existing conditions. b. Construction of driveway approaches per California Department of Transportation and City of Lake Elsinore approved standards. c. Modification of existing and installation of new signing striping for required improvements. The project shall be responsible for any additional paving and/or striping removal resulting by the striping plan. d. Construction of ADA compliant curb ramps on the proposed corners of the property along Riverside Drive. e. Relocate existing signal along Riverside Drive property frontage to accommodate ultimate half-width improvements. f. Reconstruct and realign the cross gutters along Riverside Drive affected by the ultimate half-width curb alignment. i. Coordination with the adjacent school is required prior to construction. g. Construct cross gutter and curb return along the private road entrance from Riverside Drive. Taper cross gutter to align with the existing curb line. 73. Sight distance into and out and throughout the project location shall comply with Caltrans Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 11 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 standards. Project shall ensure facilities are installed outside the line of sight of drivers. 74. Project will be responsible to design and install streetlights on Riverside Drive and the private road. Streetlight system shall be designed as LS-2B system. Streetlight plans shall include but are not limited to details such as location, pole and luminaire type, and pull box design. Streetlight plans may be included as part of the Street Improvement plan set. 75. 10-year storm runoff shall be contained within the curb and the 100-year storm runoff shall be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, drainage facilities shall be provided. 76. All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. 77. A drainage study shall be provided. The study shall identify the following: identify storm water runoff from and upstream of the site; show existing and proposed off-site and on-site drainage facilities; and include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of the facilities. The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff from a 10-year storm of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed condition is equal or less than the runoff under existing conditions of the same storm frequency. Both 6-hour and 24-hour storm duration shall be analyzed to determine the detention requirements to accomplish the desired results. 78. All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. All off-site drainage, if different from historic flow, shall be conveyed to a public facility. 79. Existing capacity of affected California Department of Transportation’s drainage systems cannot be exceeded. Should 100-year project runoff volumes be determined to exceed the maximum capacity of the existing State drainage facilities, construction of on-site detention basins, new drainage systems or other impact mitigation will be required. 80. All existing tributary areas, area drainage patterns and runoff volumes having an impact to adjacent SR-74 drainage facilities must be identified and analyzed in a project hydrology study. 81. Review of project drainage design will include an evaluation of runoff impacts to adjacent California Department of Transportation right of way. Where applicable, compliance with pertinent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/water quality standards will be required. 82. Ensure that “best management practices” (BMP’s) used to treat site runoff entering California Department of Transportation comply with all applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State Regional Water Resources Board regulations. 83. Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs should drain to a landscaped area. 84. The site shall be planned and developed to keep surface water from entering buildings (California Green Building Standards Code 4.106.3). Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 12 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 85. All existing storm drain inlet facilities adjacent to the subject properties shall be retrofitted with a storm drain filter; all new storm drain inlet facilities constructed by this project shall include a storm drain filter. 86. A registered Civil Engineer shall prepare the improvements (for public and private), signing and striping, and traffic signal plans required for this project. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to City Standards and Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34). Permitting/Construction 87. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to any work on City right-of-way. The developer shall submit the permit application, required fees, and executed agreements, security and other required documentation prior to issuance. 88. An Encroachment Permit from California Department of Transportation shall be obtained prior to any work within California Department of Transportation right of way. Permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of City permits. 89. A landscape maintenance agreement with California Department of Transportation will be required and provided to the City of Lake Elsinore prior to issuance of City permits. 90. The rough/precise grading, drainage, landscape, and building plans shall be reviewed by the California Department of Transportation and the developer shall provide the City of Lake Elsinore written construction clearance. 91. Project drainage impacts affecting California Department of Transportation right of way should be identified and addressed prior to project approval. 92. All compaction reports, grade certification, monument certification (with tie notes delineated on 8 ½ X 11” Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Department before final inspection of public works improvements will be scheduled and approved. PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT 93. A grading plan signed and stamped by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for City review and approval for all addition and/or movement of soil (grading) on site. The plan shall include separate sheets for erosion control, haul route and traffic control. The grading submittal shall include all supporting documentation and be prepared using City standard title block, standard drawings, and design manual. 94. All grading plan contours shall extend to minimum of 50 feet beyond property lines to indicate existing drainage pattern. 95. The grading plan shall show that no structures, landscaping, or equipment are located near the project entrances that could reduce sight distance. 96. A Hydrology and Hydraulic Report shall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of grading permits. 97. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements and/or permits for off-site grading and the applicant shall accept drainage from the adjacent property owners. Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 13 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 98. Applicant shall mitigate to prevent any flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by development of the site and/or diversion of drainage. 99. All natural drainage traversing the site (historic flow) shall be conveyed through the site in a manner consistent with the historic flow or to one or a combination of the following: to a public facility; accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance; or conveyed to an approved drainage easement. 100. Project grading impacts affecting California Department of Transportation right of way shall be identified and addressed with Caltrans prior to project approval. Permitting/Construction 101. Applicant shall execute and submit grading and erosion control agreement, post grading security, and pay permit fees as a condition of grading permit issuance. 102. Any grading that affects “waters of the United States”, wetlands or jurisdictional streambeds require approval and necessary permits from respective Federal and/or State Agencies. 103. No grading shall be performed without first having obtained a Grading Permit. A grading permit does not include the construction of retaining walls or other structures for which a Building Permit is required. 104. A preconstruction meeting with the City Engineering Inspector (Engineering Department) is required prior to commencement of any grading activity. 105. Hauling in excess of 5,000 cubic yards shall be approved by the City Council (LEMC 15.72.065). Prior to commencement of grading operations, applicant shall provide to the City a map of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of export material. All such routes shall be subject to the review and approval. Haul route shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit. 106. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. Slopes steeper than 2 to 1 shall be evaluated for stability and proper erosion control and approved by the City. 107. Review and approval of the project sediment and erosion control plan shall be completed. As warranted, a copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for review upon request. 108. Approval of the project Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be received prior to issuance of a grading permit. 109. Applicant shall obtain applicable environmental clearance from the Planning Department and submit applicable clearance document to the Engineering Department. This approval shall specify that the project complies with all required environmental mitigation triggered by the proposed grading activity. Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 14 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 110. Provide soils, geology and seismic report, including recommendations for parameters for seismic design of buildings and walls prior to building permit. 111. All public improvement plans shall be completed and approved. 112. Any dedications and easements shall be recorded with the recorded copy provided to the City prior to issuance of a building permit including without limitation an access easement providing access to APNs: 379-090-012, 013, and 023 starting from Riverside Drive that runs along the project’s northerly edge. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY / FINAL APPROVAL / PROJECT CLOSEOUT 113. All public improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of first occupancy. 114. Proof of acceptance of maintenance responsibility of slopes, open spaces, landscape areas, and drainage facilities shall be provided. 115. In the event of the damage to City roads from hauling or other construction related activity, applicant shall pay full cost of restoring public roads to the baseline condition. 116. All final studies and reports, final soil report showing compliance with recommendations, compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certification (with tie notes delineated on 8 ½ X 11” Mylar) shall be submitted in .tif format on a USB flash drive or electronically to the Engineering Department before final inspection will be scheduled. 117. All required public right-of-way dedications, easements, vacations, and easement agreement(s) shall be recorded with a recorded copy provided to the City prior to first occupancy. 118. Applicant shall pay all outstanding applicable processing and development fees prior to occupancy and/or final approval. 119. Applicant shall submit documentation pursuant to City’s Security Release handout. 120. Applicant shall submit as-built all Engineering Department approved project plan sets. After City approval of paper copy, applicant is responsible for revising the original mylar plans. Once the original mylars have been approved, the developer shall provide the City with a digital copy of the “as-built” plans in .tif format. 121. Applicant shall provide AutoCAD and GIS Shape files of all Street and Storm Drain plans. All data must be in projected coordinate system: NAD 83 State Plane California Zone VI U.S. Fleet. All parts and elements of the designed system shall be represented discretely. Include in the attribute table basic data for each feature, such as diameter and length, as applicable, and for pipes include material (PVC, RCP, etc.) and slope. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FIRE MARSHAL 122. The applicant/operator shall comply with all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 15 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 Department Lake Elsinore Office of the Fire Marshal. Questions should be directed to the Riverside County Fire Department, Lake Elsinore Office of the Fire Marshal at 130 S. Main St., Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. Phone: (951) 671-3124 Ext. 225. 123. If the project is to be constructed in phases, each phase of development must comply with all fire department requirements, including emergency vehicle access and water supply. 124. Hazardous Fire Area: this project is near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone of Riverside County as shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. As the State of California revises the High Fire Area maps, this project could be included in the VHFHSZ. Any building constructed within this zone must comply with the special construction provisions contained in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, California Fire Code, California Residential Code, and the California Building Code 125. The developer shall provide fire hydrants in accordance with the following: a. Prior to placing any combustibles on site, provide an approved water source for firefighting purposes. b. Prior to building permit issuance, submit plans to the water district for a water system capable of delivering fire flow as required by the California Fire Code and Fire Department standards. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance with the California Fire Code. Hydrants must produce the required fire flow per the California Fire Code. c. Required fire flow is estimated to be 2,124 GPM at 20 PSI for a 2-hour duration based on the 2109 California Fire Code and 25,632 square foot building area with Type V-B construction. 126. Prior to building permit issuance, install the approved water system, approved roads, and contact the Fire Department for a verification inspection. 127. All residential buildings and all other buildings 5,00 square feet and larger are required to have a fire sprinkler system per Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 128. Gates must meet Fire Department standards at the time of building permit application. Current standards require that gates have a Knox rapid entry system, an infrared gate opener, and be set back up to 35 feet allow emergency vehicles to safely stop away from traffic flow. 129. California Fire Code requires fire department access to within 150 feet of all portions of all buildings. Where access exceeds 150 feet, mitigating measures or alternative materials and methods may be required. Mitigation require Fire Department approval prior to building permit issuance. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Annex into CFD 2015-1 (Safety) Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services CFD 130. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit an application to the Department of Administrative Services to initiate the annexation process into the Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) or current Community Facilities District in place at the time of annexation to fund the on-going operation and maintenance of the Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 16 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 public right-of-way landscaped areas and neighborhood parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right-of-way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison, including parkways, street maintenance, open space and public storm drains constructed within the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project. The annexation process shall be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project. Alternatively, the applicant may propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project with respect to Maintenance Services. Applicant shall make a non-refundable deposit of $15,000 or at the current rate in place at the time of annexation toward the cost of annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. Annex into the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) 131. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit an application to the Department of Administrative Services to initiate the annexation process into the Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) or current Community Facilities District in place at the time of annexation to fund the on-going operation and maintenance of the public right-of-way landscaped areas and neighborhood parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right-of-way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison, including parkways, street maintenance, open space and public storm drains constructed within the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project. The annexation process shall be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project. Alternatively, the applicant may propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project with respect to Maintenance Services. Applicant shall make a non-refundable deposit of $15,000 or at the current rate in place at the time of annexation toward the cost of annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 132. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND No. 2016-01; SCH No. 2016071001) prepared for the Project. Conditions of Approval PC: September 19, 2023 PA 2022-15/RDR 2022-04 CC: Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 17 of 17 3 5 5 8 7 I hereby state that I acknowledge receipt of the approved Conditions of Approval for the above named project and do hereby agree to accept and abide by all Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on _________. I also acknowledge that all Conditions shall be met as indicated. Date: Applicant’s Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number: ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2016-01 (SCH # 2016071001) LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS Prepared for: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Prepared by: Tom Dodson & Associates P.O. Box 2307 San Bernardino, California 92406 Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted: July 2016 Addendum No. 1 Completed: September 2023 Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page ii of 4 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 1 2. PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 3 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT MODIFICATION ...................... 5 Environmental Checklist Introduction ......................................................................................................... 6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................... 7 Determination ..................................................................................................... 8 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 12 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ....................................................... 13 III. Air Quality ............................................................................................... 15 IV. Biological Resources ............................................................................... 17 V. Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 19 VI. Energy .................................................................................................... 20 VII. Geology and Soils ................................................................................... 21 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................... 24 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................... 25 X. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. 27 XI. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................... 30 XII. Mineral Resources .................................................................................. 31 XIII. Noise ...................................................................................................... 32 XIV. Population and Housing .......................................................................... 34 XV. Public Services ....................................................................................... 35 XVI. Recreation .............................................................................................. 37 XVII. Transportation ......................................................................................... 38 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 40 IXX. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................. 42 XX. Wildfire .................................................................................................... 44 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................... 45 4. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 47 5. REVIEW AUTHORITY.............................................................................................. 48 6. CERTIFICATION ...................................................................................................... 48 7. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 49 Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page iii of 4 9 FIGURES Figure 1 Aerial Map (Site Location) .......................................................................... 9 Figure 2 Site Location .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 3 Schematic Site Plan ................................................................................... 11 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Original IS/MND (7-22) Appendix 2 – Air Quality / GHG (11-8-22) Appendix 3 – MSHCP Appendix 4 – Noise (11-8-22) Appendix 4a – TIA (10-22-15) Appendix 4b – TIA (11-9-22) Appendix 4c – VMT (10-24-22) Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 1 of 4 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE LAKE POINTE APARTMENT PROJECT RDR 2022-15 INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. 2016 Approved Project In July 2016 the City of Lake Elsinore (City) approved the following project: Lake Pointe Apartment Project (Original Project) to allow development of a 150-unit apartment complex and associated recreational amenities on an approximate 8.27-acre site (APN 379-090-022), located in the City of Lake Elsinore. This site is located on Riverside Drive north of Grand Avenue, southwest of Eisenhower Drive, immediately north of Lakeside High School. See the attached aerial photo, Figure 1. An application for Residential Design Review, RDR 2014-05, was submitted to the City and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND 2016-01) was adopted by the City for this project. The proposed project was approved in July 2016. In detail, the project proposed to construct ten individual buildings, size range between ~9,000 square feet (SF) and 22,000 SF as shown on Figure 2. The site footprint shown on Figure 2 shows the ten structures, the proposed parking areas in the center of the site, the amenity area (clubhouse, pool etc., and the proposed access road on the north side of the site. A total of 339 parking spaces will be provided, including 150 covered parking spaces. The Notice of Determination (NOD) for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND 2016-01) was posted in July 2016. The reader of this Addendum is referred to the attached copy of the IS/MND for this project (which is reproduced in Appendix 1) for a more detailed discussion of the approved project. B. Proposed Modifications To date the project site has not been developed and the land was recently purchased by the Legacy Financial Group, LP (Legacy). Legacy has redesigned the site plan with the new development plan shown on Figure 3. An application for Residential Design Review, RDR 2022-15, was submitted to the City for processing. The number of buildings has been reduced from 10 to 9 and the number of units has been increased from 150 to 152 (an increase of two units). The access roadway has been redesigned and an access easement has been included in the site plan to access the 5-acre property west of the project site. The number of parking spaces has been reduced by 3 from 339 to 336 overall spaces, and several electric vehicle charging spaces have been included in the design. Refer to Figure 3. The project amenities have been included at the same location as in the 2016 design, and the bio-retention basin is also at the same site as in the 2016 site design. In summary, the 2022 project consists of a new apartment complex that would install 152 apartment units on the 8.27-acre site located in the City of Lake Elsinore. Thus, the overall density of the apartment complex is about 8.4 units/acre. The apartment complex will consist of nine apartment buildings ranging in size from about 9,000 sf to about 22,000 SF. Seven of the apartment buildings will be two-stories and two of the buildings will be three stories. Primary Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 2 of 4 9 access to the site will be a new street along the north side of the project site, that will also provide additional access to the development west of the project site. The apartment buildings are located around the edges of the property, with the parking areas and internal access provided in the central portion of the project site. This includes 336 overall parking spaces, with many covered spaces where the covers could be used to support solar panels, and with several electric vehicle charging spaces. He onsite support facilities include the bioretention basin, a clubhouse, a pool and outdoor playing courts. The project will require about one year to construct and occupancy could begin as early as winter quarter 2024. This Addendum document compiles the necessary information required to update the City’s CEQA certified IS/MND in accordance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. C. Environmental Review Process The City has prepared this Addendum in accordance with the current (2022) CEQA Statute and Guidelines for implementing CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 includes the following procedures for the preparation and use of an Addendum: (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. Note that Section 15164(b) addresses use of an Addendum in conjunction with a negative declaration, which is the procedure being used in this document. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b)) When only minor technical changes or additions to an adopted negative declaration (ND) are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an Addendum. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(b)). Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 3 of 4 9 Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR is required only when: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the negative declaration due to the involvement of any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Based on the data contained in this environmental document, the City has concluded that an Addendum is the appropriate environmental determination for this second-tier environmental review process to comply with the CEQA. D. Summary of Project Modifications Being Considered by the City of Lake Elsinore In summary, the following modifications have been made to the Lake Pointe Apartment Project approved by the City in 2016. Total number of buildings will be reduced from ten to nine; the total number of units will be increased by two, from 150 to 152. The project site is the same , but the access has been slightly modified and access has been provided to the landlocked parcel to the east in the 2023 version of the site plan. The total number of parking spaces has been reduced by three, from 339 to 336 and a total of 37 EVC spaces will be provided in the 2023 design. Otherwise, all elements of the site development will remain essentially the same: earthwork quantities will be approximately the same to prepare the site for the new structures; and all onsite and offsite infrastructure will remain the same as originally envisioned and conditioned. Regardless, as subsequently illustrated in the analysis provided below, none of the changes described above would result in any new significant physical environmental impacts nor in any increased physical impacts beyond the impacts that were already evaluated for the original project MND 2016-01, see Appendix 1. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 4 of 4 9 2. PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS In 2016 the City of Lake Elsinore approved Residential Design Review (RDR) 2014-05 to allow development of a 150-unit multi-family apartment complex on an approximately 8.27-acre site, located east of Riverside Drive in the City. The City must now determine whether the proposed project described in Section 1.B and D above (modified project) results in new significant impacts that were not evaluated in the adopted IS/MND, which could trigger the need for an alternative CEQA environmental determination. The City must also decide whether an Addendum is the appropriate environmental determination for this modified project (Lake Pointe Apartments) if it chooses to approve the proposed requested project entitlement, RDR 2022-15. The adopted 2016 IS/MND and RDR 2014-05 provides a baseline and cumulative environmental evaluation and determination for the activities permitted by the original project. This Addendum No. 1 has been prepared in order to determine whether the proposed project modifications, summarized above, would result in conditions that would require a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report, Negative Declaration (ND) and/or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to be prepared because of new or additional adverse environmental impacts. This Addendum also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS/MND was adopted in June 2016. This examination includes an analysis in accordance with the provisions of Sections 15164 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines (summarized above), which outline the criteria and procedures for preparing an Addendum to a previously adopted IS/MND. Also, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City’s environmental review of the proposed project modifications is limited to examining the environmental effects associated with the physical changes in the environment from implementing the modified project in comparison to the approved project, i.e., addressing the effects of outlined in Section D above. This narrow focus is due to the fact that the IS/MND has already addressed the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the original project. This Addendum, combined with the original adopted IS/MND, serves as the basis for this second- tier environmental review of the City’s decision to consider the Lake Pointe Apartment Project entitlement. Addendum No. 1 modifies the IS/MND adopted by the City in 2016 as its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental determination. No other changes than those outlined in the preceding text are proposed at this time. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Lake Elsinore is the Lead Agency for the proposed project revisions and is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed modifications to the project as described above (Section D) and relying on this Addendum as the second-tier CEQA environmental determination. As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects that could result from implementing the modified project relative to the previously approved project RDR 2014-05. The City has compiled this Addendum as the basis for making a second-tier CEQA environmental determination for the modified project being proposed by Legacy Financial Group, LP. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 5 of 4 9 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT MODIFICATION Following the City’s receipt of the revised application from Legacy Financial Group, LP for the project site, it became clear to the City that the project was modified to an extent that when combined with new environmental issues that have been incorporated into the CEQA review process since 2016, a second-tier environmental document/determination would be needed to support an entitlement decision for the revised project. After reviewing the data compiled for this Addendum, a decision was made by the City to prepare and process an Addendum to provide an evaluation of potential project changes that could result from approving the proposed project modifications compared to the project described and approved under the 2016 adopted IS/MND. This is a relative comparison of the revised Lake Point Apartment design to the original approved facility to assess the potential environmental impacts that would result from these project changes, in comparison to the impact forecast contained in the 2016 IS/MND. The following evaluation provides a comparative analysis of potential environmental impacts in relation to the facts and findings contained in the original adopted IS/MND document. The following conclusions were developed regarding potential impacts from approval and implementation of the project modifications. This analysis follows the format for determining significance in a standard Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form (Appendix G State CEQA Guidelines). Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 6 of 4 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION 1. Project Title: Lake Pointe Apartment Project 2. Lead Agency City of Lake Elsinore Name and Address: 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 3. Contact Person: Carlos Serna Phone Number: (951) 674-3124, x916 4. Project Location: Riverside Drive, north of Grand Avenue, southwest of Eisenhower Avenue, immediately north of Lakeside High School 5. Project Sponsor’s Legacy Financial Group, LP, Mr. George Mears Name and Address: 41663 Date Street, Suite 200, Murrieta, CA 92562 6. General Plan Designation: Residential Mixed Use (RMU) 7. Zoning Classification: Residential Mixed Use (RMU) 8. Project Description: In summary, the 2022 project consists of a new apartment complex that would install 152 apartment units on the 8.27-acre site located in the City of Lake Elsinore. Thus, the overall density of the apartment complex is about 8.4 units/acre. The apartment complex will consist of nine apartment buildings ranging in size from about 9,000 sf to about 22,000 SF. Seven of the apartment buildings will be two-stories and two of the buildings will be three stories. Primary access to the site will be a new street along the north side of the project site, that will also provide additional access to the development west of the project site. The apartment buildings are located around the edges of the property, with the parking areas and internal access provided in the central portion of the project site. This includes 336 overall parking spaces, with many covered spaces where the covers could be used to support solar panels, and with several electric vehicle charging spaces. He onsite support facilities include the bioretention basin, a clubhouse, a pool and outdoor playing courts. The project will require about one year to construct and occupancy could begin as early as winter quarter 2024. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings) North: commercial center and open space, East: Riverside Drive and Lake Elsinore recreation area, South: Lakeside High School, and West: single-family residential. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or partici- pation agreement.) Caltrans (encroachment permit) and General Construction Permit, State Water Resources Control Board and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 7 of 4 9 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and cultural affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Not needed for an Addendum. Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 8 of 4 9 DETERMINATION I find that the proposed modified project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and an ADDENDUM will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Carlos Serna, Associate Planner Date Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 9 of 4 9 Insert Figures Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 12 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply I. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 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 or 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? Discussion a-d. No Impact – The following findings were included in the 2016 IS/MND: for issue (a) the finding was less than significant based on the finding that mandated landscaping and “four-sided” architecture would achieve compatible design on all four sides of the project, including the front of the buildings on Riverside Drive; under issue (b) the finding was made that due to the lack of a nearby scenic highway the proposed project would cause no adverse impacts; for issue (c) the finding was made hat the project would be consistent with the adjacent urban development based on consistency of aesthetic and design requirements of the City’s design guidelines; and for issue (d) the findi ng was reached that with implementation of mitigation measure AES-1 exterior lighting of the building would be controlled and directed away from adjacent development and light and glare impacts would be reduced to a less than significant impact level. The modified project will occupy the same site with an overall design that is very similar to the original project, including similar buildings, similar access and parking; and a minimal increase in overall apartment units. There have been no substantial aesthetic changes at the project site since 2016. The City’s design review requirements will ensure that landscaping and four -sided architecture will be consistent with the surrounding urban uses. Finally, with implementation of mitigation measure AES-1 potential light and glare impacts on adjacent properties can be controlled to a less than significant impact level. Thus, the modified project will have approximately the same visual appearance as the approved project. The proposed imple mentation of the modified project is not forecast to cause any significant negative alteration of any aesthetic or visual impacts when compared to the 2016 IS/MND. No new or greater negative aesthetic impacts will result from implementing the modified project. Approval of the modified project does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts evaluated in the IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 or that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 13 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply 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 the Forest Legacy 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 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? Discussion a-c. No Impact – The following findings were included in the 2016 IS/MND: for issues a -c, the findings were all No Impact, which was based on the following substantiation: the site is designated as “Urban- Built-up land or of Local Importance, the site is not being farmed at this time, and thus no impact on important farmland; the site is not zoned for agricultural use nor is it in a Williamson Act preserve; and no other changes caused by the project will occur that could convert farmland to nonagricultural use. Overall finding for the agricultural issues were no adverse impact. d-e. No Impact – The modified project will occupy the same site with the same multi -family use. There have been no changes since 2016 relative to the agricultural resources onsite or in the project area. Thus, the modified project will have approximately the same agricultural resources impacts as the approved project. The new Checklist Form also includes questions regarding potential impacts to forestry resources. However, the site did not have and does not have any forestry resources or Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 14 of 4 9 resource values. The proposed implementation of the modified project is not forecast to cause any significant change in conclusions regarding agricultural and forestry resources when compared to the 2016 IS/MND. No new or greater negative agricultural or forestry resource impacts will result from implementing the modified project. Approval of the modified project does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts evaluated in the IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 or that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 15 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion Air quality issues are discussed in the 2016 IS/MND in Section C. The City primarily based its findings on an air quality technical study of the original proposed project. All impacts were found less than significant, during both construction and operation with mitigation measures identified primarily for construction activities and following standard South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and regulations. Since 2016 regional air quality has improved as SCAQMD has imple mented more stringent air quality management rules and regulations and additional requirements through the more current Air Quality Management Plans (2020). Other contributions to improvements have included reductions in fugitive dust emissions and equipment exhaust since 2016 and major improvements in vehicle exhaust, building energy consumption (current 2022 State Building and Energy codes), and the contribution of the renewable energy generation component of Southern California Edison’s energy generation portfolio (currently estimated to be about 39%). In general, overall emissions from construction and occupancy of the modified project are less than or comparable to those identified in the 2016 Initial Study and impacts remain less than significant. Also, note that the Initial Study Checklist Form for Air Quality has changed and now comprises four issues rather than five (see above form). The original (2016) and 202 2 air quality technical studies are provided in Appendix 2 of this document. a. Less Than Significant Impact – The original project was evaluated against two consistency requirements, i.e., potential for the project to increase the frequency or severity of violations and will be project meet the City’s General Plan land use designation and development requirements. The IS/MND concluded that the original project would meet these consistency requirements. The same consistency requirements were evaluated for the modified project and the new air quality technical study includes a similar evaluation of the modified project (see Section 6.4) and reached the same conclusion for this project. Under present conditions the proposed modified project has impacts that are comparable to the original project and impacts under this topic are less than significant. b&c. Less Than Significant Impact – Table C-1 of the 2016 IS/MND concluded that all construction emissions would be below significance thresholds. RK Engineering Group prepared an updated construction emission forecast for the modified project. Table 21 of this study shows emissions from the modified project to be generally lower when compared to the original project emission forecast, with both project construction emissions deemed less than significant. Table C -3 summarized the operational/occupancy emissions for the original project (2016). Table 23 in the 2023 air study Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 16 of 4 9 indicates all operational air emissions of the modified project will also be less than significant, with ozone precursors being slightly lower than the 2016 forecast in Table C -3. All operational impacts are forecast to be less than significant. Mitigation measures identified in the 2016 Initial Study must be implemented by the modified project. Several other issues (Toxics, CO Hotspots, Asbestos and Diesel Particulate Matter) were evaluated and concluded to be less than significant for both original and modified projects. d. Less Than Significant Impact – Table C-2 of the 2016 IS/MND provides the values for Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) from the original project construction activities. This evaluation concluded that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed LSTs. Table 22 relies on current LST evaluation methodology and thresholds, but the same conclusion is reached, i.e., construction LST thresholds will not be exceeded by the modified project under stricter thresholds than in 2016. Table C-4 provides the comparable values for LSTS from the original project operational/occupancy activities. This evaluation concluded that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed LSTs. Table 24 relies on current LST methodology and thresholds for operational emissions of the modified project, but the same conclusion is reached, i.e., operational LST thresholds will not be exceeded by the modified project under stricter thresholds than in 2016. Thus, for both the original and the modified projects potential impacts on sensitive receptors will be less than significant. As previously noted, several other issues (Toxics, CO Hotspots, Asbestos and Diesel Particulate Matter) were evaluated and concluded to be less than significant for both original and modified projects. The 2016 and 2023 air mission technical studies also evaluated the potential for odor impacts from the proposed multi-family apartment project and both concluded that no significant odors would be generated by the proposed original or modified projects. Thus, approval of new project entitlements for the modified project does not result in any new significant air quality impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts evaluated in the IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 17 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply 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 Wildlife 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 Wildlife 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? Discussion No technical study was required for the Project for biological resources in 2016. According to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Report for the Project site (APN 379-090-022) (Appendix 3), the Project site is not located in a criteria cell. A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exis t on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project site is not located within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas. The Project site is not within or adjacent to any Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) criteria or conservation areas. Based on a site survey in 2023, the project site has been maintained in its disturbed, graded condition to the present. No natural habitat exists on the project site, and it remains surrounded by urban uses. a. Less Than Significant Impact – Currently, the project site does not contain any natural habitat and limited weedy (ruderal) vegetation. As in 2016, the proposed project will be required to pay the current applicable MSHCP Mitigation Fee. This is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. With payment of this fee, any impacts on special status species are considered less than significant. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 18 of 4 9 b. No Impact – In 2023 the project site remains free of riparian or other sensitive natural habitat. No mitigation is required, other than payment of mandatory MSHCP fees. c. No Impact – In 2023 the project site remains free of any wetlands of any type. No mitigation is required, other than payment of mandatory MSHCP fees. d. Less Than Significant Impact – The project site remains surrounded by urban uses. Therefore, the project site has no potential to serve as an animal movement corridor, and based on the lack of overall vegetation, the potential for impacting nesting birds is considered less than signifi cant. No additional mitigation is required. e. No Impact – No trees are located on the project site. Thus, no conflicts with local policies or ordinances can occur. No mitigation is required. f. Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is located within the area covered by the MSHCP. As noted, the project site is not located in a criteria cell, and due to past disturbance does not contain any natural habitat of interest under this Plan. The only requirement of being wi thin the boundary of the Plan area is a requirement to pay the Mitigation Fee, which will be implemented by the City. Impact is less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required. Based on a careful review of the 2016 data and the lack of any native biological resources on the project site, there are no sensitive biological resources and development of the Lake Pointe Apartment Project would have no adverse impact to such resources. Thus, approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts evaluated in the IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 19 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion No technical study was required for the proposed Project for cultural resources in 2016. The City had informal consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Tribe) to discuss the Project, potential Project impacts, avoidance methods and potential mitigation. The Tribe indicated that their standard mitigation measures would be sufficient as part of this IS/MND. Since circumstances at the site have not changed substantially, the impacts are assumed to remain the same with implementation of six mitigation measures listed in the 2016 IS/MND. Note that paleontological resource issues have been transferred into the Geology Section of the Initial Study for 2023 and Tribal Cultural Resource issues are now found in its own section of Addendum and will be addressed in that section for this Addendum. a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – No historic resources were identified within the project site. To address the potential for accidental exposure of subsurface historical resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will be implemented. With implementation of this measure, potential historical resource impacts will be less than significant. b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Archeological are known to occur within the project area. To address the potential for accidental exposure of subsurface archaeological resources, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-6 will be implemented. With implementation of these measures, potential historical resource impacts will be less than significant. c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Based on historic use of the project site, human remains are not anticipated to be encountered within the project area. To address the potential for accidental exposure of human remains, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 will be implemented. With implementation of this measure, potential human remain impacts will be less than significant. Thus, the proposed modified project represents a comparable condition relative to the previous findings for cultural resource impacts when compared to the original project. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts evaluated in the IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 20 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply VI. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operations? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion The topic of Energy was not included in the 2016 IS/MND. Regardless, the use of energy by the modified project will substantially reduce long-term energy use (operation) at the site relative to the original approved project if it had been constructed in 2016 and 2017. This is based on the reduced energy consumption of the current building code (2020, about a 7% reduction relative to the previous code) and demand for less fuel by the 2023 vehicle fleet in southern California relative to 2016. Further, Sout hern California Edison (SCE) is now achieved approximately 39% of its electricity from alternative energy resources (solar, wind, and hydro). Thus, the proposed modified project will consume less overall energy during future occupancy than the approved project had it been constructed in 2016-2017. a. Less Than Significant Impact – Based on the rationale provided under the Discussion, approval of the proposed project does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the energy impacts evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequ ent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. b. Less Than Significant Impact – Approval of the proposed project does not result in any conflict with or obstruction of state or local energy plans or policies because the City will require the project to implemented in conformance with the new building codes. Therefore, the modified pro ject can be implemented with no new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the energy impacts evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 21 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply 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 onsite or offsite land- slide, 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? Discussion A site geology study was utilized by the 2016 IS/MND to substantiate the findings for the proposed project. Since the geology of a site does not change over short time periods, this study is relied upon for the following evaluation. The study is titled: “Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi- Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive , Lake Elsinore, California” prepared by Southern California Geotechnical dated December 8, 2005. a. (i) Ground Rupture Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The project site remains outside of any known fault zone, although it is close (about one-quarter mile from the Elsinore Fault Zone). Mitigation was required, GEO-1, and combined with standard code provisions the 2016 IS/MND concluded that with implementation of the Geotechnical study design requirements, implementation of the proposed Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 22 of 4 9 project would be possible without causing a significant adverse impact. This finding remains valid for the modified project in 2023. No additional mitigation is required. (ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The modified project will be exposed to the same level of ground shaking, and in order to avoid significant impact, the modified project must implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Implementation of the modified project with GEO -1 and standard code provisions will be sufficient to control potential ground shaking impacts to a less than significant level. (iii) Seismic-related Ground Failure Including Liquefaction Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The modified project will be exposed to the same level of liquefaction hazard as the approved project. In order to avoid significant impact, the modified project must implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Implementation of the modified project with GEO-1 and standard code provisions will be sufficient to control potential ground shaking impacts to a less than significant level. (iv) Landslides No Impact – The project site and the surrounding developed site topography do not have any elevated areas that could contribute to a landslide. Therefore, implementation of the modified project will not increase exposure to this type of hazard and no adverse landslide impact will result under this issue. This is consistent with the finding in the 2016 IS/MND. b. Less Than Significant Impact – The 2016 analysis concluded that City requirement to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be sufficient to control potential erosion on this essentially flat project sit e. The same circumstances apply to the modified project. Impacts under this issue will remain less than significant with implementation of a project and site specific SWPPP during construction and WQMP for the long-term. c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The modified project will be exposed to the same level of liquefaction instability as the approved project. Otherwise, the project site is not exposed to other ground instability issues. In order to avoid significant impact, the modified project must implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Implementation of the modified project with GEO-1 and standard code provisions will be sufficient to control potential ground shaking impacts to a less than significant level. d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The modified project will not be exposed to expansive soil as was the case with the 2016 approved project. Regardless, the City determined that in order to avoid significant impact, the 2016 project must implement Mitigation Measure GEO -1. Implementation of the modified project with GEO-1 and standard code provisions will be sufficient to control potential ground shaking impacts to a less than significant level. e. No Impact – The 2023 modified project will also connect to the local sewer collection system. Therefore, implementation of the modified project will not be impacted by the soil suitability for onsite subsurface wastewater disposal systems. This is consistent with the finding in the 2016 IS/MND. f. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – According to Figure 3.2-3, City of Lake Elsinore Paleontological Resources, of the General Plan EIR, the project site has a “Low” potential for paleontological resources. However, since these resources are located below the surface, any excavation or other ground-disturbing activities will require paleontological monitoring to ensure that no important, nonrenewable vertebrate fossils are adversely affected. Based on these findings, all earthmoving operations shall be monitored for paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-7 Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 23 of 4 9 has been included, requiring the development and implementation of a paleontological resource impact mitigation program, prior to any ground disturbing activity. The modified project will be subject to similar paleontological issues and will also be required to implement measure CUL-7 to ensure a less than significant impact finding. Based on the preceding findings, the proposed revised project will not contribute to new or greater geology or soil impacts to human beings. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of direct or indirect geology and soil impacts to humans evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 1 5164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 24 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply 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? Discussion a. Less Than Significant Impact – Table C-5 of the 2016 IS/MND concluded that GHG would be below significance thresholds (3,000 MTC02e) at 1,501.9-2,048.35 MTCO2e. RK Engineering Group prepared an updated GHG emission forecast for the modified project. Table 26 of this study shows emissions from the modified project to be in the middle of the 2016 estimates, but still well below the SCAQMD threshold at 1,741.88 MTCO2e. Thus, long-term GHG operational impacts are forecast to be less than significant. b. Less Than Significant Impact – The City of Lake Elsinore adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to ensure that the City meets the State policies (AB32 and Executive Order S-3-05) for reducing GHG emissions. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the proposed project would meet the City’s GHG emission reduction standard. The 2023 GHG study (page 7-3, Appendix 2) also concluded that the City’s GHG emission reductions will meet the City’s standards. Thus, impacts under this topic are less than significant. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the GHG impacts evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparatio n of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 25 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply 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 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? Discussion A site study of potential hazards was utilized in the 2016 IS/MND to substantiate these findings for the proposed project. Since the historic use conditions at the project has not changed since the original approval, the following study is relied upon for the following current evaluation. The study is titled: “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development Riverside Drive southwest of Eisenhower Drive, Lake Elsinore, California” prepared by Southern California Geotechnical dated December 8, 2006. a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The primary concern with the proposed project in 2016 was that its implementation would result in accidental spills that could harm humans or the environment. Mitigation measure HAZ-1 was imposed on the project to address this potential adverse impact. The proposed project does not include any different issues and will be required to implement measure HAZ-1. b. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project was determined to create a less than significant impact due to upset or accident primarily because the occupied site will be residences and any use of hazardous materials generally be of household hazardous material size and quantity. The modified Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 26 of 4 9 project has the same uses at the same general level of occupation. Therefore, with compliance with mitigation measure HAZ-1, the potential impacts under this issue are less than significant for the 2023 modified project. c. Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is located adjacent to Lakeside High School. However, this residential project does not include the emission of any acutely toxic materials and will emit minimal hazardous emissions during construction and future occupancy. Potential imp act is forecast to be less than significant. d. Less Than Significant Impact – Over the past 7 years (2016-2023), no activities have occurred that would have caused significant contamination at the project site. Therefore, the findings in the 2016 IS/MND are still valid. There are no contaminated locations on the project site, and therefore, the finding of less than significant impact is consistent with the original project finding. No mitigation is required. e. Less Than Significant Impact – According to Figure 2.7, City of Lake Elsinore Airport Influence Areas, of the General Plan, the Project sites are not located in proximity to a private airstrip. The closest airport is a public airport, Skylark Field, located at the south end of Lake Elsi nore, approximately five miles south southeast of the Project sites. The Project sites are not located an airport land use plan. Based on this information, neither the original project nor the modified project, have a potential to contribute to a potential significant conflict with an airport. f. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project will be implemented within the project site, and not will not include major activities within Riverside Avenue. Those minor incursions into Riverside will be controlled by a traffic management plan that is mandatory by the City and Ca ltrans. The modified project will have the same impacts as the original approved project (2016) and no mitigation is required. g. No Impact – The project site is located in a moderate fire wildfire hazard area because it is located within the developed portion of the Lake Elsinore urban area. The proposed project continues to be located in a moderate wildfire hazard area and its implementation will not change the background wildfire threat. No impact on wildfire hazards is forecast from implementing the modified project. Thus, approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of wildfire impacts to humans evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 27 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such 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 onsite or offsite? (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite 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? Discussion The project site is located within an urban watershed. Due to surrounding land uses, the project site does not receive substantial runoff from upstream of the project site. This is characterized in the technical study prepared for the 2016 project site: “Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Lakepointe Apartments” prepared by M:L Engineering dated January 12, 2016. Due to the revisions in the site plan, a new WQMP has been prepared for the project site. There is no stream channel on the property and runoff appears to leave the site as sheet flow. Runoff leaves the site after being collected in the detention basin and bio-swales. The developed site runoff is less than the existing runoff undeveloped. a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Waste discharge requirement are usually issue for point source discharges from industrial or commercial operations. The proposed project is a residential apartment complex that will not generate any point source discharges. The second type of activity that can result in degradation of water quality is management of domestic wastewater, i.e., sewage. The proposed projects sewage will be collected in the adjacent sewer system and delivered to the regional wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the City. This WWTP operates in compliance with it waste discharge requirements without major water quality violations. Finally, water quality can Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 28 of 4 9 be degraded by increases in storm water runoff and inclusion of pollutants in this runoff. The project will implement a project specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which is required by law and by mitigation measure HYD-1. A detailed discussion of these issues is provided in the 2016 IS/MND. The modified project will comply with all water quality management requirements, including HYD-1, through connection to the sewer collection system and implementation of a new onsite WQMP. b. No Impact – The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the original project would not grade deep enough to intercept the groundwater table beneath the project site (est. 18 feet below ground surface) and it would not install any wells that would directly intercept the groundwater table. The proposed modified project will also not interact directly with the groundwater table and thus, will have the same no impact finding as the original project. c. Less Than Significant Impact – The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the original project would modify onsite drainage, but that through implementation of the WQMP the surface runoff be directed to the same discharge location and the volume will of discharge will not be increased. Thus, a fi nding of less than significant impact was identified. The modified project will also change the onsite drainage in a slightly different manner due to the different locations for buildings and parking, but a new WQMP has been prepared that will mimic the previous stormwater management onsite. The proposed modified project will direct runoff through a similarly placed bioretention basin on the property and the volume of discharge will from the site not be increased. Therefore, a finding of less than significant impact for this issue remains for this site. c. i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? Less Than Significant Impact – Please reference the discussion in c) above. The proposed modified project will not increase the discharge stormwater from the project site in a manner that will result in offsite flooding downstream. Thus, the modified project will have a level of impact similar to the approved 2016 project on downstream flooding. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The original project was required to implement a WQMP that would not discharge runoff that would exceed the existing local flood control system and/or increase pollution in the runoff. A WQMP was submitted to the City under mitigation measure HYD-1 to achieve the stormwater volume and quality management goals. The proposed modified project includes an updated WQMP that will meet the HYD-1 design requirements. Therefore, the proposed modified project will result in impacts to that are comparable to the original 2016 project. 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 With Mitigation Incorporated – The original project was required to implement a WQMP that would not discharge runoff that would increase pollution in the runoff. A WQMP was submitted to the City under mitigation measure HYD-1 to achieve the stormwater quality management goals. The proposed modified project includes an updated WQMP that will meet the HYD -1 design requirements. Therefore, the proposed modified project will result in impacts that are comparable to the original 2016 project. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact – The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the original project was not exposed to the 100 -year flood hazard area. The proposed modified project will also not be located in a 100-year flood hazard area thus, will have the same no impact finding as the original project. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 29 of 4 9 d. No Impact – The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the project site would not be subject extreme flood hazards due to its location on the western edge of Lake Elsinore and above any seiche elevation associated with the Lake. The modified project occupies the same location an d will not alter the conclusion of the 2016 IS/MND. e. Less Than Significant Impact – This final question in the new checklist was not directly a part of the Checklist Form in 2016. Other questions raised concerns over water quality (issue X.a) and groundwater management sustainability (issue X.b), but the potential to conflict with a wate r quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan has not been directly addressed. However, the implementation of the WQMP will ensure that the modified project will not conflict with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Boards water quality control plan. Similarly, previous approval of the water supply to the project site by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (District) indicates that it has sufficient water resources to meet the water d emand for this project without conflict with the local sustainable groundwater management plan. No mitigation is required. Site conditions have not changed since 2016. Thus, the proposed modified project will not cause or contribute to site specific or cumulative hydrology or water quality impacts at this location. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the hydrology/water quality impacts evaluated in the IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 30 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Discussion The Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form for 2023 removed the question regarding conflict with any habitat conservation plan and transferred this question to the Biology Section. The other two questions regarding land use address physical divisions and conflict with the City’s General Plan land use designation and policies. a. No Impact – The original project was considered an infill project that would fit the scale of development in the project neighborhood. The proposed modified project is essentially the same as the original project and it will also conform to the City’s development vision for the project site. Thus, the modified project has no potential to physically divide the established community. b. No Impact – The project site was and is designated for multi-family residential uses and both the original and modified project are consistent with this proposed land use designation. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that no impact were anticipated, and no land use mitigation measures were or are required for the development of the site for multi-family residential uses. No potential for any significant impact will result from implementing the modified project. Thus, the land use and planning impacts from the modified project will be comparable and also result in a less than significant land use and planning impact. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the land use and planning impacts evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 31 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply 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? Discussion The project site is not identified as containing any mineral resources and it is not designated for such use. a. No Impact – The 2016 IS/MND determined the project site is identified as MRZ -3, and concluded the original project would not conflict with availability of any known resource of value to residents of the region or state. This same finding applies to the modified project as no new information indicates the site contains important mineral resources. Thus, implementation of the modified project will not have any adverse impact on mineral resources. b. No Impact – The 2016 IS/MND determined the project site is identified as MRZ -3, and concluded the original project would not conflict with availability of any known resource of value to residents of the region or state. This same finding applies to the modified project as no new information indicates the site contains important mineral resources. Thus, implementation of the modified project will not have any adverse impact on the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the City’s General Plan or any other land use plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed modified development plan for the property and this finding remains the same at present. The proposed modified project has no potential to cause any adverse impact to mineral resource values. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 32 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of a project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or 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? Discussion Between 2016 and 2023 the number of issues to be addressed in Checklist was consolidated from six topics into 3 topics. To substantiate the noise findings in the 2016 IS/MND, a noise study was compiled. This study was titled: “Noise Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore” prepared by Vista Environmental dated November 25, 2015. With implementation of mitigation measures, the study concluded potential noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of two mitigation measures. The 2023 applicant had a new noise study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. This report is titled “Lake Pointe Apartments Noise Impact Study City of Lake Elsinore, California” dated November 8, 2022. With implementation of mitigation measures and project design features, the study concluded potential noise impacts result in a less than significant impact. a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The original and modified noise studies identified the same sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the project site: Lakeside High School; RV campsites across Riverside Avenue; and single-family residences located to the north-northwest. Relying on the City’s Municipal Code significance thresholds, the 2016 noise forecast concluded that one mitigation measure (NOI-1) should be implemented to reduce construction noise levels to a less than significant impact. Similarly, a second noise mitigation measure (design features) was required to prevent the multi-family units adjacent to Riverside Avenue from exposure too significant traffic noise levels. With implementation of these measures, both const ruction and occupancy noise impacts were forecast to be less than significant. The new noise study prepared by RK Engineering reached the same conclusion but instead of two measures, the 2022 noise study identified a total of 10 measures and design features to reach same noise finding of a less than significant impact for both construction and occupancy. Because new mitigation measures cannot be implemented through an Addendum, the applicant proposes to implement the identified measures and features as part of the proposed project, i.e., project construction and building occupancy. Thus, the net effect of the new modified project will be to achieve the same or better reductions in construction and occupancy noise when compared to the 2016 original project. b. Less Than Significant Impact – Both the 2016 and 2022 noise studies concluded that vibration impacts would fall well below the City’s vibration significance threshold without mitigation. This is primarily due to the distance between the proposed project and the nearest sensitive recept ors. No mitigation was required. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 33 of 4 9 c. No Impact – Both the 2016 and 2022 noise studies concluded that the project site is not subject to significant noise activity from a public or private airport. This is primarily due to the distance between the proposed project and the nearest public and private airports. Thus, from a noise perspective the proposed modified project site will have a comparable noise impact relative to the originally approved project. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of noise impacts evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 34 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial 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? Discussion The 2023 Checklist Form consolidates the questions the 2016 Form into two questions instead of three. Regardless, the same topics are addressed for the modified project which includes an increase in the total number of units from 150 (2016) to 152 (2023), a minor increase in the density of units on the 8.27 -acre site from 18.14 du/a to 18.37 du/a. a. Less Than Significant Impact – The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the proposed project was consistent with the land use designation and the zoning classification and no significant adverse impact, such as unplanned population growth, would occur from implementing the 150-units multi-family residential apartment complex. For the 2023 modified project, the total number of units has been increased from 150 units to 152 units, a de minimis increase in the number of units. The modified project remains consistent with the City’s land use designations and will also not induce substantial unplanned growth within the City. b. No Impact – The project site remains vacant, and implementation of the proposed modified project will not cause displacement of any people or housing that could require construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of population or housing impacts evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require pr eparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 35 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govern - mental 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 facilities? Discussion Public Services to the project site will be served by existing service providers within the City of Lake Elsinore as a full-service city. It is rare when a specific project is large enough to create sufficient new demand to require new public service facilities to be constructed. As the City acknowledges in the 2016 IS/MND, Development Impact Fees (DIF) must be paid by the project developer to incrementally offset the cumulative demand from individual projects. The circumstances remain the same under the current environmental setting except the DIF may have been adjusted to reflect current costs for these services. a. Less Than Significant Impact – Fire protection and emergency response services are provided the Riverside County Fire Department from Station No. 85, which is located at 29405 Grand Avenue. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that through payment of DIF fees as a standard condition of approval, the original project’s incremental impacts to Fire/emergency response would be less than significant. These circumstances have not changed for the modified project and impacts will remain less than significant with no mitigation. b. Less Than Significant Impact – Police protection services are provided the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department from its station in Lake Elsinore. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that through payment of DIF fees as a standard condition of approval, the original project’s incremental impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. These circumstances have not changed for the modified project and impacts will remain less than significant with no mitigation. c. Less Than Significant Impact – The original project contained 150 units from which an undefined number of students will be generated. Thus, the original project was forecast to increase enrollment in schools operated by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (District). To offset p otential impacts to the school system, the Project will pay a mandatory fee established by the State Legislature, SB 50. This fee must be paid concurrent with building permit issuance. These circumstances have slightly changed for the modified project because it proposed 152 residential units. Regardless, the impacts will remain less than significant with no mitigation by payment of additional fees for the additional units. d. Less Than Significant Impact – Park services are provided by the City and when a project increases demand for park and recreation services, it is required to pay the applicable Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that through payment of this fee as a standard condition of approval, the original project’s incremental impacts to park services would be Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 36 of 4 9 less than significant. These circumstances have not changed for the modified project and impacts will remain less than significant with no mitigation. e. Less Than Significant Impact – Other public services are provided by the City (library, and other community support services) and when a project increases demand for such services. A project is required to pay the applicable fees. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that through payment of this fee as a standard condition of approval, the original project’s incremental impacts to other City public services would be less than significant. These circumstances have not changed for the modified project and impacts will remain less than significant with no mitigation. Therefore, the proposed modified project will result in a similar less than significant contribution to demand for public services and recreation facilities. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of public service and recreation facility impacts evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 37 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply 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? Discussion The recreation section of the IS/MND remains the same and no major changes in circumstances have occurred since the original evaluation, with the possible exception of the amount of the current Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees. a. Less Than Significant Impact – The original project included onsite recreational uses for future residents of the apartment complex. Park services are provided by the City and when a project increases demand for park and recreation services, it is required to pay the applicable Park Ca pital Improvement Fund Fees. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that through payment of this fee as a standard condition of approval, the original project’s incremental impacts to park services would be less than significant. The modified project also includes onsite recreation facilities for residents. Further, the circumstances described above regarding payment of Fund Fees have not changed for the modified project and with payment of these fees, the modified project’s impacts will remain less than significant with no mitigation. b. Less Than Significant Impact – The original project included onsite recreational uses for future residents of the apartment complex. The impact of installing these facilities is included in the overall analysis of the 2016 IS/MND and this Addendum. Similarly, any fees used to enhance City park and recreation facilities would require preparation and approval of a project specific CEQA environmental document at the time such improvements will be implemented. The modified project would also pay fees that could be used for improvements to City recreational facilities. Any fees used to enhance City park and recreation facilities would require preparation and approval of a project specific CEQA environmental document at the time such improvements will be im plemented. Thus, the circumstances described above regarding payment of Fund Fees for the modified project, the modified project’s impacts will remain less than significant with no mitigation. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of recreation impacts evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 38 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict 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 inter- sections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Discussion Between 2016 and 2023 the number of issues to be addressed in Checklist was consolidated from seven topics into four topics. To substantiate the traffic findings in the 2016 IS/MND, a traffic study was compiled. This study was titled: “Traffic Impact Analysis, Lakeshore Pointe, Lake Elsinore California” prepared by Infrastructure Group, Inc. dated October 22, 2015 (TIA). With implementation of mitigation measures, the study concluded potential traffic impacts would be less than significant with implementation of two mitigation measures. A new traffic study was prepared in July 2021 by RK Engineering Group, Inc., titled “Lakepointe Apartments Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis.” In 2021 the modified project contained 150 units and the trip generation remained the same as in 2015, i.e., 1,098 daily trips with 69 trips in the AM Peak Hour and 84 trips in the PM Peak Hour. The 2023 application had a new traffic study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. This report is titled “Lakepointe Apartments Project Focused Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, CA” dated November 9, 2022. This study indicated an additional estimated 15 trips per day, with no change in the findings. Thus, with implementation of mitigation measures and project design features, the study concluded potential traffic impacts result in a less than significant impact. In addition to the standard TIA that can be requested by a local jurisdiction, the State of California has mandated that traffic be evaluated using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to comply with State Law. VMT became a topic on the Checklist Form in 2020 and prior to this date is did not exist. T his is discussed in the text below. The VMT evaluation for the modified project was prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. in October 2022. The short report is titled: “Lakepointe Apartments Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, CA” All three traffic studies are provided in Appendix 5a-c of this Addendum. a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed modified project will generate about 1,013 daily trips and with implementation of mitigation measures TR-1 and TR-2 from the 2015 Traffic Study, the modified project with 152 multi-family residential units will have a comparable impact on the local circulation system. The area is already served by bus transit service with a bus stop within 300 feet of the project site. Based on this comparative evaluation of the local circulation system, the modified project will result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. b. Less Than Significant Impact – The current (2022) VMT analysis of the modified project provides a screening evaluation of the current 152-unit multi-family project. Based on the screening thresholds in Appendix 5a-c, the proposed project screens out of the necessity to prepare a detailed VMT evaluation because it is a multi-family development with fewer than 200 units. Based on this evaluation, the proposed modified project and the original project would have screen ed and determined to be a less than significant impact under this finding. c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The 2016 IS/MND identified the project frontage on Riverside Drive as a potential concern for hazardous interactions of concern. To address the Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 39 of 4 9 issue of residents accessing this roadway from the property, mitigation measure TR -2 requires that the design of access from the property to Riverside Drive be coordinated with both the City and Caltrans to ensure no significant hazards are created. The modified project would be required to implement the same measure to reduce potential hazards to a less than significant impact level. d. No Impact – The 2016 IS/MND evaluated the project design of the original project and concluded that it would have no adverse impact on emergency access at the site or at other locations. The modified project includes a different access design, but it will improve ove rall access to the project site and adjacent areas. Therefore, the current project design will not degrade or create an inadequate emergency access. No mitigation is required. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of traffic and circulation impacts evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 40 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause a substantial change in the significance of tribal cultural resources, 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 the 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), or 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 sub- division (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. Discussion A Tribal Resources is defined in the Public Resources Code section 21074 and includes the following: • Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are either of the following: included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; • 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 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purpose of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California American tribe; • A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape; and/or • A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “non-unique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a). The issue of Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) was added to the Checklist Form in 2015. In the 2016 IS/MND the City evaluated this issue under the Cultural Resources heading, not a separate topic. In the 2023 Checklist Form TCR issues are discussed under the preceding evaluation sections. a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – In the 2016 IS/MND the City conducted informal consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Based on this consultation mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-6 will be implemented to ensure that no Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) are harmed during ground disturbing activities. The modified project is obligated to implement Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 41 of 4 9 these measures which ensures that all TCR are handled properly if accidentally unearthed during ground disturbing activities. With implementation of these measures, potential TCR resources will be managed in a manner to protect their value to the Tribe. b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Based on the City and applicant’s commitment to implement these six measures for the modified project, the significance of any exposed subsurface resources will be treated with dignity and respect. No additional mitigation is required in 2023. Approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of tribal cultural resource impacts (not evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND) that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 42 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply 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 stormwater 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 treat- ment 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? Discussion As has occurred in other sections of the 2023 Initial Study, the topics under this issue have been consolidated from seven questions in 2016 to the above five questions in to 2023. Although there are fewer questions, all of the topics are covered. a. Less Than Significant Impact – According to the analysis in the 2016 IS/MND, adequate capacity to serve the site exists in all of the utility systems either in the adjacent roadway (Riverside Drive) or in close proximity to the project site. No new major system upgrades or expansion w ill be required for these systems. Water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas and communication systems already exist with sufficient capacity to serve the project site. This is still the appropriate finding for the slig htly larger modified project. Accessing the adjacent utility systems will not result in a significant impact to the environment from connecting them to the proposed modified project site. b. Less Than Significant Impact – According to the analysis in the 2016 IS/MND, the EVMWD indicated it adequate water capacity to serve the site based on its input to the planning process to date. No new major system upgrades or expansion will be required for the system to serve the proj ect site. This is still the appropriate finding for the slightly larger modified project. Accessing the adjacent water utility system will not result in a significant impact to the environment from connecting them to the proposed modified project site. c. Less Than Significant Impact – According to the analysis in the 2016 IS/MND, the EVMWD indicated it adequate wastewater collection and treatment capacity to serve the site based on its input to the planning process to date. No new major system upgrades or expansion will be required fo r the wastewater systems. This is still the appropriate finding for the slightly larger modified project. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 43 of 4 9 Accessing the adjacent wastewater utility system will not result in a significant impact to the environment from providing wastewater services to the proposed modified project site. d. Less Than Significant Impact – According to the analysis in the 2016 IS/MND, a detailed analysis of City-wide solid waste generation indicates that the future volume of waste and the capacity of the regional disposal sites used by the City (primarily Lambs Canyon and El Sobrante, will be adequate for future development within the City. These two landfills are still operational and still have substantial disposal capacity. In the interim, substantial new emphasis is now being placed on composing organic waste to further reduce waste disposal volumes beyond the 50% now required. No new major system upgrades or expansion will be required for the solid waste disposal systems. This is still the appropriate finding for the slightly larger modified project. Accessing the solid waste collection system in the City will not result in a significant impact to the environment from providing solid waste management service to the proposed modified project site. e. Less Than Significant Impact – According to the analysis in the 2016 IS/MND, the City’s solid waste management system was already in compliance with the various referenced statutes. The proposed modified project will be integrated into the existing compliant system and will have a les s than significant potential for conflict with these laws and regulations in the future. Thus, approval of RDR 2022-15 does not result in any new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of utility and service impacts that would trigger subsequent environmental review under Sections 15162 and 15164 and that would require preparation of a subsequent document other than this Addendum. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 44 of 4 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply 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 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? Discussion In 2016 the Wildfire issue was not a separate issue within the Checklist Form. The issue was nominally addressed under the Hazards Section in the 2016 IS/MND. In 2020 Wildfire hazards were a major concern of California society, so this topic was added to the Checklist to expanded to further discuss this issue in more detail. According to the 2016 IS/MND the project site is located in a moderate fire wildfire hazard area because it is located within the developed portion of the Lake Elsinore urban area. The site is surrounded by urban uses, include a water body (Lake Elsinore) across Riverside Drive. The proposed project continues to be located in a moderate wildfire hazard area in 2023 and its imp lementation will not alter the background wildfire threat. No impact on wildfire hazards was forecast in the Hazards Section from implementing the original or modified project. a. No Impact – The proposed modified project will result in the same wildfire hazard impacts as forecast in the 2016IS/MND. It is an infill development with a moderate wildfire hazard at its location. The project will enhance emergency access to the project site compared to the present situation. No adverse impact under this issue from implementing the proposed modified project. b. No Impact – Since the project site is not located near any existing wildfire areas, no potential has been identified for the project site to be exposed to downwind pollutant concentrations or wildfire. This is due to the relatively flat topography of the alluvial fan on which it sits and the lack on any fuel vegetation load in the project area. c. No Impact – Since the project site is not located near any existing wildfire areas, no potential has been identified for the project to construct new roadways or other infrastructure that could exacerbate a potential for wildland fire or fire hazards. This is due to the relatively flat topography of the alluvial fan on which it sits and the lack on any fuel vegetation load in the project area. d. No Impact – Since the project site is not located near any existing wildfire areas, there is no potential for exposure to secondary wildfire hazards such as severe runoff, slope instability or landslides at the existing project site. This is due to the relatively flat topography of the alluvial fan on which it sits and the presence of urban development or a lake on all four sides of the project site. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 45 of 4 9 The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion The analysis in this Initial Study and the findings reached indicate that the proposed project can be implemented without causing any new project specific or cumulatively considerable unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation is required to control potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to a less than significant impact level. The following findings are based on the detailed comparative analysis of the 2015 approved project and proposed modified project for all environmental topics and the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the previous text and summarized following this section. a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The site biological resource impacts are comparable and because there are a minimum of sensitive biological resources on the project site, no biological resource mitigation measures are required to be implemented. The cultural resources evaluation indicates that the site does not contain any known historic al or archaeological resources, but to ensure that any sub-surface cultural resources exposed during construction are managed without significant impact, seven cultural resource mitigation measures were identified and will be implemented by the modified project. b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The environmental issues that have a potential to contribute to cumulative impacts include the following: aesthetics, agricultural/forestry resources, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use/planning, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities/service systems. Potential cumulative impacts were compared between the original approved and proposed modified projects and no cumulative ly considerable adverse impacts were identified for either project. Mitigation measures in the original Initial Study we re identified for the following environmental Issues: aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, noise, recreation, transportation, and utilities/service systems. To ensure that issues requiring mitigation are managed without significant Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 46 of 4 9 impact, the mitigation measures that were identified will be implemented by the modified project. With implementation of these mitigation measures, no new cumulatively considerable adverse impacts will be caused by implementing the proposed modified project. c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The environmental issues that have a potential to cause direct or indirect impact on humans include the following: air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and wildfire. Potential impacts on humans were compared between the original approved and proposed modified projects and no new significant cumulatively considerable adverse impacts were identified for either project. Mitigation measures in the original Initial Study were identified for the following environmental Issues: aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, noise, and. To ensure that issues requiring mitigation are managed without signifi- cant impact, the mitigation measures that were identified will be implemented by the modified project. With implementation of these mitigation measures, no new significant human adverse impacts will be caused by implementing the proposed modified project. __________ Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. Revised 2019 Authority: Public Resources Code sections 21083 and 21083.09 Reference: Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3/ 21084.2 and 21084.3 Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 47 of 4 9 4. CONCLUSION The information presented in the 2016 IS/MND for the RDR 2014-05 Project was used as a basis for the analysis in this Addendum, updated with current information from sources cited, referenced, and attached. Upon review of the 2016 IS/MND, the information and findings in this Addendum and all supporting evidence, this Addendum concludes that the potential adverse environmental impacts from implementing the proposed modified project, as described in Section 1.B of this document (RDR 2022-15), will not cause any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the environment than forecasted in the 2016 IS/MND as summarized in this Addendum and provided in Appendix 1. The proposed RDR 2022-15 project will be required to comply with the adopted 2016 IS/MND mitigation measures and conditions of approval as applicable for construction and operation of the multi-family project. A copy of all mitigation measures is provided for review in Appendix 1 of this document. There are no new or substantially more severe environmental impacts that result from the proposed revised project modifications, based on continuing to implement the commitments in the 2016 IS/MND. For most issues the impacts from the RDR 2022-15 project will be comparable or slightly greater than would occur if the approved project was implemented, because the revised project is slightly denser with 2 more residential units than the Original Project. In no instance will any new significant impact result from modified project implementation. This Addendum provides the City of Lake Elsinore with new and updated information substantiating the conclusion that the proposed revised project modifications will not cause substantial new or more significant physical changes to the environment that would require preparation and processing of a new negative declaration or a new environmental impact report. Such documentation would only be required due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, new mitigation measures being available or required, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects from implementing the original project (Section 15162, State CEQA Guidelines). The facts and findings cited above and provided in this Addendum allow the City to use an Addendum in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines for considering approval of the RDR 2022-15 project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15164, the IS/MND adopted in 2016, as updated with this Addendum, can be relied upon for documentation of the effects of approving the RDR 2022-15 project. Because the changes in this project do not exceed the thresholds outlined in Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no further analysis of the environmental impacts of the project is required in a Supplemental/Subsequent EIR or a new MND. The proposed revised project does not substantially alter the conclusions contained in the IS/MND as adopted by the City in 2016. The analysis presented above of the changes to the approved RDR 2015-05 project provides substantial evidence in support of the City’s adoption of Addendum No. 1 to the City’s original 2014 IS/MND. This Addendum No. 1 to the 2016 IS/MND for the proposed RDR 2022-15 project includes the changes or additions necessary to make the adopted environmental document adequate under CEQA for the proposed project modifications and new entitlement. This Addendum incorporates the adopted 2016 IS/MND, this document, and all staff reports, and information submitted to the decision-makers regarding environmental issues affected by the proposed revised project. This Addendum is intended to provide additional information for decision makers and others, as appropriate, to review with an objective assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project as defined in the RDR 2022-15 project. Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 48 of 4 9 5. REVIEW AUTHORITY The City of Lake Elsinore serves as the CEQA lead agency for this project. It is recommended that an Addendum be adopted as the appropriate CEQA environmental determination for the proposed project modifications, which are outlined in the RDR 2022-15 application to allow installation of a 152-unit multi-family apartment project on an 8.27-acre property in the City of Lake Elsinore, the supporting application, and the supporting findings and conditions of approval. All documents supporting the Addendum, as well as the prior environmental documents, are located at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division at 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. 6. CERTIFICATION Signature Date Project Planner For: Community Development Director Printed Name Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM Page 49 of 4 9 7. REFERENCES Infrastructure Group, Inc. “Traffic Impact Analysis, Lakeshore Pointe, Lake Elsinore California” dated October 22, 2015 Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc., “Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lakepointe Apartments, RDR 2014-05, MND 2016-01” dated July 2016 M:L Engineering, “Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Lakepointe Apartments” dated January 12, 2016 RK Engineering Group, Inc., Lake Pointe Apartments Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, City of Lake Elsinore, California” dated November 8, 2022 RK Engineering Group, Inc., “Lake Pointe Apartments Noise Impact Study, City of Lake Elsinore, California” dated November 8, 2022 RK Engineering Group, Inc., “Lakepointe Apartments Project Focused Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, CA” dated November 9, 2022 RK Engineering Group, Inc., “Lakepointe Apartments Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, CA” dated October 24, 2022 Southern California Geotechnical, “Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive, Lake Elsinore, California” dated December 8, 2005 Southern California Geotechnical, “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Multi- Family Residential Development Riverside Drive southwest of Eisenhower Drive, Lake Elsinore, California” dated December 8, 2006 Vista Environmental, “Noise Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore” dated November 25, 2015 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Report for the Project site (APN 379-090-022) Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM FIGURES FIGURE 1 Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants Aerial Map (Site Location) FIGURE 2 Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants Site Location FIGURE 3 Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants Schematic Site Plan Addendum No. 1 to the Lake Pointe Apartment RDR 2022-15 Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM APPENDIX 1 SINITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND 2016-01) Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 951.674.3124 Ext. 284 Point of Contact: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner Jkirk@lake-elsinore.org Prepared By: Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera Temecula, CA 92591 951.265.5428 Point of Contact: Matthew Fagan, Owner matthewfagan@roadrunner.com Applicant: Lakeside Pointe, LLC 43414 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 951.551.5433 Point of Contact: Steve Rawlings ser@rawlingspm.com July 2016 Lakepointe Apartments Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 A. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS ........................................................ 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 G. TECHNICAL STUDIES ................................................................................................................................................... 5 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 6 A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ..................................................................................................................... 6 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................................. 6 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................................................. 10 A. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................................ 11 C. DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 12 A. AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................................................... 20 B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................... 22 C. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................................................. 23 TABLE C-1 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ............................................................ 25 TABLE C-2 LOCAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS AT THE NEAREST RECEPTORS ........... 26 TABLE C-3 OPERATIONAL REGIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ..................................................... 27 TABLE C-4 LOCAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS AT THE NEAREST RECEPTORS ............. 28 TABLE C-5 PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS ANNUAL EMISSIONS .............................................................. 31 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................ 33 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................ 36 F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................................... 39 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................................................... 42 H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................ 45 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................................................... 49 J. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................... 50 K. NOISE ................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 TABLE K-1 WORST-CASE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS ......................................... 52 TABLE K-2 PROPOSED EXTERIOR PATIO/BALCONY NOISE LEVELS PRIOR TO MITIGATION ........................... 53 TABLE K-3 PROPOSED MITIGATED EXTERIOR PATIO/BALCONY NOISE LEVELS................................................ 53 TABLE K-4 EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION RATES. ........................................................................... 54 TABLE K-5 PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE CONTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................... 56 L. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................................ 58 M. PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................... 59 N. RECREATION .................................................................................................................................................................. 61 O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................................. 62 FIGURE O-1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................................................... 63 TABLE O-1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 64 FIGURE O-2 OPENING YEAR (2017) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................ 65 TABLE O-2 OPENING YEAR PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ........................................................... 66 FIGURE O-3 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................................................ 67 TABLE O-3 CUMULATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 68 P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................... 71 Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................. 74 V. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED .................................................................. 75 A. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ......................................................................................................................................... 75 Lakepointe Apartments B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS ..................................................................................................................... 75 C. OTHER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ................................................................................................................ 75 ATTACHMENT A - FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 77 FIGURES – ATTACHMENT A FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 SITE PLAN FIGURE 3A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3B RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 ELEVATIONS FIGURE 4 PRELIMINARY WQMP SITE PLAN FIGURE 5 GENERAL PLAN MAP FIGURE 6 ZONING MAP FIGURE 7 AERIAL PHOTO FIGURE 8 GEOTRACKER SITE FIGURE 9 ENVIROSTOR SITE FIGURE 10 FARMLAND FIGURE 11 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES/WILLIAMSON ACT FIGURE 12 FAULT ZONE TECHNICAL APPENDICES (Located in the CD in a pocket at the back of this IS/MND) • Appendix A: Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 19, 2015. • Appendix B: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Report, accessed on June 13, 2016. • Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive. Lake Elsinore. California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, December 8, 2005. • Appendix D: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development Riverside Drive, southwest of Eisenhower Drive Lake Elsinore, California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, January 3, 2006. • Appendix E: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Lakepointe Apartments, prepared by MLB Engineering, January 12, 2016. • Appendix F: Noise Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 25, 2015. • Appendix G: Traffic Impact Analysis, Lakeshore Pointe, Lake Elsinore California, prepared by Infrastructure Group, Inc., October 22, 2015. • Appendix H: Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Pre-Planning Letter No. CRS# 1767, May 15, 2014. • Appendix I: Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt. • Appendix J: Notice of Completion. • Appendix K: IS/MND Distribution List. Lakepointe Apartments 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE. This document is an Initial Study and Mitigation Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of a 150-unit multi-family development, on an approximate 8.27-acre site, located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, and known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 379-090-022 (“Project”). Reference Figure 1, Vicinity Map. One (1) application has been submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore in association with the Project: • Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05). B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS. As defined by Section 15063, Initial Study, of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (State 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 (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project. According to Section 15065(a), Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur: • The project has the potential to: substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. • The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals. • The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. • The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. According to Section 15070(a), Decision to Prepare a Negative of Mitigated Negative Declaration, of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. According to Section 15070(b), Decision to Prepare a Negative of Mitigated Negative Declaration, of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if identifies potentially significant effects, but: • Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and Lakepointe Apartments 2 • There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. This IS/MND has determined that the Project will result in potentially significant environmental impacts; however, mitigation measures are proposed that will reduce any potentially significant impact to less than significance levels. As such, a MND is deemed as the appropriate document to provide necessary environmental evaluations and clearance. This IS/MND has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.); Section 15070 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, 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 an agency with jurisdiction by law. The City of Lake Elsinore City Council is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050, Lead Agency Concept, of the State 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 IS/MND is an informational document which is intended to inform City of Lake Elsinore decision makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the 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 public agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals. The Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the MND 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 applications. D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. This IS/MND is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed applications. 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 Project, a description of discretionary approvals and permits required for Project implementation is also included. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City's Environmental Checklist Form. The checklist form presents the results of the environmental evaluation for the Project and those issue areas that would have either a significant impact, potentially significant impact, or no impact. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS evaluates each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed and supported with sufficient data and Lakepointe Apartments 3 analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with Project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures are also recommended, as appropriate, to reduce adverse impacts to levels of less than significance. This Section also includes the Mandatory Findings of Significance, in accordance with Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the State CEQA Guidelines. V. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those persons consulted and involved in preparation of this IS/MND. 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: • No Impact: A “No Impact” response is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply as a result of implementation of the Project. • 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. • 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. • 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. This environmental document evaluates impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project during the construction and operational phases. Regarding mitigation measures, it is not the intent of this document to “overlap” or restate conditions of approval or standard Project design features that are established for the Project. Additionally, those other standard requirements and regulations that any development must comply with, that are outside the City’s jurisdiction, are also not considered mitigation measures and therefore, may or may not be identified in this document. Lakepointe Apartments 4 F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES. Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on incorporation by reference of tiered documentation, and technical studies that have been prepared for the Project, which are discussed in the following section. a) Tiered Documents. As permitted in Section 15152(a), Tiering, of the State 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 “City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final EIR” (adopted in 2011) 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 (City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final EIR) cannot adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This IS/MND evaluates each of those specific environmental issue area sand will rely upon analysis contained within the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final EIR (General Plan EIR) with respect to remaining issue areas. Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b), Tiering, of the State 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), Tiering, of the State 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.” 2. 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 Lakepointe Apartments 5 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 General Plan EIR, prepared in 2011. When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must comply with Section 15150, Incorporation By Reference, of the State CEQA Guidelines as follows: • The incorporated document must be available to the public or be a matter of public record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]), Incorporation By Reference. 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. • This document must be available for inspection by the public at an office of the lead agency (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b]), Incorporation By Reference. This document is available at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. • This document must summarize the portion of the document being incorporated by reference or briefly describe information that cannot be summarized. Furthermore, this document must describe the relationship between the incorporated information and the analysis in the General Plan EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]), Incorporation By Reference. 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 will be cited in the appropriate sections. • This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]), Incorporation By Reference. The State Clearinghouse Number for the General Plan EIR is 2005121019. • The material to be incorporated in this document will include general background information (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[f]), Incorporation By Reference. G. TECHNICAL STUDIES. The following technical studies were prepared for the Project and are available on the CD located in a pocket at the back of this IS/MND: • Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 19, 2015. • Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive. Lake Elsinore. California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, December 8, 2005. • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development Riverside Drive, southwest of Eisenhower Drive Lake Elsinore, California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, January 3, 2006. • Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Lakepointe Apartments, prepared by MLB Engineering, January 12, 2016. • Noise Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 25, 2015. • Traffic Impact Analysis, Lakeshore Pointe, Lake Elsinore California, prepared by Infrastructure Group, Inc., October 22, 2015. Lakepointe Apartments 6 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING. The Project site is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, adjacent to Lakeside High School. Refer to Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The site is contained within portions of Sections 11, 2, and 3, Township 6 South and Range 5 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map, 7.5 Minute Series, Alberhill, California Quadrangle and known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 379-090- 022. The proposed Project site totals approximately 8.27 acres. The proposed Project site is located west of Riverside Drive and north of Grand Avenue and Lakeside High School. It is bordered on the west by vacant land, and on the north by a small commercial center. There is a single-family development west of the vacant land and north of the commercial center. The proposed Project site has elevations ranging from about 1,268 - 1,284 feet above mean sea level (MSL). An unimproved dirt road trending roughly northwest/southeast traverses the Project site from Riverside Drive to the northwesterly adjacent residential neighborhood. A small walnut grove is present in the north corner of the Project site. The ground surface cover consists of exposed soil with moderate native grass and weed growth over the majority of the Project site and exposed soil with sparse native grass and weed growth in the walnut grove area. There are no water resources on the proposed Project site; however, it is approximately 0.26 miles west of Lake Elsinore, across Riverside Drive. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Introduction Lakeside Pointe, LLC (Project proponent) is proposing to implement a 150-unit multi-family Project with associated recreational amenities – tot lot, swimming pool, and clubhouse on an approximate 8.27-acre site, located within the City of Lake Elsinore, western Riverside County, California. Residential Design Review 2014-05 allows for 150 multi-family units, associated landscaping, parking, as well as recreational uses on the entire approximately 8.27-acre proposed Project site, for an overall Project density of approximately 18.14 dwelling units per acre. A more detailed Project description is provided in the following text. 2. Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05) The City of Lake Elsinore has deemed a quality physical environment as being necessary for the protection of the public’s health, safety and welfare and has therefore enacted Chapter 17.184, Design Review, of the City’s Municipal Code in order to establish a design review process for development proposals and design concepts in order to ensure that new development, or the alteration of existing development, occurs in a manner which enhances the character and quality of surrounding properties and that the scale, special relationships and architectural treatment of structures including materials, colors, and design, visually contribute to the area and environment in which they are located. The design review process is also intended to apply to the ancillary elements of projects such as signs and landscaping in order to ensure that the overall development maintains the same integrity of design as approved for the primary structure(s). 3. Overall Description A total of 150 units are proposed within ten (10) individual buildings. The proposed Project will be a gated complex. Access to the proposed Project will be via the proposed street on the north side of the Project site, which will be a cul-de-sac. A secondary, gated emergency access will be provided on the west side of the Project Lakepointe Apartments 7 site, exiting onto Riverside Drive. A drive lane is proposed in the middle of the proposed Project and the units will encircle the central parking areas. All structures will be internal to the proposed Project site. There will be ten residential buildings total. Buildings will range from 8,986 square feet (sq. ft.) to 22,100 sq. ft. Refer to Figure 2, Residential Design Review 2014-05 Site Plan. The building/unit breakdowns are as follows: Building Number Square Feet 1 Bedroom Units 2 Bedroom Units 3 Bedroom Units Total Units 1 22,100 18 0 4 22 2 17,276 8 0 8 16 3 17,276 8 0 8 16 4 8,986 0 8 0 8 5 17,921 0 16 0 16 6 17,921 0 16 0 16 7 17,921 0 16 0 16 8 15,975 0 8 8 16 9 17,921 0 16 0 16 10 8,986 0 8 0 8 Totals 162,283 34 88 28 150 Site breakdowns (by overall site percentage of the Project site) are as follows: • Buildings: approximately 22.5%; • Hardscape/pavement/parking: approximately 53.6%; and • Landscaping/open space: approximately 23.9%. On-site recreational amenities will be located in both the north and south portions of the proposed Project site. On the north part of the Project site, adjacent to the main entry, there will be a 1,619 square foot clubhouse that will house the leasing office, a conference room, multi-purpose room, kitchen, pool equipment, and utility area. The proposed pool area is west of the clubhouse and includes a b-b-q counter, cabanas, and a fireplace. A tot lot is provided on the south side of the Project site between buildings 6 and 7. Drive lane widths internal to the proposed Project will be a minimum of 28’. Per the City’s Development Code, 150 covered parking spaces and 178 open parking spaces are required; 150 covered parking spaces and 189 uncovered spaces are provided. There are 339 spaces total, including 17 ADA spaces. Building Architecture and Materials Buildings 2 through 10 are two-stories, approximately 28’ tall. Building 1 is three-stories and is 38’ tall. The clubhouse is one-story and is 17’ 4” tall. The buildings are to be designed with stucco exterior walls in 2 colors with decorative window surrounds and a stone wainscot. Concrete tile roofing is proposed. Building colors and finishes are: • Stucco Color 1: Frazee “Cheer” • Stucco Color 2: Frazee “Arizona White” • Roof Tile: American Eagle Ponderosa 5530 Weathered Adobe • Stone: El Dorado Pacific Ledge Stone Color: Cordovan Lakepointe Apartments 8 Refer to Figures 3a and 3b, Residential Design Review 2014-05 Elevations. Circulation The Project proposes one primary access point from to be taken from the proposed cul-de-sac at the north of the site. The roadway will be built to City standards and offered for dedication to the City. Until the City accepts the dedication, it will be maintained by the apartment owner. A secondary, gated, emergency access will be provided on to Riverside Drive. No daily traffic will utilize this access. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at the intersection of Riverside Drive/Grand Avenue for the Cumulative condition. The Caltrans Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) Analysis shows that the minor street approach (Grand Avenue) meets and exceeds the volume required to warrant a traffic signal (354 AM peak hour vehicles and 442 PM peak hour vehicles), regardless of the through traffic on Riverside Drive. Drainage / Hydrology / Water Quality Drainage will be channeled from the buildings and imperious surfaces into storm drain facilities, bio retention landscape areas, flowing into a bioretention swale, as depicted on Figure 4, Preliminary WQMP Site Plan, through a system of roof drains and storm drains, respectively. Flows will be released into the exiting curb and gutter on Riverside Avenue, and will be picked up by existing Caltrans facilities. Sewer and Water Facilities The proposed Project will tie into existing water Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) facilities. An existing 8” water line is located to the north of the proposed Project access street and continues into Riverside Drive. Wastewater treatment will also be handled by EVMWD facilities. The Project will have to construct an 8” sewer line that will tie into the existing sewer on the SE side of Riverside Drive, along the Project’s frontage. Utilities All utilities and public services are currently available on, or adjacent to, the proposed Project site. Utility and Service providers are as follows: •Electricity:Southern California Edison •Water:Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District •Sewer:Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District •Cable:Verizon/Time Warner •Gas:Southern California Gas Company •Telephone:Verizon/Time Warner Construction Scenario The Project is expected to begin construction in December 2016 and take approximately eleven (11) months to complete. The phases of the construction activities described below are as outlined in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report prepared for the Project and is provided as Appendix A of this IS/MND. Site Preparation The site preparation phase would consist of removing any vegetation, tree stumps, and stones onsite prior to Lakepointe Apartments 9 grading. The site preparation phase was anticipated to start around June 2016 and was modeled as occurring over two weeks. The site preparation activities would require up to 18 worker trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, six vendor truck emissions were added to the site preparation phase. The onsite equipment would consist of three rubber tired dozers and four of either a tractor, loader, or backhoe, which is based on the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) default equipment mix. The mitigation of water all exposed areas three times per day was chosen in order to account for the fugitive dust reduction that would occur through adhering to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Grading The grading phase would occur after the completion of the site preparation phase and is anticipated to take approximately four weeks to complete. The proposed grading is balanced, which would result in no dirt being imported or exported from the Project site. The grading activities would require up to 15 worker trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, six vendor truck emissions were added to the grading phase. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one excavator, one grader, one rubber tired dozer, and three of either a tractor, loader or backhoe, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. The mitigation of water all exposed areas three times per day was chosen in order to account for the fugitive dust reduction that would occur through adhering to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Building Construction The building construction would occur after the completion of the grading phase. The building construction phase was modeled based on occurring over 11 months. The building construction would require up to 112 worker trips and 17 vendor trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one crane, three forklifts, one generator set, one welder, and three of either a tractor, loader, or backhoe, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. Paving The paving would occur after the completion of the building construction phase. The paving phase was modeled based on the paving of the onsite roads and parking spaces that would require paving approximately two acres of the Project site. The paving activities would occur over four weeks and would require up to 15 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of two pavers, two paving equipment, and two rollers, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. Architectural Coating The application of architectural coatings would occur after the completion of the paving phase. The architectural coating phase was modeled based on covering 307,800 square feet of residential interior area, 102,600 square feet of residential exterior area, and 325 square feet of non-residential area. The architectural coating phase would occur over two months and would require approximately 22 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of one air compressor, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. Lakepointe Apartments 10 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND. 1. Project Title: Lakepointe Apartments: Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05). 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore; 130 South Main Street; Lake Elsinore, CA.92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner, (951) 674-3124, extension 284. 4. Project Location: Northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, and known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022 (“Project”). Reference Figure 1, Vicinity Map. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Lakeside Pointe, LLC, 43414 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590. 6. General Plan Designation: • Residential Mixed-Use (RMU), Reference Figure 5, General Plan Map 7. Zoning: • Residential Mixed-Use (RMU), Reference Figure 6, Zoning Map 8. Description of Project: Lakeside Pointe, LLC (Project proponent) is proposing to implement a 150-unit multi-family Project with associated recreational amenities – tot lot, swimming pool, and clubhouse on an approximate 8.27-acre site, located within the City of Lake Elsinore, western Riverside County, California. Residential Design Review 2014- 05 allows for 150 multi-family units, associated landscaping, parking, as well as recreational uses on the entire approximately 8.27-acre proposed Project site. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed Project site is located west of Riverside Drive and north of Grand Avenue and Lakeside High School. It is bordered on the west by vacant land, and on the north by a small commercial center. There is a single-family development west of the vacant land and north of the commercial center. Figure 7, Aerial Photo. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: • Department of Transportation, District 8. Lakepointe Apartments 11 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality & GHG Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards/Hazardous Matl’s. Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the incorporated mitigation measures and revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 7-1-16 Justin Kirk for Grant Taylor, Director of Community Development Date Lakepointe Apartments 12 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A. 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 outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?  c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?  d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?  B. AGRICULTURE 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. 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) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?  C. AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?  c) 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)?  d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?  Lakepointe Apartments 13 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?  f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?  g) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?  D. 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 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (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?  E. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?  b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?  Lakepointe Apartments 14 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleonto- logical resource or site or unique geologic feature?  d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?  e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 21074?  F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures 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?  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 for the disposal of wastewater?  G. 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 reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?  Lakepointe Apartments 15 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 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 or a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?  f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?  g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?  h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?  H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?  b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?  c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?  Lakepointe Apartments 16 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site?  e) 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?  f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?  g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?  h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?  i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?  j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?  I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community?  b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?  c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?  J. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a 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?  K. NOISE. Would the Project result in: Lakepointe Apartments 17 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?  b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?  c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?  d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?  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 expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?  f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?  L. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Project: a) Induce substantial 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 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?  c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?  M. 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?  Lakepointe Apartments 18 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Other public facilities?  N. RECREATION. Would the Project: 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?  O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?  b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?  c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?  d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?  e) Result in inadequate emergency access?  f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?  g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?  P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?  b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?  Lakepointe Apartments 19 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?  d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed?  e) 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?  f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?  g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?  Q. 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?  Lakepointe Apartments 20 This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. A. AESTHETICS a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact The Project is located in the northwestern corner of Lake Elsinore (Lake View District) and will be visible from the lake, from the west, and from some parts of the community on the eastside of Lake Elsinore. The views of Lake Elsinore and the escarpments of the Santa Ana Mountains (to the west) constitute the most prominent scenic features of the community. According to the General Plan, the greatest variety of residential and commercial opportunities exists within the southeastern areas of the Lake View District particularly along Riverside Drive. (reference Figure LV-1, Lake View District, of the General Plan). As the mixed-use corridor along Riverside Drive transitions into a neighborhood commercial district, additional opportunities will increase and provide a catalyst for redevelopment and development of the entire area. It will be important to maintain and enhance pedestrian paths to these areas and recreational camping areas just south of Riverside Drive. As the northwestern and northeastern portions of the Lake View District are developed, it will be important to integrate these more remote areas to the central and southeastern areas of the Lake View District. As such, the Lake View District will result in a transition from a higher density and mixed-use area in the southeast to the lower density uses in the central, northern and western areas with strong pedestrian oriented ties throughout. Development of the Project will not affect the scenic views of the Santa Ana Mountains because the site is adjacent to the Lake and the proposed structures are not tall enough to visually intrude into the face of the mountain escarpment which tower more than 1,500 feet above the area (the highest elevation of structures on the site is 1,315 feet while, the mountain escarpments behind the lake range between 2,800 and 3,000 feet in height.). The colors and materials of the Project are similar to the other new development along Riverside Avenue. Because the visual backdrop of the community is not being affected by the Project, the Project will not have a significant impact on any scenic vista. At a Project level, the Project sites will be visible from Riverside Avenue, adjacent residents, and by the high school. The view from Riverside Avenue will be of the landscaped frontage and building fronts. Views of the Project from adjacent uses will be mitigated by the required site landscaping and the architectural details and building colors. Any Project-level visual impacts will be addressed through the City’s design review process which will ensure compliance with City zoning and design standards regulating building design, mass, bulk, height, colors, etc. In addition, the City has a policy to require that the principles of four-sided architecture be applied to all projects. Project architecture consists of the inclusion of appropriate architectural detailing on all exterior elevations of the building. Implementing four-sided architecture means that the Project will be compatible on all sides with the surrounding area. Based upon this discussion of the large and small-scale aesthetic issues, the Project will have a less than significant adverse effect on a scenic vista. As a result, any scenic impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are required. Lakepointe Apartments 21 b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? No Impact The Project is located adjacent to State Route 74 (Riverside Avenue). Riverside Avenue has not been designated a scenic highway where it is adjacent to the Project site. There are no scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings on the Project site. Therefore, the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. c) Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact The development of the Project site is not expected to degrade the existing visual character of the area. The proposed Project site is located west of Riverside Drive and north of Grand Avenue and Lakeside High School. It is bordered on the west by vacant land, and on the north by a small commercial center. There is a single-family development west of the vacant land and north of the commercial center. Given the current General Plan land use designation and the overall visual character of the surrounding area, the aesthetic character of the area will not be compromised by the Project. This aesthetic and design consistency is ensured through the City’s design review process. As a result, any impacts are considered less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures are required. d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation Light and glare from new street lights, vehicles, and the future land uses will be generated and will contribute to the amount of light and glare experienced in the Project vicinity. The Project sites are located within an urbanized area which already experiences some levels of light and/or glare from the existing development. Development of the Project will require design review approval by the City of Lake Elsinore. The City’s design review process is intended to ensure that future development will be designed to ensure design compatibility and to alleviate light and/or glare disturbances outside of the Project boundary. With the implementation of the Mitigation Measure AES-1, below, any impacts will remain less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES AES-1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Building Department shall ensure that all exterior light fixtures and outside area lighting is directed away from off-site residences and uses to comply with City design standards and building codes. Lakepointe Apartments 22 B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a) Would the Project Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact According to the Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT), located at the following web address that contains information specific to the Project APN, the Project site is designated as “Urban-Built Up Land” and “Local Importance”: http://tzvmag01.rivcoit.org/Riverside_Report/PublicAPN_Report.aspx?APN=379090022&Lat=2189933.56 751812&Long=6217827.93264567&MapURL=http%3a%2f%2ftzvmag01.rivcoit.org%2fGeocortex%2fEssen tials%2fREST%2fTempFiles%2fExport.png%3fguid%3d13a3305f-1317-46ec-860e- d30033f9213d%26contentType%3dimage%252Fpng&ImageryURL=http%3a%2f%2ftzvmag01.rivcoit.org%2 fGeocortex%2fEssentials%2fREST%2fTempFiles%2fExport.png%3fguid%3dc7db395a-c503-42e9-adc0- abea43a2e50c%26contentType%3dimage%252Fpng&st= No farming is currently being conducted on the Project site, or in the immediate area. Therefore, development of the Project will not 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 (ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2012/riv12_w.pdf), to non-agricultural use. Reference Figure 10, Farmland. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact According to the RCIT, located at the aforementioned web address that contains information specific to the Project APN, the Project site is not with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Reference Figure 11, Agricultural Preserves/Williamson Act. Therefore, implementation of the Project (both Project sites) will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. c) 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 According to a site visit and review of an aerial photo, the Project site, and adjacent parcels are not being utilized for agricultural cultivation. Based on this information, implementation of the Project will not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 23 C. AIR QUALITY The following technical study was prepared to address issues related to air quality, and is available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 19, 2015 (AQ/GHG Analysis). Please refer to Section 1.0 (Introduction), Section 2.0 (Pollutants), Section 3.0 (Air Quality Management), Section 4.0 (Atmospheric Setting), Section 5.0 (Modeling Parameters and Assumptions), and 6.0 (Thresholds of Significance) of the AQ/GHG Study, for additional details utilized for the impact analysis below. a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, Environmental Setting, requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans (GPs) and regional plans. The regional plan that applies to the proposed Project includes the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Master Plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP 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 should be considered to 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 criteria of consistency: • Whether the project will 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; and/or, • Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated below. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in the AQ/GHG Analysis, 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 long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts. The analysis in the AQ/GHG Analysis found that the operation of the proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis. The analysis for long-term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to exceed the local thresholds of significance. Therefore, no 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. Lakepointe Apartments 24 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 insure that the analyses conducted for the proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2012-2035 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), consists of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this Project, the City of Lake Elsinore Lake View District Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The Project site is currently designated as Residential Mixed Use in the General Plan and is zoned Residential/Mixed-Use (RMU). The proposed Project would consist of the development of 150 apartment units on 8.27-acres, which would result in a density of 18.14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Project is not consistent with Municipal Code Section 17.86.040, that limits projects with only residential units in the RMU zone to a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. However, Riverside Transit Bus Route 8 has a bus stop that is located approximately 210 feet northeast of the Project site and Municipal Code Section 17.86.060(B)(7) allows projects that are located within 1,500 feet of the Project site a density bonus up to 35 dwelling units per acre. As such, the proposed Project would be within the allowable density that is allowed for RMU and would not result in an inconsistency with the current land use designation. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. b) Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact Construction emissions have been analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts as well as potential toxic air impacts. Construction-Related Regional Impacts The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction-related regional emissions from the proposed Project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 5.1 of the AQ/GHG Analysis. The worst-case daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed Project for each phase of construction activities are shown below in Table C-1, Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions. The CalEEMod daily printouts are shown in Appendix A of the AQ/GHG Analysis. Lakepointe Apartments 25 Table C-1 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation1 Onsite2 5.08 54.63 41.11 0.04 9.98 6.58 Offsite3 0.12 0.60 1.55 0.00 0.25 0.07 Total 5.20 55.23 42.66 0.04 10.23 6.65 Grading1 Onsite 3.67 38.45 26.08 0.03 4.75 3.34 Offsite 0.10 0.59 1.38 0.00 0.22 0.07 Total 3.77 39.04 27.46 0.03 4.97 3.41 Building Construction Onsite 3.41 28.51 18.51 0.03 1.97 1.85 Offsite 0.56 2.00 7.85 0.02 1.39 0.40 Total 3.97 30.51 26.36 0.05 3.36 2.25 Paving Onsite 2.17 20.30 14.73 0.02 1.14 1.05 Offsite 0.05 0.07 0.76 0.00 0.17 0.05 Total 2.22 20.37 15.49 0.02 1.31 1.10 Architectural Coatings Onsite 26.83 2.19 1.87 0.00 0.17 0.17 Offsite 0.08 0.10 1.12 0.00 0.25 0.07 Total 26.91 2.29 2.99 0.00 0.42 0.24 SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Site preparation and grading emissions based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 Onsite emissions from equipment not operated on public roads. 3 Offsite emissions from vehicles operating on public roads. Table C-1 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Construction-Related Local Impacts Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The proposed Project has been analyzed for the potential local criteria pollutant impacts created from construction-related fugitive dust and construction equipment and from toxic air contaminants created from diesel emissions. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction The local air quality emissions from Project construction were analyzed through utilizing the methodology described in the Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology). The LST Methodology found the primary criteria pollutant emissions of concern are Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). In order to determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Lakepointe Apartments 26 Tables. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily onsite emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table C-2, Local Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors, shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases. Table C-2 Local Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation1 54.63 41.11 9.98 6.58 Grading1 38.45 26.08 4.75 3.34 Building Construction 28.51 18.51 1.97 1.85 Paving 20.30 14.73 1.14 1.05 Architectural Coatings 2.19 1.87 0.17 0.17 SCAQMD Thresholds for 150 feet (46 meters)2 408 2,586 35 10 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Site preparation and grading emissions based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 The nearest sensitive receptor is Lakeside High School with structures as near as 150 feet (46 meters) from the Project site. The data provided in Table C-2 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed Project. According to SCAQMD’s 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 will 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. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Operational Emissions The on-going operation of the proposed Project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the Project-generated vehicle trips and through operational emissions from the on-going use of the proposed Project. The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts due to: regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the on- going operations of the proposed Project. The potential operations-related air emissions have been analyzed below for the regional and local criteria pollutant emissions and cumulative impacts. Operations-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Analysis The operations-related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed Project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model and the input parameters utilized in Section 5.2 of the AQ/GHG Analysis. The worst-case summer or winter volatile organic compound (VOC), NOx, CO, Sulfur Dioxode (SO2), PM10, and PM2.5 daily criteria pollutant emissions created from the proposed Project’s long-term Lakepointe Apartments 27 operations have been calculated and are summarized below in Table C-3, Operational Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions. The CalEEMod daily emissions printouts are shown in Appendix A of the AQ/GHG Analysis. Table C-3 Operational Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources1 3.83 0.15 12.70 0.00 0.07 0.07 Energy Usage2 0.06 0.53 0.22 0.00 0.04 0.04 Mobile Sources3 3.90 12.85 43.64 0.12 8.06 2.27 Total Emissions 7.79 13.53 56.56 0.12 8.17 2.38 SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consist of emissions from natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. The data provided in Table C-3, above shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The proposed Project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the Project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. The following analysis analyzes the vehicular CO emissions, local impacts from onsite operations, and toxic air contaminant impacts from onsite diesel trucks. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with Project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. A detailed CO analysis was conducted in the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (CO Plan) for SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. The locations selected for microscaling modeling in the CO Plan were the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Since the nearby intersections to the proposed Project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD, no local CO Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the proposed Project and no CO Hotspot modeling was performed. Therefore, a less than significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 28 Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from on-site operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table C-4, Local Criteria Pollutant Operational Emissions at the Nearest Receptors, shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes area sources, energy usage, and vehicles operating on-site and the calculated emissions thresholds. Table C-4 Local Criteria Pollutant Operational Emissions at the Nearest Receptors Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) On-Site Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 0.07 6.40 0.03 0.03 Energy Usage 0.66 0.28 0.05 0.05 Onsite Vehicle Emissions1 1.13 4.11 0.72 0.20 Total Emissions 1.86 10.79 0.80 0.28 SCAQMD Thresholds for 150 feet (46 meters)2 270 1,746 4 2 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Onsite vehicle emissions based on 1/8 of the gross vehicular emissions, which is the estimated portion of vehicle emissions occurring within a quarter mile of the Project site. 2 The nearest sensitive receptor is Lakeside High School with structures as near as 150 feet (46 meters) from the Project site. The data provided in Table C-4 shows that the on-going operations of the proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 6.2 of the AQ/GHG Analysis. Therefore, the on-going operations of the proposed Project would create a less than significant operations-related impact to local air quality due to onsite emissions. No mitigation is required. Operations-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the nominal number of diesel truck trips generated by the proposed residential Project, a less than significant toxic air contaminant impact would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Based on the information above, implementation of the Project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts will remain less than significant. No mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 29 c) Would the Project 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 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 project’s air quality must be generic by nature. The Project area is out of attainment with Federal and/or State standards for ozone and PM10, and PM2.5. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts incorporates a three-tiered approach to assess cumulative air quality impacts. • Consistency with the SCAQMD project specific thresholds for construction and operations; • Project consistency with existing air quality plans; and • Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants. Consistency with Project Specific Thresholds Construction-Related Impacts The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is currently designated by the EPA as a non- attainment area for ozone and PM2.5. Development of the proposed Project would result in less than significant regional emissions of the precursors to ozone and PM2.5 during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, a less than significant cumulative impact would occur from construction of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Operational-Related Impacts The greatest cumulative operational impact on the air quality to the Air Basin will 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. On-going operations activities for the proposed Project, the VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. With respect to long-term emissions, the proposed Project would create a less than significant cumulative impact. No mitigation is required. Consistency with Air Quality Plans The Project site is currently designated as Residential Mixed Use in the General Plan and is zoned Residential/Mixed-Use (RMU). The proposed Project would consist of the development of 150 apartment units on 8.27-acres, which would result in a density of 18.14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Project is not consistent with Municipal Code Section 17.86.040, that limits projects with only residential units in the RMU zone to a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. However, Riverside Transit Bus Route 8 has a bus stop that is located approximately 210 feet northeast of the Project site and Municipal Code Section 17.86.060(B)(7) allows projects that are located within 1,500 feet of the project site a density bonus up to 35 dwelling units per acre. As such, the proposed Project would be within the allowable density that is allowed for RMU and would not result in an inconsistency with the current land use designation. Therefore, the Lakepointe Apartments 30 proposed Project is not anticipated to 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, NO2, PM10, 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 exceeds 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, NOx (ozone precursors), PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant cumulative health impact. Based on the information above, implementation of the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Impacts will remain less than significant. No mitigation is required. d) Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact Construction-Related Odor Impacts Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials 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 boundaries. Due to the transitory nature of construction odors, impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. Potential Operations-Related Odor Impacts Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the proposed project would primarily occur from odor emissions from the trash storage areas. 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 402, no significant impact related to odors would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed Project. Impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. e) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact The City of Lake Elsinore adopted the City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan (CAP), on December 13, 2011 that requires a 22.3 percent reduction in GHG emissions between years 2007 and 2020. In order to determine if the proposed Project would comply with the Climate Action Plan’s Standards, the GHG emissions from the proposed Project were analyzed for both year 2010, (nearest year available in CalEEMod to 2007) and year 2020. Using year 2010 versus 2007 provides a worst-case scenario; since the State has enacted several laws that took effect between 2007 and 2010 that reduce GHG emissions, and using the latter date means that less GHG reductions can be accounted for from the State measures. A summary of the results is shown below in Lakepointe Apartments 31 Table C-5, Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions. The CalEEMod model run for the year 2010 and the year 2020 are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C of the AQ/GHG Analysis, respectively. Table C-5 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Category Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year 2010 Emissions Area Sources1 0.00 2.57 2.57 0.00 0.00 2.64 Energy Usage2 0.00 289.94 289.94 0.01 0.00 291.31 Mobile Sources3 0.00 1,634.27 1,634.27 0.09 0.00 1,636.14 Solid Waste4 14.19 0.00 14.19 0.84 0.00 31.81 Water and Wastewater5 3.14 56.75 59.89 0.33 0.01 69.25 Construction6 0.00 17.13 17.13 0.00 0.00 17.20 Total 2010 Emissions 17.33 2,000.66 2,017.99 1.27 0.01 2,048.35 Year 2020 Emissions Area Sources 0.00 2.57 2.57 0.00 0.00 2.62 Energy Usage 0.00 260.26 260.26 0.01 0.00 261.47 Mobile Sources 0.00 1,148.04 1,148.04 0.03 0.00 1,148.76 Solid Waste 7.10 0.00 7.10 0.42 0.00 15.90 Water and Wastewater 2.51 48.16 50.67 0.26 0.01 58.17 Construction 0.00 17.13 17.13 0.00 0.00 17.20 Vegetation7 -2.12 Total 2020 Emissions 9.61 1,476.16 1,485.77 0.72 0.01 1,501.99 Percent Reduction between 2010 and 2020 26.7% City of Lake Elsinore Reduction Threshold 22.3% SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance for Residential Uses 3,500 Notes: 1 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from hearths, consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage (not including hearths). 3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 4 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 5 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 6 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years. 7 Vegetation sequestration amortized over 30 years. The data provided in Table C-5 above shows that the proposed Project would create 2,048.35 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year based on the default year 2010 GHG emissions rates and in year 2020 would produce 1,501.99 MTCO2e per year that is based on approved Statewide GHG reduction regulations that would be fully implemented by year 2020 as well as from GHG emission reduction design features that have been incorporated into the proposed site plan. Table C-5 shows that through implementation of Executive Order (EO) S-1-07, that establishes performance standards for the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, Assembly Bill (AB) 149, which limits GHG emissions from new vehicles sold in California, implementation of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24 Part 11 2013 CalGreen Standards that improves the energy efficiency of the proposed Project, and Project design features such as providing sidewalks, locating the Project site near a transit station, and meeting the Climate Action Plan’s minimum tree planting requirements, the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be reduced by 26.7 percent and would meet the City of Lake Elsinore’s minimum 22.3 percent GHG reduction standard. In addition, the proposed Project would be below the SCAQMD draft residential significance threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e per year for both the year 2010 Lakepointe Apartments 32 and year 2020 GHG emissions. Based on the analysis and conclusions above, impacts from GHG emissions as a result of development and operation of the proposed Project would be considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. f) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact The applicable plan for the proposed Project is the CAP, adopted December 13, 2011. The CAP provides specific measures to be implemented in new developments to reduce GHG emissions as well as a GHG emissions reduction target based on a community-wide emissions reduction to 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year by 2020. This is a 22.3 percent reduction from the 2008 rate of 8.5 MTCO2e per service population. These efficiency-based targets were derived by dividing the statewide AB 32 targeted emissions levels for 2020 and statewide EO S-3-05 targeted emissions level for 2030 by the 2020 and 2030 statewide service population respectively. These targets represent the maximum quantity of emissions each resident and employee in the State of California could emit in 2020 and 2030 based on emissions levels necessary to achieve the statewide AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 GHG emissions reduction goals. Therefore, the proposed Project would be considered to be inconsistent with the CAP if the proposed Project did not implement all applicable measures identified in the Climate Action Plan and if the proposed Project’s GHG emissions are not 22.3 percent less than GHG emissions from business-as-usual conditions for a similar size project in year 2008. The CAP applicable measures to the proposed Project have been detailed above in Section 3.1 of the AQ/GHG Analysis, and the method of adherence to each measure has been detailed above in Section 5.2 of the AQ/GHG Analysis. Section 5.2 found that through implementation of required statewide regulations and implementation of Project Design Features, that the proposed Project would conform to the applicable measures in the CAP. In addition, through implementation of the statewide regulations and Project Design Features, the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be reduced by 26.7 percent and would exceed the 22.3 percent reduction in GHG emissions required by the Climate Action Plan. Finally, the GHG emissions calculations show that both the year 2010 business-as-usual GHG emissions and the year 2020 GHG emissions would be below the SCAQMD draft residential significance threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES None. Lakepointe Apartments 33 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No technical study was required for the proposed Project for biological resources. According to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Report for the Project site (APN 379-090-022) (Appendix B), the Project site is not located in a criteria cell. A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project site is not located within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas. The Project site is not within or adjacent to any Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) criteria or conservation areas. Appendix B is available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact According to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Report for the Project site (APN 379-090-022) (Appendix B), the Project site is not located in a criteria cell. A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project site is not located within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas. The Project will be required to pay the applicable MSCHP Mitigation Fee pursuant to Chapter 16.85, Local Development Mitigation Fee for Funding the Preservation of Natural Ecosystems of the Municipal Code. The current fee is $1,015 for residential density greater than 14.0 dwelling units per acre. According to Chapter 16.85.010, the use of the development impact fees to mitigate the impacts to the City’s and the region’s natural ecosystems is reasonably related to the type and extent of impacts caused by development within the City. This is a standard condition, and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, with the payment of the MSCHP Mitigation Fee, implementation of the proposed Project will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact Please reference the discussion in D.a, above. A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project site is not located within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas. Therefore, with the payment of the MSCHP Mitigation Fee, implementation of the proposed Project will not 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 34 c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Therefore, the Project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impacts are anticipated. d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project site is not located within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas. Therefore, the Project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impacts are anticipated. e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact Section 3.8, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR analyzed biological resources. The General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan would potentially result in significant impacts to MSHCP protected trees, including the native California oak tree, and locally important heritage trees, including the significant palm tree as defined by Chapter 5.116, Significant Palm Trees, of the City’s Municipal Code, which are present throughout the City and Sphere of Influence (SOI). No California oak tree, and locally important heritage trees, including the significant palm trees are located on the Project site. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact The Project is located within the adopted Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area. The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan focusing on conservation of species and associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP will serve as a HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the NCCP Act of 2001. The overall goal of the MSHCP is the conservation of 500,000 acres and focuses on the conservation of 146 plant and animal species. Lakepointe Apartments 35 The City is required to collect local development impact fees for all projects within the MSHCP area. As such, the applicant will be required to pay these fees as mitigation for impacts to species and habitat covered under the MSHCP. With the payment of these fees, the Project is consistent with this section of the MSHCP. Payment of these standard fees are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. The Project site is not located within the Fee Area Boundary of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (Stephens Kangaroo Rat HCP). As a result, the Project is not in conflict with the requirements of the HCP (and is not required to pay the mitigation fees prior to the issuance of a grading permit). Based upon the information provided, the Project implements, and is consistent with, the requirements of the MSHCP, and the Stephens Kangaroo Rat HCP. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. MITIGATION MEASURES None. Lakepointe Apartments 36 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES No technical study was required for the proposed Project for cultural resources. The City has had informal consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Tribe) to discuss the Project, potential Project impacts, avoidance methods and potential mitigation. The Tribe has indicated that their standard mitigation measures would be sufficient as part of this IS/MND. a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation There are no known historical resources located within the Project site. However, it is possible to uncover the presence of subsurface historical resources within the Project site during ground disturbance(s). The Project will need to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires on-going monitoring by a qualified archaeologist during ground disturbing activities. With mandatory compliance to Mitigation Measure CUL-1, potential impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation Archaeological resources are known to exist in the general area. As part of the informal consultation, the City has met with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to discuss the Project, potential Project impacts, avoidance methods and potential mitigation. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-6 have been added to address the concerns raised by the Pechanga Tribe. With the incorporation of these Mitigation Measures, Project impacts will remain less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. c) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation According to Figure 3.2-3, City of Lake Elsinore Paleontological Resources, of the General Plan EIR, the Project site has a “Low” potential for paleontological resources. However, since these resources are located below the surface, any excavation or other ground-disturbing activities will require paleontological monitoring to ensure that no important, nonrenewable vertebrate fossils are adversely affected. Based on these findings, all earth- moving operations shall be monitored shall be required for paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-7 has been included, requiring the development and implementation of a paleontological resource impact mitigation program, prior to any ground disturbing activity, to prevent adverse effects on important, nonrenewable vertebrate fossils, or to reduce such effects to a level less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. d) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation Development of this Project is not expected to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. If during Project grading any human remains are discovered, the provisions of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 shall apply. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, any impacts will be Lakepointe Apartments 37 reduced to a less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. e) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation According to Section 21080.3.1, Consultation with Responsible Agencies; Assistance By Office of Planning and Research, of the Public Resources Code, prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, the lead agency shall begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed. For purposes of this section and Section 21080.3.2, Consultation with Responsible Agencies; Assistance By Office of Planning and Research, of the Public Resources Code, “consultation” shall have the same meaning as provided in Section 65352.4 of the Government Code. Section 6552.4 of the Government Code states: “For purposes of Section 65351, 65352.3, and 65562.5, "consultation" means the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties' cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between government agencies and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party's sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes' potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural significance.” The City has had informal consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to discuss the Project, potential Project impacts, avoidance methods and potential mitigation. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-6 have been added to address the concerns raised by the Pechanga Tribe. Based on this information, the City concludes that this prior consultation, as well as the circulation of a portion of current environmental document, along with the proposed mitigation measures, will ensure that there will not be a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 21074. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-6, impacts will remain less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES CUL-1 An archeological monitor shall be present during all earthmoving to insure protection of any accidentally discovered potentially significant resources. All cultural resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist. Any unanticipated cultural resources that are discovered shall be evaluated and a final report prepared. The report shall include a list of the resources recovered, documentation of each site/locality, and interpretation of resources recovered. The City shall designate repositories in the event the significant resources are recovered. CUL-2 If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. CUL-3 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project applicant shall contact the Lakepointe Apartments 38 appropriate Tribe 1 to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore and the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; Project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. CUL-4 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. CUL-5 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the Project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. CUL-6 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the Project archaeologist, and the appropriate Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director (CDD) for decision. The CDD shall make the determination based on the provisions of the CEQA with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore. CUL-7 Prior to any ground disturbing activity, a mitigation program shall be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA as well as the proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Said mitigation program shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Excavations in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources should be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, if they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. 2. Samples of sediments should be collected and washed to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. 3. Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. 4. A report of findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontologic resources. 1 It is anticipated that the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians will be the “appropriate” Tribe due to their prior and extensive coordination with the City in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Lakepointe Apartments 39 F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following technical studies were prepared to address issues related to geology and soils, and are available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • “Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive. Lake Elsinore. California,” prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, December 8, 2005 (Geo Investigation, Appendix C). a) Would the Project expose people or structures 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.) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation The Project is located within seismically active Southern California and is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthquakes caused by both local and regional faults. According to the Geo Investigation, research of available maps indicates that the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, there was no evidence of faulting revealed during the geotechnical investigation. The potential impacts related to the closest fault zone, the County Fault Zone, which is located approximately 434 feet to the south of the Project site (reference Figure 12, Fault Zone), as well as other regional faults are addressed through compliance with standard measures contained in the most recent Uniform Building Code (UBC) and City Municipal Code and the recommended mitigation contained in Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the geotechnical recommendations contained in the Geo Investigation be implemented. With the implementation of the standard code provisions and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the anticipated impacts from regional ground shaking shall be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The Project site is located in an area of high regional seismicity and may experience horizontal ground acceleration during an earthquake along the Elsinore/Wildomar Fault Zone, or other fault zones throughout the region. Because of this, the Project site has been and will continue to be directly affected by seismic activity to some degree. Given that the Project site is not located immediately adjacent to a seismic study area, the Project will not be affected by ground shaking any more than any other area in seismically active Southern California. Compliance with standard measures contained in the most recent UBC and City Municipal Code regarding structures and construction and Mitigation Measure GEO-1 ensures that any impacts will be less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation According to the Geo Investigation, a review of the Riverside County Geographic Information Systems (GIS Lakepointe Apartments 40 website indicates that the Project site is located within a mapped zone of high to very high liquefaction susceptibility. The results of the liquefaction evaluation in the Geo Investigation identified liquefiable soils at three boring locations on the Project site. The Geo Investigation contains a number of recommendations are expected to minimize the actual liquefaction hazard once the Project is constructed. Compliance with specific recommendations identified in Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and the standard requirements contained in the most recent UBC and City Municipal Code are expected to reduce the impacts associated with ground failure hazards, including liquefaction, to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. iv) Landslides? No Impact The Project site and surrounding environs are relatively flat. There is no evidence of landslides occurring on Project site, or at the immediate surrounding environs. The Project is not expected expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from landslides. As a result, no impacts are anticipated; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact As with any development, soil erosion can result during construction, as grading and construction can loosen surface soils and make soils susceptible to effects of wind and water movement across the surface. According to the geotechnical report, the on-site soils have a moderate to high erosions potential unless specific erosion control measures are implemented. The City routinely requires the submittal of detailed Erosion Control Plans with any grading plans. The implementation of this standard requirement is expected to address any erosional issues associated with the grading of the site. As a result, these impacts are not considered to be significant with the implementation of the necessary erosion and runoff control measures required as part of the approval of a grading plan. No additional mitigation measures are required. c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The Geo Investigation did not indicate any concerns regarding slope stability with respect to the Project site. Landslides were determined not to be a design consideration for the Project (reference discussion in F.a.iv, above). Due to the lack of natural slopes near the site, the potential for rock fall hazard is also not a design consideration. With the implementation of the standard code provisions and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the anticipated impacts from being 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, are expected to be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 41 d) Would the Project 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? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation According to pp. 14 and 15 of the Geo Investigation, the Project is located in an area with “non-expansive) soil as defined in the most recent UBC. However, the site development recommendations to address the potential liquefaction hazard would also address any issues related to highly expansive soils. As a result, to significant impacts are anticipated and specific mitigation measures are required. Any potential impacts are addressed through compliance with standard measures contained in the most recent UBC and City Municipal Code and the recommended mitigation contained in Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Specific recommendations within said report shall apply to all structures on site. With the implementation of the standard code provisions and the mitigation measure identified below, the anticipated impacts from being located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property, are expected to be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. e) Would the Project have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact The Project will be connected to the existing public wastewater treatment system and will not be serviced by septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems; consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES GEO-1 The Project shall comply with the recommendations to address geology and soils impacts within the Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive. Lake Elsinore. California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, December 8, 2005 (Geo Investigation, Appendix C), including, but not limited to: seismic ground shaking, subsidence, liquefaction, expansive soils, and corrosive soils, for all structures on site. Lakepointe Apartments 42 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The following technical studies have been prepared to address issues related to hazards and hazardous materials, and are available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development Riverside Drive, southwest of Eisenhower Drive Lake Elsinore, California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, January 3, 2006. a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The Project may create an additional possible hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; however, due to the quantity and nature of these materials, these impacts will be considered less than significant. During construction and operational phases there is a potential for accidental release of petroleum products in sufficient quantity to pose a hazard to people and the environment. Prior to initiating construction, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be approved by the City to address any construction-related spills or accidents. This requirement is included in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. With Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the Project is not expected to result in a significant impact on the environment. In addition, the Project is located immediately adjacent to, or in immediate proximity to, State Route 74 (Riverside Avenue). It is possible that an accident or spill may expose future building occupants to hazardous materials. However, the likelihood of this type of event is rare and it is not considered to be significant. In addition, some hazardous materials will be stored on the premises; however, those used are commonly associated with typical residential development. No impacts are anticipated beyond those commonly associated with this type of development. b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact The Project may create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; however, due to the quantity and nature of these materials, these impacts will be considered less than significant. An additional discussion is found in Section G.a. above. No impacts are anticipated beyond those commonly associated with residential development. No additional mitigation measures are required. c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact The Project is not expected to result in the release of any hazardous emissions. Lakeside High School is located immediately west of the Project site. Due to the residential nature of the Project, as the fact that the only hazardous materials associated with residential uses are those associated with typical residential households, no impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 43 d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the "Cortese List" (after the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it). The list, or a site's presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with CEQA. According to the California State Waterboards GEOTRACKER site (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=java+hut), which provides information regarding Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, the Project site is not 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 not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. There are two permitted underground storage tanks within one mile of the Project site. Refer to Figure 11, Geotracker Site. The Department of Toxic Substances Control's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) site (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mapfull.asp?global_id=&x=- 119&y=37&zl=18&ms=640,480&mt=m&findaddress=True&city=32397%20Riverside%20Dr,%20Lake%20 Elsinore,%20CA%2092530&zip=&county=&federal_superfund=true&state_response=true&voluntary_clean up=true&school_cleanup=true&ca_site=true&tiered_permit=true&evaluation=true&military_evaluation=tru e&school_investigation=true&operating=true&post_closure=true&non_operating=true) does not show any Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites currently located on the Project sites. Refer to Figure 12, Envirostor Site. Based upon the available data, there is no evidence to support that hazardous wastes or contamination would be present on the sites. No additional mitigation is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact According to Figure 2.7, City of Lake Elsinore Airport Influence Areas, of the General Plan, the Project sites is not located within the Skylark Airport Influence Areas. The public airport closest to the Project sites is Skylark Field. Skylark Field is located at the south end of Lake Elsinore, approximately five miles south southeast of the Project sites. There is no approved airport land use plan for this facility. The Project sites are not located within two miles of this public airport. Based on this information, no impacts are anticipated from implementation of the Project. No mitigation measures are required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact According to Figure 2.7, City of Lake Elsinore Airport Influence Areas, of the General Plan, the Project sites are not located in proximity to a private airstrip. The closest airport is a public airport, Skylark Field, located at the south end of Lake Elsinore, approximately five miles south southeast of the Project sites (see discussion in G.e., above). The Project sites are not located within two miles of a private airstrip. Based on this information, no impacts are anticipated from implementation of the Project. No mitigation measures are required. Lakepointe Apartments 44 g) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact Section 3.10, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” of the General Plan EIR analyzed a variety of hazardous materials and public safety issues related to the implementation of the General Plan. The GPEIR determined that new developments associated with the buildout of the General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable local and state regulatory standards for adequate emergency access, and as such would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. The Project, as proposed is a new development associated with the buildout of the General Plan, and as designed and developed, is consistent with the General Plan. The Project will include an access point off improved roadways, and include site access sufficient for fire apparatus turning radius. Based on this information, implementation of the Project has no potential to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation is required. h) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact The Project site is located within a substantially built up area about a mile east of the eastern escarpment of the Santa Ana Mountains. This eastern escarpment area has been classified as a high wildland fire hazard area. According to Figure 3.10-2, Wildfire Susceptibility, of the General Plan EIR, the Project site has a moderate potential to be impacted by a wildland fires. Per the General Plan EIR, new development under the General Plan Update (GPU) would extend into areas of the SOI that are considered highly susceptible to wildfires. A fire that ignites in these areas has the potential to spread to areas within the SOI. Therefore, a substantial risk of loss and damage exists to new developments in these areas. However, with prevention strategies and response programs, these risks can be reduced greatly. Nevertheless, increased development throughout the City and SOI in accordance with the proposed Land Use Plan could expose more people and additional development to potentially significant hazards from wildfires. As indicated, the Project site is not in a Moderate, High, or Very High designation. This moderate designation does not create a potentially significant impact because of the layout of the sites, and the proposed building materials are expected to reduce or minimize any the potential hazards. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. MITIGATION MEASURES HAZ-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction and operational activities shall be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure shall be incorporated into the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the Project development. Lakepointe Apartments 45 H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The following technical studies were prepared to address issues related to hydrology and water quality, and are available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • “Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Lakepointe Apartments, prepared by MLB Engineering, January 12, 2016. a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation According to the General Plan EIR (p. 3.9-19), the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) sets water quality standards for all ground and surface waters within its 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). The 1995 Water Quality Control Plan Santa Ana River Basin documents the water quality standards for all ground and surface waters overseen by the SARWQCB. Beneficial uses consist of all the various ways that water can be used for the benefit of people and/or wildlife. Twenty beneficial uses are recognized within the Santa Ana Region. Nine of these beneficial uses have been designated for surface water bodies and groundwater in the vicinity of the City (reference Table 3.9-2, Beneficial Uses for Water Bodies within City and Sphere of Influence-SOI). All listed water quality objectives governing water quality in inland surface waters were evaluated for potential impacts from development within the City; however, only those numeric and narrative water quality objectives that are most likely to be relevant to the implementation of the General Plan are listed in Table 3.9-3, Water Quality Objectives for Water Bodies within City and SOI, Table 3.9-4, Applicable Narrative Surface Water Quality Objectives, and Table 3.9-5, Applicable Narrative Groundwater Quality Objectives, of the General Plan EIR, respectively. Water quality standards are attained when designated beneficial uses are achieved and water quality objectives are being met. The regulatory program of the SARWQCB is designed to minimize and control discharges to surface and groundwater within the region, largely through permitting, such that water quality standards are effectively attained. The General Plan EIR indicates that development consistent with the GPU could result in increased non– point source and point source contamination from common urban sources, construction activity, and vehicle use. In general, increased development and population growth in the City and SOI may be expected to result in increased generation of urban water contaminants. In addition to increased sediment related to construction activities, development in the City could increase other types of non–point source pollution. Runoff from residential, commercial, and institutional urban uses typically includes sediment, herbicides, pesticides, nutrients from fertilizers, organic debris, coloform, trash, grease, solvents, metals, salts, and other contaminants. Runoff from streets and parking lots contains typical urban pollutants including oil, grease, fuel, rubber, heavy metals, solvents, coloform, and trash. Motor vehicle exhaust also generates lead and particulates that could be picked up by runoff and carried into nearby surface water bodies such as Lake Elsinore. The increased pollutants carried in runoff into the streams, rivers, and lake in and around the City is a potentially significant impact of the implementation of the GPU. The proposed Project has been reviewed and conditioned by the City, to mitigate any potential impacts as listed above through site design and the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and adherence to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Project does drain into an existing Caltrans facility. Approvals will be required from Caltrans as part of the permitting process. These are standards condition and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Lakepointe Apartments 46 With the inclusion of these standard conditions, any impacts from implementation of the proposed Project that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. The implementation of these practices is expected to minimize or eliminate any impacts to water quality. The requirements to obtain City approval of the Final WQMP is incorporated into Mitigation Measure HYD-1. As a result of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) (site design BMPs, source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs), and other measures contained in the Preliminary WQMP, the Project will not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or have a significant impact on the environment. b) Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact The Project does not propose to drill any wells or extract ground water. the historic high groundwater level for the Project site is considered to be about 18± feet (p. 7 of the Geo Investigation). This depth will not expose any groundwater during future site development, including grading onsite and installation of offsite infrastructure. Under present conditions the Project site has no impervious surfaces within its boundaries. Some unquantifiable amount of the precipitation and sheet flow that currently enters the property will percolate through the onsite soils. The proposed Project will retain rainfall onsite by directing flows to the bioretention planters and basins where the first increment of each storm will be captured and percolated, and then the stored runoff will add additional percolation. Thus, a small portion of the runoff that would have left the site historically would be captured and percolated. The small reduction will not cause significant adverse impacts to groundwater supplies. Based on this information, implementation of the Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). No mitigation is required. c) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project site’s existing drainage pattern will be altered, but the proposed Project engineering plans have taken considerable care to ensure that future runoff patterns are maintained, and that the volume of water discharged will not exceed the current volumes as required by the City and the SARWQCB. The Project, as proposed, will result in minimal changes in the onsite drainage pattern, as the flow patterns will be consistent with the existing topography of the Project site. The proposed Project will alter the drainage pattern; however, it will not alter the course of a stream or river and it will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that will cause any significant flooding on-site, or off-site. Based on this information, impacts are considered less than significant from implementation of the Project. No mitigation measures are required. Lakepointe Apartments 47 d) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or 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 Please reference the discussion in Sections H.a., and c. (above), and H.e. (below), of this IS/MND. The Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the sites or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site. None of the proposed facilities will increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Based on this information, impacts are considered less than significant from implementation of the Project. No mitigation measures are required. e) Would the Project 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 with Mitigation Incorporation The requirements of the urban runoff program for the Santa Ana River Basin require that post-development flows be similar to the pre-development flows. As a result, the final Project design shall be required to reduce run-off volumes to pre-development levels by a combination of reductions in impervious area, on-site detention, or other methods identified in the Preliminary WQMP, and implemented with the Final WQMP, as approved by the City of Lake Elsinore. This requirement is contained in Mitigation Measure HYD-1. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The Project as proposed will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Compliance with the requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (Mitigation Measures HAZ-1), Preliminary WQMP (Mitigation Measure HYD-1), and the City’s erosion control requirements will ensure that significant water quality impacts and violations of standards and requirements do not occur. With these mitigation measures and standard requirements, any water quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. g) Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact The Project will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Because the proposed structures are not located within the 100-year flood hazard area, no impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 48 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact The Project will not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures and will not place materials within the lake area, which would impede or redirect flood flows. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. i) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact The Project will not construct habitable structures within a designated flood area or within an identified dam inundation area. According to pp. 3.9-6 and 3.9-7 of the General Plan EIR, inundation of property (City) and the potential loss of life due to failure of the Railroad Canyon Dam is a hazard in the Railroad Canyon Road area and the eastern floodplain of the lake. The Project site is located on the western floodplain of the lake; therefore, it is not in proximity to inundation. Consequently, the Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation required. j) Would the Project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact The Project is located along near the northwest corner of Lake Elsinore and is not located in an area that is subject to mudflows or tsunamis. A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water (similar to the sloshing of water in a bathtub). Seiches have been observed on larger lakes, reservoirs, harbors and bays, and in smaller ocean areas that are substantially surrounded by land (such as the Gulf of California or the Adriatic Sea). In contrast to these larger bodies of water, Lake Elsinore is relatively small rectangular lake (less than 2 miles in width and about 3 miles in length). Because the Project site is not located along the shore of Lake Elsinore, there is no potential that a seismic event could result in a seiche that could affect the Project. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES HYD-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and approve the Final Water Quality Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effect at that time. The Final Water Quality Management Plan shall further demonstrate that post-development runoff flows are no greater that pre-development run-off flows. Lakepointe Apartments 49 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? No Impact The Project represents an in-fill development which is consistent with the scale of development of their type and generally consistent with the development that is found in the area. The Project will neither physically divide nor improve connections within the surrounding neighborhood. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. b) Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact The Project sites are identified for residential uses on the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Map. These are the same types of land uses proposed with the Project. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact The Project will not conflict with the provisions of the adopted MSHCP. A more detailed discussion on the Project’s compliance and consistency with the MSHCP is found in Section D.f. of this IS/MND. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required over and above the payment of MSHCP fees, discussed in Section D.f above. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 50 J. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact According to Figure 3.12-1, City of Lake Elsinore Mineral Resource Zones, of the General Plan EIR (GP EIR), the Project site is located in an area designated MRZ3. According to the GP EIR, MRZ-3 is defined as areas containing known mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources. Further exploration work within these areas could result in the reclassification of specific localities into the MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories. As shown in Table 3.12-1 of the GP EIR, MRZ-3 is divided on the basis of knowledge of economic characteristics of the resources. MRZ-3a areas are considered to have a moderate potential for the discovery of economic mineral deposits. MRZ-3b is applied to land where geologic evidence leads to the conclusion that it is plausible that economic mineral deposits are present. Consequently, the Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation required. b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact According to Figure 3.12-1, City of Lake Elsinore Mineral Resource Zones, of the GP EIR, the Project sites are located in an area designated MRZ3. According to the GP EIR, MRZ-3 is defined as areas containing known mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources. Further exploration work within these areas could result in the reclassification of specific localities into the MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories. As shown in Table 3.12-1 of the GP EIR, MRZ-3 is divided on the basis of knowledge of economic characteristics of the resources. MRZ-3a areas are considered to have a moderate potential for the discovery of economic mineral deposits. MRZ-3b is applied to land where geologic evidence leads to the conclusion that it is plausible that economic mineral deposits are present. The Project will not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 51 K. NOISE The following technical study was prepared to address issues related to noise, and is available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • Noise Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 25, 2015 (NIA). Please refer to Section 1.0 (Introduction), Section 2.0 (Noise Fundamentals), Section 3.0 (Ground-Bourne Vibration Fundamentals), Section 4.0 (Regulatory Setting), Section 5.0 (Existing Noise Conditions), and 6.0 (Modeling Parameters and Assumptions) of the NIA, for additional details utilized for the impact analysis below. a) Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation Construction-Related Noise The construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of the 8.27-acre project site, building construction of the 150 apartment units, 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, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site consist of the structures at Lakeside High School as near as 150 feet southwest of the Project site, Recreational Vehicle (RV) campsites as near as 230 feet southeast of the Project site, and single-family homes as near as 350 feet northwest of the Project site. 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. Section 17.176.080(F)(2) of the City’s Municipal Code limits construction noise that occurs during the allowable times for construction activities to occur to 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA) for mobile equipment and 70 dBA for stationary equipment, which are based on the Type III areas that are classified as semi-residential/commercial. Construction noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated through use of the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) and the parameters and assumptions detailed in Section 6.1 of the NIA, including Table H – Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors. The results are shown below in Table K-1, Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors. The RCNM printouts are provided in Appendix C of the NIA. Lakepointe Apartments 52 Table K-1 Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors 1 City construction noise threshold from Section 17.176.080(F)(2) of the Municipal Code for Type III Areas. Table K-1 shows that greatest noise impacts would occur during the site preparation, grading and building construction phases of construction, with a noise level as high as 73 A-weighted equivalent sound level (dBA Leq) at the nearest classroom at Lakeside High School. Table K-1 also shows that none of the construction phases would exceed the City’s mobile equipment threshold, however the site preparation, grading, and building construction phases would have the potential to exceed the City’s stationary equipment threshold. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is provided that would require any stationary construction equipment that is used within 50 feet of the project’s southwest property line to place a temporary sound barrier between the stationary equipment and Lakeside High School. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, construction-related noise impacts would be reduced to within the City noise standards. Operational-Related Noise The proposed Project would consist of the development of 150 residential apartment units. The proposed Project would be adjacent to Riverside Drive, which may create noise levels in excess of City standards at the proposed residential uses. The City’s General Plan Policy 7.1 requires that new multi-family residential development limit the exterior noise impacts to all proposed private patios and balconies to 60 A-weighted day-night equivalent level (dBA Ldn) and limit the interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn. The exterior and interior noise impacts to the proposed apartment units have been analyzed separately below. Exterior Patio and Balcony Noise All residential buildings are anticipated to have either a private patio or balcony. These private patios and balconies have the potential to exceed the City’s 60 dB Ldn noise standard. The anticipated noise levels have been calculated for the nearest patios and balconies on proposed Building 8 to Riverside Drive. This analysis has been limited to Building 8 as that is the only building where the balconies and patios have an unobstructed view of Riverside Drive. The noise levels were calculated three feet in from the proposed walls and five feet above ground level for the patios and 3 feet above floor level for the balconies. A summary of the results are shown below in Table K-2, Proposed Exterior Patio/Balcony Noise Levels Prior to Mitigation. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) model printouts of the proposed patio/balcony noise calculations are provided in Appendix D of the NIA. Lakepointe Apartments 53 Table K-2 Proposed Exterior Patio/Balcony Noise Levels Prior to Mitigation Table K-2 shows that the proposed first floor patios on Building 8 that face Riverside Drive would exceed the City’s 60 dBA Ldn residential exterior noise standard. Table K-2 also shows that the second floor balconies on Building 8 that face Riverside Drive would be within the City’s 60 dBA Ldn residential exterior standard, provided that the proposed 3.5-foot high balcony wall is made of a solid material that is free of any cutouts or openings. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 is provided that would require the applicant to construct a minimum 5.0-foot high solid wall around the perimeter of any first floor patios that are constructed on the Riverside Drive side of Building 8 and require all second floor balconies on Building 8 that face Riverside Drive to have 3.5-foot high perimeter walls that are constructed of a solid material (e.g., glass, wood or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. The exterior patio and balcony noise levels have been recalculated based on construction of the 5.0-foot high solid walls for the first floor patios detailed in Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and the results are shown in Table K-3, Proposed Mitigated Exterior Patio/Balcony Noise Levels. Table K-3 Proposed Mitigated Exterior Patio/Balcony Noise Levels Table K-3 shows that with application of the proposed 5.0-foot high first floor patio sound walls specified in Mitigation Measure NOI-2, the noise levels at the proposed patios and balconies would be reduced to within the City’s exterior residential noise standard. Impacts would be less than significant after implementation of the recommended mitigation. Interior Noise To assess the interior noise levels related to the compliance with the City’s 45 dBA Ldn criteria, the exterior to interior attenuation rates of the units facing Riverside Drive were calculated and compared to the calculated exterior noise levels at the first and second floor building facades in order to calculate the interior noise levels within the future on-site residential units. The architectural plans were utilized to calculate the exterior to interior attenuation rates of each style interior room that is anticipated to face Riverside Drive. For each room the floor area covered by carpet or linoleum was calculated along with the total square footage of the ceilings and walls, in order to determine the sound Lakepointe Apartments 54 absorption rate of the room. The area of exterior walls, windows, and exterior doors were also calculated in order to determine the exterior transmission levels. The windows were based on standard dual pane windows that have a 26 Sound Transmission Class (STC) Rating, standard doors that have a 26 STC Rating, and standard stucco walls that have a 46 STC Rating. Dual pane windows and doors are required due to California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6). The exterior to interior noise reduction was then determined by combining the calculated room absorption rate to the exterior to interior transmission calculations. Table K-4, Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction Rates. Appendix E of the NIA shows the calculated exterior to interior noise reduction rates for standard dual pane windows and doors. Table K-4 Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction Rates Table K-4 shows that the minimum exterior to interior attenuation rate with standard dual pane windows would be 31 dBA. According to Table K-2, the exterior noise levels at the facades of the proposed structures that face Riverside Drive would be as high as 64 dBA Ldn. Based on a 31 dBA attenuation rate, this would result in an interior noise level of 33 dBA Ldn and would be within the City’s 45 dBA Ldn interior residential standard. Impacts would be considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. b) Would the Project result in an exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact Construction-Related Vibration Impacts The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site consist of the structures at Lakeside High School as near as 150 feet southwest of the Project site, RV campsites as near as 230 feet southeast of the Project site, and single-family homes as near as 350 feet northwest of the Project site. 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 property boundary of the source. Since the City’s Municipal does not provide a quantifiable vibration level, Caltrans guidance has been utilized, which defines the threshold of perception from transient sources at 0.25 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV). The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer. From Table L of the NIA, a large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite receptor (150 feet away) would be 0.01 inch per second PPV. The vibration level at the nearest offsite receptor would be within the 0.25 inch per Lakepointe Apartments 55 second PPV threshold detailed above. Impacts would be less than significant. Operations-Related Vibration Impacts The on-going operation of the proposed Project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources. Therefore, impacts from the operation of the proposed Project would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. Based on the analysis above, the Project will not result in an exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. c) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Less Than Significant Impact Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed Project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed Project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway. Therefore, the proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed Project. Neither the General Plan nor the CEQA Guidelines define what constitutes a “substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels”, as such, this impact analysis has utilized guidance from the Federal Transit Administration for a moderate impact that has been detailed in Table A of the NIA. The potential offsite traffic noise impacts created by the on-going operations of the proposed project have been analyzed through utilization of the FHWA model and parameters. The FHWA model noise calculation spreadsheets are provided in Appendix F of the NIA. The proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the without Project scenario to the with Project scenarios for existing year, opening year 2017, and year 2017 with cumulative projects conditions. The results of this comparison are shown in Table K-5, Project-Related Traffic Noise Contributions. Lakepointe Apartments 56 Table K-5 Project-Related Traffic Noise Contributions 1 Distance to nearest residential use shown in Table I of the NIA, does not take into account existing noise barriers. Table K-5 shows that for all scenarios analyzed, the proposed Project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the increase thresholds detailed above. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. d) Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The greatest noise impacts would occur during the site preparation, grading and building construction phases of construction, with a noise level as high as 73 dBA Leq at the nearest classroom at Lakeside High School. None of the construction phases would exceed the City’s mobile equipment threshold, however the site preparation, grading, and building construction phases would have the potential to exceed the City’s stationary equipment threshold. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is provided that would require any stationary construction equipment that is used within 50 feet of the Project’s southwest property line to place a temporary sound barrier between the stationary equipment and Lakeside High School. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the proposed Project would not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would remain less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 57 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 expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact The Project site is not located within the influence area for any airport. The closest airfield is a private airstrip, Skylark Airport, which is located approximately 5 miles to the southeast of the site. Skylark Airport is use primarily by skydiving aircraft. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact Skylark Field is located approximately 5 miles to the southeast of the Project sites. Skylark Airport is used primarily by skydiving aircraft. Given the type of aircraft that routinely use the airfield and the distance to the Project sites, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES NOI-1 The Project applicant shall require any construction contractor that needs to use stationary construction equipment within 50 feet of the Project’s southwest property line to place a temporary sound barrier between the stationary equipment and Lakeside High School. NOI-2 The Project applicant shall construct a minimum 5.0-foot high solid wall around the perimeter of any first floor patios that are constructed on the Riverside Drive side of Building 8 and require all second floor balconies on Building 8 that face Riverside Drive to have 3.5-foot high perimeter walls that are constructed of a solid material (e.g., glass, wood or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. Lakepointe Apartments 58 L. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will add permanent people to the City’s population. The existing General Plan designation for the Project site anticipated population growth from the residential uses that would ultimately be constructed on the Project site. The proposed Project will result in an additional increment of area-wide population growth consistent with the adopted General Plan. As a result, any impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are required. b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact The Project site is currently vacant. As a result, the Project will not displace any existing housing or residents. Consequently, no impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Because the Project site is vacant, the Project will not displace a substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As a result, no impacts are anticipated; and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 59 M. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection and safety services to the City. The nearest fire station is Station No. 85, located at 29405 Grand Ave, northwest of the Project site. Ambulance and paramedic services are provided by Goodhew Ambulance Service. The Project will participate in the Development Impact Fee Program as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore to mitigate impacts to fire protection resources. This will provide funding for capital improvements such as land, equipment purchases, and fire station equipment. As a result, the Project will not result in activities that create significant impacts. Any impacts will be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate Development Impact Fee. This is a standard condition, and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact Police protection services are provided by the City’s Police Department as part of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The nearest sheriff's station is located at 333 Limited Street in Lake Elsinore. Traffic enforcement is provided for Riverside County in this area by the California Highway Patrol with additional support from the local County Sheriff's Department. The Project shall participate in the Development Impact Fee Program as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore to mitigate impacts to police protection resources. As a result, the Project will not result in activities that create significant impacts. Any impacts will be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate Development Impact Fee. This is a standard condition, and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. c) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact The Project is residential in nature and will directly increase student enrollment at schools within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD). Based upon its current enrollment pattern, LEUSD has calculated typical student enrollment factors for elementary, middle and high schools within the District. To offset any potential impacts, the Project is required to pay appropriate school. These fees, which are considered a standard condition, are payable prior to building permit issuance. As a result, any impacts are considered less than significant level after the payment of school mitigation fees. No other mitigation measures are required. d) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will increase the areas permanent population and associated burden on parks in the area; thereby, Lakepointe Apartments 60 resulting in the demand for parks and recreational facilities. The Project will be required to pay the applicable Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees, which have been established to mitigate impacts from Projects to existing and proposed park facilities. At the current time, the fee is $1,400 per unit. These fees, which are considered a standard condition, are payable prior to building permit issuance. As a result, any impacts are considered less than significant level after the payment of Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees. No other mitigation is required. e) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will permanently increase the local population and will subsequently result in an increase for the demand for other governmental services such as the library and the other community support services commonly provided by the City of Lake Elsinore. The Project will be required to pay the applicable Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees, which have been established to mitigate impacts from Projects to existing and proposed park facilities. At the current time, the fee is $150 per unit. In addition, the Project will be required to pay City Hall & Public Works fees (currently $404/unit), Community Center Fees (currently $272 per unit), Marina Facilities Fees (currently $389/unit), and Animal Shelter Facility Fees (currently $174/unit). These fees, which are considered standard conditions, are payable prior to building permit issuance. As a result, any impacts are considered less than significant level after the payment of these fees. No other mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 61 N. RECREATION a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will provide on-site recreational uses for use by residents at the site. The Project will be required to pay the applicable Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees, which have been established to mitigate impacts from Projects to existing and proposed park facilities. At the current time, the fee is $1,400 per unit. These fees, which are considered a standard condition, are payable prior to building permit issuance. As a result, any impacts from the Project that will result in an 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 are considered less than significant level after the payment of Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees. No other mitigation is required. b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact The Project includes recreational amenities that are intended to meet a portion of the recreational demands of the residents. The Project will be required to pay the applicable Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees, which have been established to mitigate impacts from Projects to existing and proposed park facilities. At the current time, the fee is $1,400 per unit. These fees, which are considered a standard condition, are payable prior to building permit issuance. As a result, any impacts from the Project that would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, are considered less than significant level after the payment of Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees. No other mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 62 O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC The following technical study was prepared to address issues related to traffic, and is available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • Traffic Impact Analysis, Lakeshore Pointe, Lake Elsinore California, prepared by Infrastructure Group, Inc., October 22, 2015 (TIA). Please refer to Section 1.0 (Introduction), Section 2.0 (Area Conditions), Section 3.0 (Project Future Traffic), and Section 4.0 (Cumulative Traffic), of the TIA, for additional details utilized for the impact analysis below. a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Traffic generated by the proposed Project was added to the existing traffic volumes (with two growth factor) to determine the existing plus Project condition. Figure O-1, Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes illustrates the existing plus Project traffic volumes and daily traffic on roadway segments. Lakepointe Apartments 63 Figure O-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Lakepointe Apartments 64 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Table O-1, Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary, provides the results of the existing plus Project Level of Service (LOS) analysis during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table O-1, all study area intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) with the exception of Riverside Drive/Lincoln Street (LOS E in the AM peak hour) Riverside Drive/Grand Avenue (LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours). Table O-1 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary Existing with Ambient Growth Rate (Opening Year 2017) Plus Project Traffic Conditions Traffic generated by the proposed Project was added to the existing traffic volumes plus a six (6) percent growth factor to determine the Opening Year plus Project condition. Figure O-2, Opening Year (2017) Plus Project Traffic Volumes, illustrates the Opening Year plus Project traffic volumes and daily traffic on roadway segments. Lakepointe Apartments 65 Figure O-2 Opening Year (2017) Plus Project Traffic Volumes Lakepointe Apartments 66 Opening Year 2017 Plus Project Level of Service Table O-2, Opening Year Plus Project Level of Service Summary, provides the results of the existing plus Project LOS analysis during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table O-2, all study area intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) with the exception of Riverside Drive/Lincoln Street (LOS E in the AM peak hour) Riverside Drive/Grand Avenue (LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours). Table O-2 Opening Year plus Project Level of Service Summary Cumulative Traffic Conditions Project trips from the three cumulative projects were added to the existing traffic volumes, along with a four percent growth rate, to determine the cumulative traffic volumes. Figure O-3, Cumulative Traffic Volumes, illustrates the cumulative AM and PM peak hour volumes at the study area intersections, and the cumulative daily traffic on roadway segments. Lakepointe Apartments 67 Figure O-3 Cumulative Traffic Volumes Lakepointe Apartments 68 Cumulative Level of Service Table O-3, Cumulative Level of Service Summary, provides the results of the existing plus Project LOS analysis during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table O-3, all study area intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) with the exception of Riverside Drive/Lincoln Street (LOS F in the AM peak hour) Riverside Drive/ Grand Avenue (LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours). Table O-3 Cumulative Level of Service Summary Prior to occupancy, the Project developer shall pay fair share contributions as outlined on page 29 of the Project TIA. The fair share contributions should be collected and used to construct the offsite improvements to maintain the acceptable LOS. In addition, the developer will be required to mitigate any Project impacts by paying its fair share toward the City of Lake Elsinore’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program and the regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. These are standard conditions, and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measure TR-1, and payment of TUMF and DIF, any impacts are anticipated to remain at a less than significant level. b) Would the Project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will not exceed, when analyzed cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Please reference the discussion under Item O.a. above. Riverside Avenue in front of the Project site is not designated as a Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway. Consequently, the Project will not significantly affect the designated CMP road network. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated. No additional mitigation is required. c) Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact The Project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. None exist on-site or are proximate to this site. No impacts are foreseen; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Lakepointe Apartments 69 d) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation The Project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Access and roadway improvements will be designed to comply with design criteria contained in the Caltrans Design Manual and other City requirements and standards. Sight distance and signing and pavement striping to and at the Project driveways will be reviewed at the time of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. Mitigation Measure TR-2 requires street improvements, signing and striping on Riverside Avenue along the Project frontage shall be installed as directed by Caltrans and the City Prior to occupancy. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, Project impacts will be considered less than. No additional mitigation is required. e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact The Project has no potential to result in inadequate emergency access. Access to and from the site will be provided via Riverside Avenue (State Route 74). The potential for inadequate emergency access is considered to be minimal and non-significant. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. f) Would the Project result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact On-site parking spaces will be required in accordance with the City’s Zoning Code requirements for the proposed uses. Therefore, the Project will not result in inadequate parking capacity. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. g) Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact The General Plan (Figure 2.5, City of Lake Elsinore Bikeway Plan) requires that a Class II bikeway be provided along Riverside Avenue in front of the Project. The Class II bikeway is incorporated into the standard street cross-section for Urban Arterial roadways (Figure 2.2, City of Lake Elsinore Roadway Cross Sections). In addition, the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Route 8 bus travels along this section of Riverside Avenue as part of its route around the west side of Lake Elsinore between Outlet Center and the community of Wildomar. (www.riversidetransit.com/home/images/stories/DOWNLOADS/ROUTES/008.pdf) This route offers daily services between the hours of 5:45 a.m. and approximately 7:45 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of approximately 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekends. The Project is not in conflict with other transit policies or programs. As a result, no significant impacts are expected and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES TR-1 Prior to occupancy, the Project developer shall pay fair share contributions as outlined on page 29 of Lakepointe Apartments 70 the Project TIA. TR-2 Prior to occupancy, street improvements, signing and striping for Riverside Avenue shall be installed as directed by Caltrans and the City. Lakepointe Apartments 71 P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact The Santa Ana RWQCB regulates wastewater discharges within the drainage area around Lake Elsinore. The proposed residential Project will be connecting to the wastewater treatment system operated by the EVMWD. As discussed in Sections P.b. and P.e, the sewer services provided by EVMWD are currently available in Riverside Avenue adjacent to the Project site and the Project site is within the anticipated service area for the District. The development of the Project is not expected to create any exceedances in wastewater treatment standards. While the Project will contribute an additional increment of wastewater flow to EVMWD’s wastewater treatment facilities, the Project will also contribute connection fees to address infrastructure impacts and monthly service charges to address operational impacts. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. (Urban runoff-related water quality impacts associated with Project construction and operations are discussed in Section H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND). b) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact The Project is within the service boundary for the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), which shall provide water and wastewater service to the Project. Pre-Planning Letter No. CRS# 1767 (Appendix H) dated May 15, 2014 indicates that the applicant needs to complete and submit a District Plan Check Application Package, as well as obtain a Will Serve/Service Commitment Letter from EVMWD. The letter states that the developer will be required to pay all applicable District Plan Check, Inspection & Sewer Capacity Fees prior to development. Based on this letter, EVWMD has the capacity and intent to service the water and wastewater needs of the Project. Therefore, the Project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. As a result, any potential impacts are considered incremental and less than significant. Other than the standard requirements to connect to the District’s water supply and wastewater treatment networks and the payment of connection fees, no additional mitigation is required. c) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will not result in the construction or expansion of new area-wide storm drainage facilities. The Project will connect to the existing drainage facility located immediately adjacent to the site. These connections would convey on-site runoff into the existing drainage system after treatment by the best management practices identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (and discussed in in Section H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND). Since no new or expanded storm drain facilities are proposed, no significant impacts are anticipated and mitigation measures are required. Lakepointe Apartments 72 d) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact Reference Response P.B. The Project will create additional demand for potable water supplies, however this additional increment is considered to be less than significant, as EVWMD has the capacity and intent to service the water and wastewater needs of the Project. Other than the standard mandatory connection and services fees and installation of onsite utility infrastructure, no additional mitigation is required. e) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact As described above, the Project will result in an additional increment of demand for wastewater treatment capacity. According to the best available data, there is expected to be sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to handle the additional increment generated by this Project within the existing system. The collection and treatment systems are also addressed in responses P.a and P.b above. Because impacts are minor and incremental, they are considered to be less than significant. Other than the standard mandatory connection and services fees and installation of onsite utility infrastructure, no additional mitigation is required. f) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project will generate demand for solid waste service system capacity and has a potential to contribute to potentially significant cumulative demand impacts on the solid waste system. The proposed Project will generate demand for solid waste service system capacity. According to the Section 3.16, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of the GP EIR, implementation of the General Plan will result in population increases and increases in commercial, industrial and other non-residential uses which would potentially impact solid waste disposal services and the capacity of landfill facilities that serve the City. As shown in Table 3.16-12, Projected Increase in Solid Waste Generation – General Plan Buildout – 2030, of the GPEIR, implementation of the General Plan would generate an additional 719 tons per day of solid waste, or 175,493 tons of solid waste per year at buildout. However, pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act, the State of California has established 50 percent as the minimum waste reduction rate for all cities. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s “Jurisdictional Profile for City of Lake Elsinore”, the City had a diversion rate of 50 percent in 2006. Compliance with State law will result in a minimum of 50 percent of the estimated increase in City’s generated solid waste being diverted from landfills. Therefore, the maximum estimated increase in solid waste that would be placed into landfills at General Plan buildout (2030) would be 87,747 tons per year. This represents approximately 2.1 percent of the current combined daily permitted capacity (25,054 tons per day) of all landfills currently serving the City. Although buildout of the General Plan will result in an increase in the amount of solid waste that is sent to landfills, the remaining combined capacity at the landfills is sufficient to accommodate buildout of the General Plan. The Project is not expected to create solid wastes other than typical municipal solid waste consistent with the General Plan expectations for the area. Combined with the City's mandatory source reduction and recycling program, the Project is not forecast to cause any significant adverse impact to the solid waste management Lakepointe Apartments 73 system. Impacts, while incremental, are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. g) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Please refer to Response P.f., above. The Project does not any propose activities that would conflict with the any applicable programmatic requirements. In addition, any future development shall comply with construction and debris removal and recycling requirements and shall contract with the City’s waste hauler/franchisee for all bins and their removal in accordance with City Ordinance. As a result, the Project will comply with all of the applicable requirements and any impacts will be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 74 Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the State CEQA Guidelines. a-c) 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; 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.); and/or, have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The proposed Project has been determined to be consistent with the City's General Plan. It can be implemented without causing significant adverse environmental effects with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in the preceding evaluation of environmental issues. The City will require the implementation of mitigation to ensure that potentially significant impacts do not occur to any of the following resource values or physical conditions that occur within the proposed improvements area: aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation/traffic. Based on the data contained in this document and supporting technical studies, the City proposes to issue a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental determination to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Lakepointe Apartments 75 V. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129, Organizations and Persons Consulted, of the State CEQA Guidelines. A. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE • Justin Kirk, Principal Planner B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • Vista Environmental (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gasses, and Noise) • Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (Geotechnical and Phase 1 Environmental) • MLB Engineering (Hydrology, Water Quality Management Plan) • Infrastructure Group, Inc. (Traffic) C. OTHER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES None. Lakepointe Apartments 76 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2016-01– City of Lake Elsinore The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project Name: Lakepointe Apartments: Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05). Project Applicant: Lakeside Pointe, LLC, 43414 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590. Project Locations: Northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, and known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022. Project Description: Lakeside Pointe, LLC (Project proponent) is proposing to implement a 150-unit multi- family Project with associated recreational amenities – tot lot, swimming pool, and clubhouse on an approximate 8.27-acre site, located within the City of Lake Elsinore, western Riverside County, California. Residential Design Review 2014-05 allows for 150 multi-family units, associated landscaping, parking, as well as recreational uses on the entire approximately 8.27-acre proposed Project site, for an overall Project density of approximately 18.14 dwelling units per acre. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Lake Elsinore, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the environmental and is proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following findings: The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but: (1) Proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. (3) Mitigation measures are required to ensure all potentially significant impacts are reduced to a less than significance level. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. If adopted, the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The Project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. 7-1-16 Date of Determination Justin Kirk for Grant Taylor, Director of Community Development Lakepointe Apartments 77 ATTACHMENT A - FIGURES FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 SITE PLAN FIGURE 3a RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3b RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 ELEVATIONS FIGURE 4 PRELIMINARY WQMP POST-CONSTRUCTION BMP SITE PLAN FIGURE 5 GENERAL PLAN MAP SITE FIGURE 6 ZONING MAP SITE FIGURE 7 AERIAL PHOTO FIGURE 8 GEOTRACKER SITE FIGURE 9 ENVIROSTOR SITE *IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County RCIT GIS 4,259 Feet Legend Notes 2,1300 REPORT PRINTED ON...6/27/2016 10:57:46 AM Airports Farmland <all other values> GRAZING LAND LOCAL IMPORTANCE NOT MAPPED OTHER LANDS PRIME FARMLAND STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE UNIQUE FARMLAND URBAN-BUILT UP LAND WATERBODIES Intake Boundaries <all other values> NO UNKNOWN YES Historic Preservation Districts Boundary City Boundaries Cities roadsanno highways HWY INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE OFFRAMP ONRAMP USHWY roads Major Roads Arterial Collector Residential counties FIGURE 10 FARMLAND *IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County RCIT GIS 17,037 Feet Legend Notes 8,5190 REPORT PRINTED ON...6/27/2016 10:53:44 AM FIGURE 11 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE/WILLIAMSON ACT Agricultural Preserve Airports Intake Boundaries <all other values> NO UNKNOWN YES Historic Preservation Districts Boundary City Boundaries Cities adjacent_highways Interstate Interstate 3 State Highways; 60 State Highways 3 US HWY OUT highways_large HWY INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE USHWY counties cities *IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County RCIT GIS 17,037 Feet Legend Notes 8,5190 REPORT PRINTED ON...6/28/2016 11:49:56 AM Faults <all other values> ALQUIST-PRIOLO RIVERSIDE COUNTY Fault Zones <all other values> COUNTY FAULT ZONE ELSINORE FAULT ZONE SAN ANDREAS FAULT ZONE SAN JACINTO FAULT ZONE adjacent_highways Interstate Interstate 3 State Highways; 60 State Highways 3 US HWY OUT highways_large HWY INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE USHWY counties cities FIGURE 12 FAULT ZONE Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM APPENDIX 2 group, inc.engineering LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT STUDY City of Lake Elsinore, California rk16548.1.doc JN:2935-2021-03 LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT STUDY City of Lake Elsinore, California Prepared for: Mr. Kirk Bowlus LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS LLC. 1662 Dustin Place Riverside, CA 92506 Prepared by: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 4000 Westerly Place, Suite 280 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bryan Estrada, AICP, PTP November 8, 2022 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Site Location 1-1 1.2 Project Description 1-2 1.3 Sensitive Receptors 1-2 1.4 Summary of Analysis Results 1-3 1.5 Recommended Mitigation Measures - GHG 1-4 2.0 Air Quality Setting .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Description of Air Pollutants 2-1 2.2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 2-4 2.3 Attainment Status 2-6 2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2-7 2.5 South Coast Air Basin 2-9 2.6 Local Climate and Meteorology 2-10 2.7 Local Air Quality 2-11 3.0 Global Climate Change Setting ............................................................... 3-1 3.1 Greenhouse Gases 3-2 3.2 GHG Regulatory Setting - International 3-4 3.3 GHG Regulatory Setting – National 3-5 3.4 GHG Regulatory Setting – State of California 3-6 3.5 GHG Emissions Inventory 3-7 4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ................................................. 4-1 4.1 Construction Assumptions 4-1 4.2 Localized Construction Analysis Modeling Parameters 4-2 4.3 Operational Assumptions 4-3 4.3.1 Mobile Source Emissions 4-3 4.3.2 Energy Source Emissions 4-5 4.3.3 Area Source Emissions 4-6 4.3.4 Other Sources of Operational Emissions 4-7 5.0 Significance Thresholds ............................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Air Quality Regional Significance Thresholds 5-1 5.2 Air Quality Localized Significance Thresholds 5-1 5.3 Microscale CO Concentration Standards 5-2 5.4 GHG Significance Thresholds 5-3 5.4.1 SCAQMD Recommended GHG Thresholds 5-3 5.5 Lake Elsinore General Plan Air Quality Element 5-5 5.6 Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan 5-5 Table of Contents (continued) Section Page 6.0 Air Quality Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Short-Term Air Quality Impacts - Construction 6-1 6.1.1 Regional Emissions - Construction 6-1 6.1.2 Localized Emissions - Construction 6-2 6.1.3 Fugitive Dust - Construction 6-3 6.1.4 Odors - Construction 6-4 6.1.5 Asbestos - Construction 6-4 6.1.6 Diesel Particulate Matter - Construction 6-5 6.2 Long Terms Air Quality Impacts - Operation 6-6 6.2.1 Regional Emissions - Operation 6-6 6.2.2 Localized Emissions - Operation 6-7 6.2.3 Odors – Operation 6-8 6.2.4 Toxic Air Contaminants – Operation 6-8 6.3 CO Hot Spot Emissions 6-9 6.4 Air Quality Management Plan Consistency 6-9 6.4.1 Criteria 1 – Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations 6-10 6.4.2 Criteria 2 – Exceed assumptions in the AQMP 6-10 7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis ............................................................ 7-1 7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Construction 7-1 7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Operation 7-2 7.2 City of Lake Elsinore CAP Consistency 7-3 8.0 References ............................................................................................. 8-1 List of Attachments Exhibits Location Map ........................................................................................................... A Site Plan ................................................................................................................... B Tables Land Use Summary ................................................................................................... 1 CEQA Air Quality Impact Criteria ............................................................................... 2 CEQA GHG Impact Criteria ........................................................................................ 3 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) .......................................... 4 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ................................................................... 5 Meteorological Summary .......................................................................................... 6 Local Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 7 Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases ........................................................ 8 GHG Emissions Inventory .......................................................................................... 9 Construction Equipment Assumptions Phase ............................................................. 10 Trip Generation Rates ............................................................................................... 11 Operational Vehicle Trip Assumptions ....................................................................... 12 Operational Vehicle Miles Traveled ............................................................................ 13 Vehicle Mix for Trips ................................................................................................. 14 Electricity and Natural Gas Usage .............................................................................. 15 Operational Water Usage and Waste Generation ....................................................... 16 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds................................................................ 17 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ............................................................... 18 SCAQMD Tier 3 GHG Screening Values ..................................................................... 19 SCAQMD Tier 4 GHG Screening Values ..................................................................... 20 Regional Construction Emissions ............................................................................... 21 Localized Construction Emissions Unmitigated .......................................................... 22 Regional Operational Emissions ................................................................................. 23 Localized Operational Emissions ................................................................................ 24 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................... 25 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................... 26 GHG Efficiency Rates – City of Lake Elsinore ............................................................... 27 List of Attachments (continued) Appendices Daily Emission Calculation Outputs (CalEEMod) ......................................................... A Annual Emission Calculation Outputs (CalEEMod) ..................................................... B 1-1 1.0 Introduction This report has been updated to reflect the minor modifications to the project description, based on the modified site plan, dated 9/12/22. The project now includes a total of 152 dwelling units (an increase of two units from what was previously studied). However, overall, the site plan has not significantly changed, and the modified project would affect the findings of this analysis, and no new or more severe impacts would occur. All previously identified mitigation measures and project design features are still applicable. Hence, the findings of the previous March 31, 2021, analysis are still accurate and adequately address all project impacts. No additional changes have been made to this updated report beyond reference to the latest site plan. The purpose of this air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis is to determine whether the estimated criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions generated from the construction and operation of the proposed Lake Pointe Apartments Project (hereinafter referred to as project) would cause significant impacts to air resources. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.). The methodology follows the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and City of Lake Elsinore recommendations for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts. 1.1 Site Location The project site is located at the northerly corner of Riverside Drive (SR-74) and Lakeside High School/Le Harve Avenue, in the City of Lake Elsinore, California. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), the SCAQMD Hemet/Elsinore General Forecast Area, and the Lake Elsinore Source Receptor Area (SRA) 25. The project site is bounded by commercial uses to the northeast, Lakeside High School to the southwest, Riverside Drive to the southeast and vacant land use to the northwest. The project site is zoned for Residential Mixed Use (RMU) in the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map and Lake Elsinore City Plan General Plan Land Use Designation Map. The project location map is provided in Exhibit A. 1-2 1.2 Project Description The project proposes to construct and operate 152 residential apartment dwelling units on an approximately 8.26 acre vacant site. The site plan used for this analysis, provided by ROBERT BEERS is illustrated in Exhibit B. Table 1 summarizes the proposed project land uses. Table 1 Land Use Summary Land Use Quantity1 Metric Low Rise Apartment Units 152 Dwelling Units 1 It should be noted that the emissions analysis is based on the previous site plan of 150 dwelling units. The minor modification to the current site plan, which adds two additional units, would not significantly affect the findings of this analysis, and no new or more severe impacts would occur. All previously identified mitigation measures and project design features are still applicable. The site requires export of approximately 12,200 cubic yards of earthwork material during grading phase. Construction of the project is estimated to begin in the year 2021 and requires approximately 14 months for the final completion of the project. Construction activities are expected to consist of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The project is expected to be complete in the year 2023. 1.3 Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more sensitive to air pollution exposure. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases. For CEQA purposes, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24-hours or longer, such as residences, hospitals, and schools (etc), as described in the Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008a, page 3-2). Sensitive receptors are located within 25 meters of the project site. Several sensitive land uses are considered to be present around the site, including: 1. Residential homes located at approximately 275 feet to the northeast of the project site. 1-3 2. Lakeside High School located adjacent to the project site to the southwest. 3. Residential homes located at approximately 340 feet to the northwest of the site. 1.4 Summary of Analysis Results Table 2 provides a summary of the CEQA air quality impact analysis results. Table 2 CEQA Air Quality Impact Criteria Air Quality Impact Criteria Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the applicable air quality plan? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? X Table 3 provides a summary of the CEQA GHG impact criteria analysis results. Table 3 CEQA GHG Impact Criteria GHG Impact Criteria Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases? X 1-4 1.5 Recommended Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to help ensure the project does not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In particular, given the close proximity of sensitive receptors, including the existing high school immediately adjacent to the site, several standard dust control measures have been included as mitigation to ensure adequate enforcement and compliance. Construction Mitigation Measures: MM-1 The project must follow the standard SCAQMD rules and requirements with regards to fugitive dust control, which includes, but are not limited to the following: 1. All active construction areas shall be watered two (2) times daily. 2. Speed on unpaved roads shall be reduced to less than 15 mph. 3. Any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway shall be swept or washed at the site access points within 30 minutes. 4. Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material shall be covered or watered twice daily. 5. All operations on any unpaved surface shall be suspended if winds exceed 15 mph. 6. Access points shall be washed or swept daily. 7. Construction sites shall be sandbagged for erosion control. 8. Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). 9. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, and maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard space in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114. 10. Pave or gravel construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road and use gravel aprons at truck exits. 11. Replace the ground cover of disturbed areas as quickly possible. 12. A fugitive dust control plan should be prepared and submitted to SCAQMD prior to the start of construction. MM-2 Require all construction equipment to have Tier 4 low emission “clean diesel” engines (OEM or retrofit) that include diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters that meet the latest CARB best available control technology. 1-5 MM-3 Construction equipment shall be maintained in proper tune. MM-4 All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from excessive idling. Excessive idling is defined as five (5) minutes or longer. MM-5 Minimize the simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. MM-6 The use of heavy construction equipment and earthmoving activity should be suspended during Air Alerts when the Air Quality Index reaches the “Unhealthy” level. MM-7 Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible. MM-8 Establish staging areas for the construction equipment that are as distant as possible from adjacent sensitive receptors (High School). MM-9 Use haul trucks with on-road engines instead of off-road engines for on-site hauling. MM-10 Prepare and implement a Construction Management Plan which will include the required mitigation measures to be submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore and followed by construction contractors and personnel. 1.6 Recommended Project Design Features The following recommended project design features are considered standard building code requirements and best practices that will be included in the project design. DF-1. Comply with the mandatory requirements of the California Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Code) and Part 11 (CALGreen), including: • Install low flow fixtures and toilets, water efficient irrigation systems, drought tolerant/native landscaping, and reduce the amount of turf. • Provide the necessary infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging. • Provide solar installations necessary for meeting the prescribed Energy Design Rating. 1-6 DF-2. Comply with the mandatory requirements of CalRecycle’s residential recycling program and implement zero waste strategies. DF-3. Encourage the property management company and landscape maintenance crews to use electric powered landscaping equipment for landscape maintenance. DF-4. Utilize zero VOC and low VOC paints and solvents, wherever possible. 2-1 2.0 Air Quality Setting The Federal Clean Air Act (§ 7602) defines air pollution as any agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, or radioactive substance which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Household combustion devices, motor vehicles, industrial facilities and forest fires are common sources of air pollution. Air pollution can cause disease, allergies and death. It affects soil, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate. It can also cause damage to and deterioration of property, present hazards to transportation, and negatively impact the economy. This section provides background information on criteria air pollutants, the applicable federal, state and local regulations concerning air pollution, and the existing physical setting of the project within the context of local air quality. 2.1 Description of Air Pollutants1. The following section describes the air pollutants of concern related to the project. Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health. The following descriptions of criteria air pollutants have been provided by the SCAQMD. • Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, and biomass). Sources include motor vehicle exhaust, industrial processes (metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources. CO is somewhat soluble in water; therefore, rainfall and fog can suppress CO conditions. CO enters the body through the lungs, dissolves in the blood, and competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood's ability to transport oxygen to vital organs in the body. The ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide is intended to protect persons whose medical condition already compromises their circulatory system's ability to deliver oxygen. These medical conditions include certain heart ailments, chronic lung diseases, and anemia. Persons with these conditions have reduced exercise capacity even when exposed to relatively low levels of CO. Fetuses are at risk because their blood has an even greater affinity to bind with CO. Smokers are also at risk from ambient CO levels because smoking 1 SCAQMD. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning (May 6, 2005) 2-2 increases the background level of CO in their blood. The South Coast basin has recently achieved attainment status for carbon monoxide by both USEPA and CARB. • Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is a byproduct of fuel combustion. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts quickly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in young children has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm). NO2 absorbs blue light which results in a brownish red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. Although NO2 concentrations have not exceeded national standards since 1991 and the state hourly standard since 1993, NOx emissions remain of concern because of their contribution to the formation of O3 and particulate matter. • Ozone (O3) is one of a number of substances called photochemical oxidants that are formed when volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOx react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. O3 concentrations in the South Coast basin are typically among the highest in the nation, and the damaging effects of photochemical smog, which is a popular name for a number of oxidants in combination, are generally related to the concentrations of O3. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease, such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the subgroups most susceptible to O3 effects. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels typically observed in southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. In recent years, a correlation between elevated ambient O3 levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates, as well as mortality, has also been reported. The South Coast Air Basin is designated by the USEPA as an extreme non- attainment area for ozone. Although O3 concentrations have declined substantially since the early 1990s, the South Coast basin continues to have peak O3 levels that exceed both state and federal standards. • Fine Particulate Matter (PM10) consists of extremely small suspended particles or droplets 10 microns or smaller in diameter that can lodge in the lungs, contributing to respiratory problems. PM10 arises from such sources as re-entrained road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, tire and brake abrasion, construction operations, and fires. It is also formed in the atmosphere from NOx and SO2 reactions with ammonia. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. Inhalable particulates 2-3 pose a serious health hazard, alone or in combination with other pollutants. More than half of the smallest particles inhaled will be deposited in the lungs and can cause permanent lung damage. Inhalable particulates can also have a damaging effect on health by interfering with the body’s mechanism for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as a carrier of an absorbed toxic substance. The South Coast basin has recently achieved federal attainment status for PM10, but is non-attainment based on state requirements. • Ultra-Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) is defined as particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 microns and is a subset of PM10. PM2.5 consists mostly of products from the reaction of NOx and SO2 with ammonia, secondary organics, finer dust particles, and the combustion of fuels, including diesel soot. PM2.5 can cause exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular disease, declines in pulmonary function growth in children, and increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in the elderly. Daily fluctuations in PM2.5 levels have been related to hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions, school absences, and increased medication use in children and adults with asthma. The South Coast basin is designated as non-attainment for PM2.5 by both federal and state standards. • Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Health effects include acute respiratory symptoms and difficulty in breathing for children. Individuals with asthma may experience constriction of airways with exposure to SO2. Though SO2 concentrations have been reduced to levels well below state and federal standards, further reductions in SO2 emissions are needed because SO2 is a precursor to sulfate and PM10. The South Coast basin is considered a SO2 attainment area by USEPA and CARB. • Lead (Pb) is a toxic heavy metal that can be emitted into the air through some industrial processes, burning of leaded gasoline and past use of lead-based consumer products. Lead is a neurotoxin that accumulates in soft tissues and bones, damages the nervous system, and causes blood disorders. It is particularly problematic in children, in that permanent brain damage may result, even if blood levels are promptly normalized with treatment. Concentrations of lead once exceeded the state and federal air quality standards by a wide margin, but as a result of the removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline, ambient air quality standards for lead have not been exceeded since 1982. Though special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources recorded localized violations of the state standard in 1994, no violations have been recorded since. Consequently, the South Coast basin is designated as an attainment area for lead by both the USEPA and CARB. This report 2-4 does not analyze lead emissions from the project, as it is not expected to emit lead in any significant measurable quantity. • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), although not actually a criteria air pollutant, VOCs are regulated by the SCAQMD because they cause chemical reactions which contribute to the formation of ozone. VOCs are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher PM10 and lower visibility levels. Sources of VOCs include combustion engines, and evaporative emissions associated with fuel, paints and solvents, asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Although health-based standards have not been established for VOCs, health effects can occur from exposures to high concentrations of VOC. Some hydrocarbon components classified as VOC emissions are hazardous air pollutants. Benzene, for example, is a hydrocarbon component of VOC emissions that are known to be a human carcinogen. The term reactive organic gases (ROG) are often used interchangeably with VOC. • Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are defined as air pollutants which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health, and for which there is no concentration that does not present some risk. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants, in that there is no threshold level for TAC exposure below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur. The majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to a relatively few compounds, the most common being diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel engine exhaust. In addition to DPM, benzene and 1,3-butadiene are also significant contributors to overall ambient public health risk in California. 2.2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards The Federal Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The State of California has also established additional and more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) in addition to the seven criteria pollutants designated by the federal government. AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. The standards are divided into two categories, primary standards and secondary standards. Primary standards are implemented to provide protection for the “sensitive” populations such as those with asthma, or the children and elderly. Secondary standards are to provide protection against visible pollution as well as damage to the surrounding environment, including animals, crops, and buildings. 2-5 Table 3 shows the Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Table 4 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)1 Air Pollutant Averaging Time 2 Federal Standard (NAAQS)2 California Standard (CAAQS)2 Ozone 1 Hour -- 0.09 ppm 8 Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour 35 ppm 20 ppm 8 Hour 9 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm 3 Hour 0.5 ppm3 -- 24 Hour -- 0.04 ppm Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 Hour 150 μg/m³ 50 μg/m³ Mean -- 20 μg/m³ Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour 35 μg/m³ -- Annual 12 μg/m³ 12 μg/m³ Lead 30-day -- 1.5 μg/m Quarter 1.5 μg/m -- 3-month average 0.15 μg/m -- Visibility reducing particles 8 Hour -- 0.23/km extinction coefficient. (10-mile visibility standard) Sulfates 24 Hour -- 25 μg/m Vinyl chloride 24 Hour -- 0.01 ppm Hydrogen sulfide 24 Hour -- 0.03 ppm 1 Source: USEPA: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table and CARB: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards 2 ppm = parts per million of air, by volume; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; Annual = Annual Arithmetic Mean; 30-day = 30-day average; Quarter = Calendar quarter. 3 Secondary standards 2-6 Several pollutants listed in Table 4 are not addressed in this analysis. Lead is not included because the project is not anticipated to emit lead. Visibility-reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed. The project is not expected to generate or be exposed to vinyl chloride because proposed project uses do not utilize the chemical processes that create this pollutant and there are no such uses in the project vicinity. The proposed project is not expected to cause exposure to hydrogen sulfide because it would not generate hydrogen sulfide in any substantial quantity. 2.3 Attainment Status The Clean Air Act requires states to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to ensure air quality meets the NAAQS. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides designations of attainment for air basins where AAQS are either met or exceeded. If the AAQS are met, the area is designated as being in “attainment”, if the air pollutant concentrations exceed the AAQS, than the area is designated as being “nonattainment”. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, the area is considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or ‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the Federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. When a state submits a request to the EPA to re-designate a nonattainment area to attainment, the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(a) requires that the state (or states, if the area is a multi-state area) submit a maintenance plan ensuring the area can maintain the air quality standard for which the area is to be re-designated for at least 10 years following the effective date of re-designation. Table 4 lists the attainment status for the criteria pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). 2-7 Table 5 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status1 Pollutant State Status National Status Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment (Extreme)2 Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance) PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Lead Attainment Nonattainment (Partial)3 1 Source: California Air Resources Board. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm 2 8-Hour Ozone. 3 Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of Basin only. 2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The agency responsible for air pollution control for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. SCAQMD maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAB. SCAQMD, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. An AQMP is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated as nonattainment of the federal and/or California ambient air quality standards. The term nonattainment area is used to refer to an air SCAB where one or more ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Every three (3) years the SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and having a 20-year horizon. The latest version is the 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP is a regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards and healthful air. While air quality has dramatically improved over the years, the SCAB still exceeds federal public health standards for both ozone and particulate matter (PM) and experiences some of the worst air pollution in the nation. The 2016 AQMP includes both stationary and mobile source strategies to ensure that rapidly approaching attainment deadlines are met, that public health is protected to the maximum extent feasible, and that the region is not faced with burdensome sanctions if the Plan is not approved or if the NAAQS are not met on time. 2-8 The most significant air quality challenge in the SCAB is to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions sufficiently to meet the upcoming ozone standard deadlines. Based on the inventory and modeling results, 522 tons per day (tpd) of total SCAB NOx 2012 emissions are projected to drop to 255 tpd and 214 tpd in the 8-hour ozone attainment years of 2023 and 2031 respectively, due to continued implementation of already adopted regulatory actions (“baseline emissions”). The analysis suggests that total SCAB emissions of NOx must be reduced to approximately 141 tpd in 2023 and 96 tpd in 2031 to attain the 8-hour ozone standards. This represents an additional 45 percent reduction in NOx in 2023, and an additional 55 percent NOx reduction beyond 2031 levels. The SCAQMD establishes a program of rules and regulations to obtain attainment of the state and federal standards in conjunction with the AQMP. Several of the rules and regulations that may be applicable to this project include, but are not limited to, the following: SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. SCAQMD Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites. SCAQMD Rule 445 restricts wood burning devices from being installed into any new development and is intended to reduce the emissions of particulate matter for wood burning devices. SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of project must comply with Rule 1113. SCAQMD Rule 1143 governs the manufacture, sale, and use of paint thinners and solvents used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, 2-9 and other solvent cleaning operations by limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during the construction phase must comply with this rule. SCAQMD Rule 1186 limits the presence of fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads and sets certification protocols and requirements for street sweepers that are under contract to provide sweeping services to any federal, state, county, agency or special district such as water, air, sanitation, transit, or school district. SCAQMD Rule 1303 governs the permitting of re-located or new major emission sources, requiring Best Available Control Measures and setting significance limits for PM10 among other pollutants. SCAQMD Rule 2202 On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options, is to provide employers with a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, to comply with federal and state Clean Air Act requirements, Health & Safety Code Section 40458, and Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the federal Clean Air Act. It applies to any employer who employs 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a worksite for a consecutive six-month period calculated as a monthly average. 2.5 South Coast Air Basin The project is located within the South Coast Air SCAB (SCAB). To the west of the SCAB is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and east are the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains, while the southern limit of the SCAB is the San Diego County line. The SCAB consists of Orange County, all of Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The local dominant wind blows predominantly from the south-southwest with relatively low velocities. The annual average annual wind speed is about 10 miles per hour. Summer wind speeds average slightly higher than winter wind speeds. Low average wind speeds, together with a persistent temperature inversion limit the vertical dispersion of air pollutants throughout the SCAB. The region also experiences periods of hot, dry winds from the desert, known as Santa Ana winds. If the Santa Ana winds are strong, they can surpass the sea breeze, which blows from the ocean to the land, and carry the suspended dust and pollutants out to the ocean. If the winds are weak, they are opposed by the sea breeze and cause stagnation, resulting in high pollution events. 2-10 The annual average temperature varies little throughout much of the SCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s (°F). With more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The mountains surrounding the region form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. Air pollution created in the coastal regions and Los Angeles metropolitan area are transported inland until reaching the mountains, where the combination of mountains and temperature inversion layers generally prevent further dispersion. This poor ventilation results in a gradual degradation of air quality from the coastal areas to inland areas of the SCAB. Air stagnation may occur during the early evening and early morning periods of transition between day and nighttime flows. Temperature inversions are an important feature that limits the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. During the summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high-pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine/subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts like a giant lid over the SCAB. The air remains stagnant, as the average wind speed in downtown Los Angeles becomes less than five mph. The second type of inversion forms on clear winter nights when cold air off the mountains sinks to the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms radiation inversions. These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants such as those from automobile exhaust near their source. They lead to air pollution “hotspots” in heavily developed coastal areas of the SCAB, although onshore breezes often push the pollutants along canyons into the inland valleys. Summers are often periods of hazy visibility and occasionally unhealthful air, while winter air quality impacts tend to be highly localized and can consist of elevated levels of nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter. 2.6 Local Climate and Meteorology The weather station closest to the project site is a National Weather Service Cooperative weather station located at Elsinore station, (042805). Climatological data from the National Weather Service at this station is summarized in Table 6. 2-11 Table 6 Meteorological Summary1 Month Average Temperature (˚F) Mean Precipitation (inches) Max. Min. Mean January 65.4 36.4 50.9 2.47 February 67.5 38.7 53.1 2.54 March 71.0 41.2 56.2 2.03 Total 76.3 44.7 60.5 0.75 May 81.8 49.8 65.8 0.23 June 90.5 54.1 72.3 0.02 July 98.1 59.4 78.7 0.08 August 98.1 59.8 79.0 0.12 September 93.5 55.8 74.6 0.26 October 83.7 48.8 66.2 0.51 November 74.1 41.1 57.5 0.99 December 66.9 36.5 51.7 2.01 Annual 80.6 47.2 63.9 12.01 1 Source: Western Regional Climate Center 2016-2019. Averages derived from measurements recorded between 1897 and 2012 at Elsinore Station, (042805). 2.7 Local Air Quality The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates of the existing emissions in the Basin provided in the Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, prepared by SCAQMD, March 2017, indicate that collectively, mobile sources account for 60 percent of the VOC, 90 percent of the NOx emissions, 95 percent of the CO emissions and 34 percent of directly emitted PM2.5, with another 13 percent of PM2.5 from road dust. The SCAQMD has divided the SCAB into fourteen general forecasting areas and thirty eight Source Receptor Areas (SRA) for monitoring and reporting local air quality. The SCAQMD provides daily reports of the current air quality conditions in each general forecast area and SRA. The monitoring areas provide a general representation of the local meteorological, terrain, and air quality conditions within the SCAB. The project is located within the Hemet/Elsinore general forecasting area and Lake Elsinore air monitoring area (SRA-25). 2-12 Table 7 summarizes the published air quality monitoring data from 2017 through 2019, which is the most recent 3-year period available. These pollutant levels were used to comprise a “background” for the project location and existing local air quality. For criteria pollutants not monitored at the Lake Elsinore station, data from the nearest monitoring station with a comparable setting were used. 2-13 Table 7 Local Air Quality Air Pollutant Location Averaging Time Item 2017 2018 2019 Carbon Monoxide -- Lake Elsinore 1 Hour Max 1-Hour (ppm) 1.1 1.1 1.6 Exceeded State Standard (20 ppm) No No No Exceeded National Standard (35 ppm) No No No 8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.7 0.8 0.7 Exceeded State Standard (9 ppm) No No No Exceeded National Standard (9 ppm) No No No Ozone -- Lake Elsinore 1 Hour Max 1-Hour (ppm) 0.121 0.116 0.108 Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 0 0 0 8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.098 0.095 0.089 Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 54 30 28 Days >National Standard (0.070 ppm) 54 30 28 Nitrogen Dioxide -- Lake Elsinore 1 Hour Max 1-Hour (ppm) 0.049 0.0413 0.0413 Exceeded State Standard (0.18 ppm) No No No Annual Annual Average (ppm) 0.0082 0.0085 0.0068 Exceeded >State Standard (0.030 ppm) No No No Exceeded >National Standard (0.053 ppm) No No No Sulfur Dioxide -- Lake Elsinore 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) -- -- -- Exceed State Standard (0.25 ppm) -- -- -- Exceed National Standard (0.075 ppm) -- -- -- Coarse Particles (PM10) -- Lake Elsinore 24 Hour Max 24-Hour (μg/m³) 134 104 93 Days > State Standard (50 μg/m³) 11 9 5 Days >National Standard (150 μg/m³) 0 0 0 Annual Annual Average (μg/m³) 23.1 22.4 18.7 Exceeded State Standard (20 μg/m³) Yes Yes No Fine Particulates (PM2.5) -- Lake Elsinore 24 Hour Max 24-Hour (μg/m³) -- -- -- Days >National Standard (35 μg/m³) -- -- -- Annual Annual Average (μg/m³) -- -- -- Exceeded State Standard (12 μg/m³) -- -- -- Exceeded National Standard (15 μg/m³) -- -- -- Source: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/historical-air-quality-data/historical-data-by-year μg/m³ = micrograms per cubic meter ARB = California Air Resource Board EPA= Environmental Protection Agency ppm = part per million (- -) = Data not provided 3-1 3.0 Global Climate Change Setting Global climate change is the change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by such things as alterations in temperature, wind patterns, storms, and precipitation. Current data shows that the recent period of warming is occurring more rapidly than past geological events. The average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 1.4° Fahrenheit since the early 20th Century. 1.4° Fahrenheit may seem like a small change, but it's an unusual event in Earth's recent history, and as we are seeing, even small changes in temperature can cause enormous changes in the environment. The planet’s climate record, preserved in tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs, shows that the global average temperature has been stable over long periods of time. For example, at the end of the last ice age, when the Northeast United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice, average global temperatures were only 5° to 9° Fahrenheit cooler than today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5° to 10° Fahrenheit over the next century. Therefore, significant changes to the environment are expected in the near future. The consequences of global climate change include more frequent and severe weather, worsening air pollution by increasing ground level ozone, higher rates of plant and animal extinction, more acidic and oxygen depleted oceans, strain on food and water resources, and threats to densely populated coastal and low lying areas from sea level rise. The impacts of climate change are already visible in the Southwest United States. In California, the consequences of climate change include; • A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residencies • A reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack • Increased risk of large wildfires • Exacerbation of air quality problems • Reductions in the quality and quantity of agricultural products • An increased temperature and extreme weather events • A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests 3-2 3.1 Greenhouse Gases Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is anthropogenic (human-induced) augmentation of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect refers to the way gases in the earth’s atmosphere trap and re-emits long wave infrared radiation, acting like a blanket insulating the earth. Activities such as fossil fuel combustion, industrial processes, agriculture, and waste decomposition have elevated the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. GHGs comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total atmospheric composition, yet they play an essential role in influencing climate. Greenhouse gases include naturally occurring compounds such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapor (H2O), and nitrous oxide (N2O), while others are synthetic. Man-made GHGs include the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Different GHGs have different effects on the Earth's warming. GHGs differ from each other in their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency") and how long they stay in the atmosphere, also known as the "lifetime". The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of CO2. The larger the GWP, the more than a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases. 3-3 Table 7 lists the 100-year GWP of GHGs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fifth assessment report (AR5). Table 8 Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases1, 2 Gas Name Formula Lifetime (years) GWP Carbon Dioxide CO2 1 Methane CH4 12 28 Nitrous Oxide N2O 114 265 Sulphur Hexafluoride SF6 3200 23,500 Nitrogen Trifluoride NF3 740 16,100 Hexafluoroethane (PFC-116) C2F6 10,000 11,100 Octafluoropropane (PFC-218) C3F8 2,600 8,900 Octafluorocyclobutane (PFC-318) C4F8 3,200 9,540 Tetrafluoromethane (PFC-14) CF4 50,000 6,630 Hydrofluorocarbon 125 HFC-125 29 3,170 Hydrofluorocarbon 134a HFC-134a 14 1,300 Hydrofluorocarbon 143a HFC-143a 52 4,800 Hydrofluorocarbon 152a HFC-152a 1 138 Hydrofluorocarbon 227ea HFC-227ea 34 3,350 Hydrofluorocarbon 23 HFC-23 270 12,400 Hydrofluorocarbon 236fa HFC-236fa 240 8,060 Hydrofluorocarbon 245fa HFC-245fa 8 858 Hydrofluorocarbon 32 HFC-32 5 677 Hydrofluorocarbon 365mfc HFC-365mfc 9 804 Hydrofluorocarbon 43-10mee HFC-43-10mee 16 1,650 1 Source: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf 2 GWPs are used to convert GHG emission values to "carbon dioxide equivalent" (CO2e) units 3-4 3.2 GHG Regulatory Setting - International Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. United Nations. The United States participates in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (signed on March 21, 1994). Under the Convention, governments gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. The 2014 UN Climate Change Conference in Lima Peru provided a unique opportunity to engage all countries to assess how developed countries are implementing actions to reduce emissions. Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty made under the UNFCCC and was the first international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. It has been estimated that if the commitments outlined in the Kyoto Protocol are met, global GHG emissions could be reduced by an estimated 5 percent from 1990 levels during the first commitment period of 2008 – 2012 (UNFCCC 1997). On December 8, 2012, the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. The amendment includes: New commitments for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who agreed to take on commitments in a second commitment period from 2013 – 2020, a revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties in the second commitment period, and Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol, which specifically referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment period and which needed to be updated for the second commitment period. The Paris Agreement. The Paris agreement is the first comprehensive global climate agreement to be ratified by the United States, United Nations, China, and India; the largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. The agreement was negotiated by a total of 195 nations and entered into force on November 4, 2016. The central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 3-5 Additionally, the agreement aims to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. Currently, 123 parties have ratified the agreement. 3.3 GHG Regulatory Setting – National Greenhouse Gas Endangerment. On December 2, 2009, the EPA announced that GHGs threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. The EPA also states that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The decision was based on Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) which argued that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that the EPA has authority to regulate those emissions. Clean Vehicles. Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States. The first phase of the national program applied to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They required these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards were estimated to cut carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016). The second phase of the national program for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles covers model years 2017 through 2025. The final standards were established in 2012 and were projected to result in an average industry fleetwide level of 163 grams/mile of carbon dioxide (CO2) in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements. The EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation also implemented the first national standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the fuel efficiency of medium- 3-6 and heavy-duty engines and vehicles trucks and buses in 2010. The standards applied to all on-road vehicles rated at a gross vehicle weight at or above 8,500 pounds, and the engines that power them, except those covered by the current GHG emissions and CAFE standards for light duty vehicles, for model year 2014 to 2018. In 2016, the EPA and NHTSA finalized phase 2 of the standards which applied to model years 2018 through 2027. Under the direction of the current Trump administration, the NHTSA and EPA propose to amend the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026. The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have amended certain previous Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026. The (SAFE) Vehicles Rule published on April 30, 2020 and is effective as of June 29, 2020. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. On January 1, 2010, the EPA started requiring large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting GHG data under a new reporting system. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of greenhouse gas emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA. Climate Adaptation Planning. The EPA’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan identifies priority actions the EPA will take to incorporate considerations of climate change into its programs, policies, rules and operations to ensure they are effective under future climatic conditions. Under the Trump administration, the EPA has said it would continue to advance climate adaptation efforts and that the agency recognizes the challenges that communities face in adapting to a changing climate. The EPA currently runs the Climate Change Adaptation Resource Center (ARC-X) to help local governments prepare for climate change. 3.4 GHG Regulatory Setting – State of California The State of California has been a leader in climate change legislation and has passed numerous bills to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy. Some of the key climate legislation in the State include the following: 3-7 Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 set the stage for the State’s transition to a sustainable, low-carbon future. AB 32 was the first program in the country to take a comprehensive, long-term approach to addressing climate change.2 AB 32 was followed by Senate Bill (SB) 32, which further requires GHG emissions to be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and appointing CARB to develop policies (i.e. cap-and-trade) to achieve this goal. Senate Bill (SB) 375, Sustainable Communities & Climate Protection Act of 2008. SB 375 requires the Air Resources Board to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by the State's 18 metropolitan planning organizations.3 Senate Bill (SB) 100, California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. SB 100 established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of electric retail sales to end-use customers by 2045.4 3.5 GHG Emissions Inventory Table 9 shows the latest GHG emission inventories at the national, state, regional and local levels. Table 9 GHG Emissions Inventory1 United States (2018)2 State of California (2018)3 SCAG (2020)4 City of Lake Elsinore (2008)5 6,678 MMTCO2e 425 MMTCO2e 216.4 MMTCO2e 0.506 MMTCO2e 1 MMTCO2e = Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 2 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks 3 https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm 4 http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Pages/GreenhouseGases.aspx 5 http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=7232 2 California Air Resources Board. AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ab-32-global-warming-solutions-act-2006 3 California Air Resources Board. Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Program. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communities-climate-protection-program/about 4 California Energy Commission. SB 100 Joint Agency Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100 4-1 4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) was used to calculate criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions from the construction and operation of the project. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from off-site energy generation, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The model also identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. 4.1 Construction Assumptions Construction of the project is assumed to begin in the year 2021 and last approximately 14 months. Construction phases are assumed to consist of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating. The site requires export of approximately 12,200 cubic yards of earthwork material during grading phase. Construction phases are not expected to overlap. The project’s construction schedule are based on the CalEEMod defaults. The CalEEMod default construction equipment list is based on survey data and the size of the site. The parameters used to estimate construction emissions, such as the worker and vendor trips and trip lengths, utilize the CalEEMod defaults. The construction equipment list is shown in Table 10. The quantity of fugitive dust estimated by CalEEMod is based on the number of equipment used during site preparation and grading. CalEEMod estimates the worst-case fugitive dust impacts will occur during the grading phase. The maximum daily disturbance footprint would be 3.5 acres per 8-hour day with all equipment in use. Based on recent discussions with SCAQMD, the Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds should no longer be used to determine disturbance acreage. 4-2 Table 10 Construction Equipment Assumptions Phase 1 Phase Equipment Amount Hours Per Day Soil Disturbance Rate (Acres/ 8hr-Day) Equipment Daily Disturbance Footprint (Acres) Total Phase Daily Disturbance Footprint (Acres) Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 0.5 1.5 3.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 0.5 2.0 Grading Excavators 1 8 0.0 0.0 2.5 Graders 1 8 0.5 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 0.5 0.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 0.5 1.5 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 0.0 0.0 1.3 Forklifts 3 8 0.0 0.0 Generator Sets 1 8 0.0 0.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 0.5 1.3 Welders 1 8 0.0 0.0 Paving Pavers 2 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paving Equipment 2 8 0.0 0.0 Rollers 2 8 0.0 0.0 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 CalEEMod Defaults 4.2 Localized Construction Analysis Modeling Parameters CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. This report identifies the following parameters in the project design or applicable mitigation measures in order to compare CalEEMod reported emissions against the localized significance threshold lookup tables: 1) The off-road equipment list (including type of equipment, horsepower, and hours of operation) assumed for the day of construction activity with maximum emissions. 2) The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day. 3) Any emission control devices added onto off-road equipment. 4) Specific dust suppression techniques used on the day of construction activity with maximum emissions. 4-3 4.3 Operational Assumptions Operational emissions occur over the life of the project and are considered “long-term” sources of emissions. Operational emissions include both direct and indirect sources. This section briefly describes the operational sources of emissions analyzed for the project. 4.3.1 Mobile Source Emissions Mobile source emissions are the largest source of long-term air pollutants from the operation of the project. Mobile sources are direct sources of project emissions that are primarily attributed to tailpipe exhaust and road dust (tire, brake, clutch, and road surface wear) from motor vehicles traveling to and from the site. Estimates of mobile source emissions require information on four parameters: trip generation, trip length, vehicle/fleet mix, and emission factors (quantity of emission for each mile traveled or time spent idling by each vehicle). The trip generation rates for this project are based on the Lake Pointe Apartment Traffic Impact Study Scope of Work, March 26, 2021, RK Engineering Group and the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition. Trip summary information is shown in Table 11. Table 11 Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE Code Units1 Daily Trip Rate2 Weekday Saturday Sunday Apartments Low Rise 220 DU 7.32 8.14 6.28 1 DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 Source: Lake Pointe Apartment Traffic Impact Study Scope of Work, March 26, 2021, RK Engineering Group and ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition Operational vehicle trip assumptions include trip lengths, trip type, and diverted/pass-by trips. The CalEEMod default trip assumptions are shown in Table 12. 4-4 Table 12 Operational Vehicle Trip Assumptions1 Land Use Residential Trips2 Trip Length (miles) Trip Percent (%) Trip Type (%) H-W H-S H-O H-W H-S H-O Prim. Divert Pass-By Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 1 CalEEMod Defaults 2 Residential Trips: H-W = Home-Work; H-S = Home-Shopping; H-O = Home-Other. The Emission Factors (EMFAC) 2014 model is used to estimate the mobile source emissions are embedded in the CalEEMod emissions model. No adjustments have been made to default emission factors. The project’s total vehicle miles traveled is shown in the table 15 for this project. Table 13 Operational Vehicle Miles Traveled Land Use Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Apartments Low Rise 3,735,923 1 CalEEMod Defaults The operational vehicle fleet mix has been adjusted to reflect typical home-based trips only. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional travel demand model does not include heavy-duty trucks, buses or other large vehicles that would require passenger car equivalent (PCE) adjustments for residential home-based trips. However, to be conservative, the Air Quality/GHG analysis has assumed a 2% truck mix for all vehicles over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which includes LHD2, MHD, HHD, OBUS, UBUS, and SBUS vehicles. The 2% mix is also consistent with the default Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) assumptions. 4-5 Table 14 Vehicle Mix for Trips1 YUY Vehicle Mix (%) Light Duty Automobile (LDA) 59.53% Light Duty Truck (LDTI) 3.93% Light Duty Truck (LDT2) 20.28% Medium Duty Truck (MDV) 12.21% Light Heavy Truck (LHD1) 1.55% Light Heavy Truck (LHD2) 0.10% Medium Heavy Truck (MHD) 0.36% Heavy Heavy Truck (HHD) 1.45% Other Bus (OBUS) 0.03% Urban Bus (UBUS) 0.02% Motorcycle (MCY) 0.49% School Bus (SBUS) 0.02% Motor Home (MH) 0.02% Total 100.0% 1 Adjusted fleet mix to include 2% total trucks over 10,000 lbs GVWR. (LHD2, MHD, HHD, OBUS, UBUS, SBUS, MH) 4.3.2 Energy Source Emissions Energy usage includes both direct and indirect sources of emissions. Direct sources of emissions include on-site natural gas usage (non-hearth) for heating, while indirect emissions include electricity generated by offsite power plants. Natural gas use is measured in units of a thousand British Thermal Units (kBTU) per size metric for each land use subtype and electricity use is measured in kilowatt hours (kWh) per size metric for each land use subtype. CalEEMod divides building electricity and natural gas use into uses that are subject to Title 24 standards and those that are not. Lighting electricity usage is also calculated as a separate category in CalEEMod. For electricity, Title 24 uses include the major building envelope systems covered by Part 6 (California Energy Code) of Title 24, such as space heating, space cooling, water heating, and ventilation. Non-Title 24 uses include all other end uses, such as appliances, electronics, and other miscellaneous plug-in uses. Because some lighting is not considered as part of the building envelope energy budget, and since a 4-6 separate mitigation measure is applicable to this end use, CalEEMod makes lighting a separate category. For natural gas, uses are likewise categorized as Title 24 or Non-Title 24. Title 24 uses include building heating and hot water end uses. Non-Title 24 natural gas uses include cooking and appliances (including pool/spa heaters). The baseline values are based on the California Energy Commission (CEC) sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies. Table 15 shows the total annual expected electricity and natural gas usage for the proposed project. Table 15 Electricity and Natural Gas Usage Land Use Electricity Usage1 (KWhr/yr)2 Natural Gas Usage1 (KBTU/yr)2 Apartments Low Rise 729,039 2,336,180 1 CalEEMod default estimates. 2 KWhr/yr = Kilowatt Hours per Year KBTU/yr = Thousand British Thermal Units per Year 4.3.3 Area Source Emissions Area source emissions are direct sources of emissions that fall under four categories; hearths, consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. Per SCAQMD rule 445, no wood burning devices are allowed in new developments; therefore, no wood hearths are included in this project. Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications which emit ROGs during their product use. These typically include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries. 4.3.4 Other Sources of Operational Emissions Water. Greenhouse gas emissions are generated from the upstream energy required to supply and treat the water used on the project site. Indirect emissions from water usage are counted as part of the project’s overall impact. The estimated water usage for the 4-7 project is reported in Table 16 and recommendations to reduce water usage are discussed in Section 6.0. Waste. CalEEMod calculates the indirect GHG emissions associated with waste that is disposed of at a landfill. The program uses annual waste disposal rates from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) data for individual land uses. The program quantifies the GHG emissions associated with the decomposition of the waste which generates methane based on the total amount of degradable organic carbon. The estimated waste generation by the project is reported in Table 16 and recommendations to reduce waste generation in landfills are discussed in Section 6.0 Table 16 Operational Water Usage and Waste Generation Land Use Water Usage (gallons/year) Waste Generation (tons/year)1 Indoor Outdoor Total Apartments Low Rise 9,773,104 6,161,305 15,934,408 69.00 1 CalEEMod default estimates. 5-1 5.0 Significance Thresholds 5.1 Air Quality Regional Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD has established air quality emissions thresholds for criteria air pollutants for the purposes of determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment per Section 15002(g) of the Guidelines for implementing CEQA. By complying with the thresholds of significance, the project would be in compliance with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the federal and state air quality standards. Table 17 lists the air quality significance thresholds for the six air pollutants analyzed in this report. Lead is not included as part of this analysis as the project is not expected to emit lead in any significant measurable quantity. Table 17 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds Pollutant Construction (lbs/day) Operation (lbs/day) NOX 100 55 VOC 75 55 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 SOX 150 150 CO 550 550 1 Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf 5.2 Air Quality Localized Significance Thresholds Air quality emissions were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold (LST) Look-up Tables. Table 18 lists the Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) used to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. 5-2 LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of four applicable air pollutants for source receptor area (SRA) 25 – Lake Elsinore. The nearest existing sensitive receptors are located along the northern and southern property line of the site, less than 25 meters from potential areas of on-site construction and operational activity. Although receptors are located closer than 25 meters to the site, SCAQMD LST methodology states that projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters. The daily disturbance area is calculated to be 3.5 acres, however LST thresholds are only based on 1, 2 and 5-acre sites. In order to be conservative, a linear progression model was used to estimate the threshold for 3.5-acre site based on the established LST thresholds. Table 18 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds1 (LST) Pollutant Construction (lbs/day) Operational (lbs/day) NOX 297.9 297.9 CO 1,521.8 1,521.8 PM10 9.8 2.9 PM2.5 6.1 1.6 1 Source: SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds for 3.5-acre site in SRA-25 at 25 meters 5.3 Microscale CO Concentration Standards The significance of localized CO impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below federal or state standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of the AAQS. If ambient levels already exceed State or federal standards, project emissions are considered significant if they increase 1-hour CO concentrations by 1.0 ppm or more or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. Current CO levels in the SCAB are in attainment of both federal and state standards, and local air quality monitoring data indicates there have not been any localized exceedances of CO over the past three years. Therefore, the project must not contribute to an exceedance of a federal or state ambient air quality standard. 5-3 5.4 GHG Significance Thresholds 5.4.1 SCAQMD Recommended GHG Thresholds For quantifiable analysis purposes, the project GHG emissions are also compared to the SCAQMD Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds, December 2008. The purpose of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance is to assist local agencies with determining the impact of a project for CEQA. SCAQMD’s objective in providing the GHG guidelines is to establish a performance standard that will ultimately contribute to reducing GHG emissions below 1990 levels, and thus achieve the requirements of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). The SCAQMD has held several GHG Significance Thresholds Stakeholder Working Group meetings where staff has presented updated recommendations that serve in addendum to the interim document. The SCAQMD describes a five-tiered approach for determining GHG Significance Thresholds. • Tier 1 - If a project is exempt from CEQA, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. • Tier 2 - If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project’s geographic area (i.e., city or county), project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment based on the following tiers. • Tier 3 - Consists of screening values that are intended to capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions from projects. If a project’s emissions are under the screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant. SCAQMD has presented two options that lead agencies could choose for screening values. Option #1 sets the thresholds for residential projects to 3,500 MTCO2e/year, commercial projects to 1,400 MTCO2e/year), and the mixed use to 3,000 MTCO2e/year. Option #2 sets a single numerical threshold for all non-industrial projects of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. The current staff recommendation is to use option #2, but allows lead agencies to choose option #1 if they prefer. Regardless of which option a lead agency chooses to follow, it is recommended that the same option is consistently used for all projects. 5-4 Table 19 shows the screening levels described in option #2, which has been used previously in the City of Lake Elsinore. Table 19 SCAQMD Tier 3 GHG Screening Values Land Use Screening Value Industrial Projects 10,000 MTCO2e/Yr Residential/Commercial Projects 3,000 MTCO2e/Yr • Tier 4 - includes three performance standard compliance options to demonstrate that a project is not significant for GHG emissions. Compliance Option 1 consists of achieving a target percentage reduction in emission compared to the business as usual (BAU) methodology. The project proponent would need to incorporate design features into the project and/or implement GHG mitigation measures to demonstrate a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions below BAU that is consistent with the current applicable goals of AB 32 in the State of the California. Compliance Option 2 consists of early compliance with AB 32 through early implementation of CARB’s Scoping Plan Measures. This option is intended for projects in sectors subject to the Scoping Plan Measures. Compliance Option 3 consists of establishing efficiency-based performance standards at the plan level (program-level projects such as general plans) and project level. Efficiency standards are based on the amount of GHG emissions (MTCO2e/year) per Service Population (SP). SP is defined as the sum of the residential and employment populations provided by a project. Table 20 SCAQMD Tier 4 Efficiency Thresholds Project Type Efficiency Thresholds1 Target Year 2020 Target Year 2035 Plan (Program) Level 6.6 MTCO2e/yr/SP 4.1 MTCO2e/yr/SP Project Level 4.8 MTCO2e/yr/SP 3.0 MTCO2e/yr/SP 5-5 • Tier 5 – involves implementing off-site mitigation or the purchasing of offsets to reduce GHG emissions to less than the proposed screening level. The project proponent would be required to provide offsets for the life of the project, which is defined as 30 years. By complying with the SCAQMD GHG thresholds of significance, the project is considered to be in compliance with the applicable State GHG legislation. 5.5 Lake Elsinore General Plan Air Quality Element This City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Air Quality Element establishes goals, policies and programs that are meant to balance the City’s actions regarding land use, circulation and other issues with their potential effects on air quality and global climate change. In order for the project’s air quality impact to be considered less than significant, the project should not conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the Lake Elsinore City General Plan Air Quality Element. 5.6 Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan The Lake Elsinore CAP has been adopted to ensure the City meets the State-wide policies for reducing GHG emissions, as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) and Executive Order S-3-05. The City of Lake Elsinore selected efficiency-based targets for the years governed by the General Plan to reduce community-wide emissions to 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year by 2020 (a 22.3% reduction from the 2008 rate of 8.5 MT CO2e/SP) and to 4.4 MT CO2e per service population per year by 2030 (a 48.2% reduction from the 2008 rate of 8.5 MT CO2e/SP). These efficiency-based targets represent the AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 targeted emissions levels for 2020 and 2030 on a per service population basis. While the efficiency targets do not directly correlate to thresholds of significance for CEQA purposes, comparing the project’s GHG efficiency rate to the City targets is a good indicator of compatibility with the CAP. 6-1 6.0 Air Quality Impact Analysis Consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to air quality would occur if the proposed project is determined to: 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 in 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. 6.1 Short Term Air Quality Impacts - Construction 6.1.1 Regional Emissions - Construction Regional air quality emissions include both on-site and off-site emissions associated with construction of the project. Regional daily emissions of criteria pollutants are compared to the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. As shown in Table 21, regional daily emissions of criteria pollutants are expected to be below the allowable thresholds of significance. CalEEMod daily emissions outputs are provided in Appendix A. 6-2 Table 21 Regional Construction Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)1 Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation 3.97 40.55 21.82 0.04 9.16 5.73 Grading 2.36 24.78 16.41 0.03 3.86 2.41 Building Construction 2.22 17.28 20.29 0.04 2.13 1.12 Paving 2.21 22.25 29.16 0.05 1.14 1.05 Architectural Coating 47.23 1.46 2.56 0.01 0.33 0.15 Maximum1 47.23 40.55 29.16 0.05 9.16 5.73 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No 1 Maximum daily emission during summer or winter; includes both on-site and off-site project emissions. The project must follow all standard SCAQMD rules and requirements with regards to fugitive dust control, as described in Section 6.1.3. Compliance with the dust control is considered a standard requirement and included as part of the project’s design features, not mitigation. Table 23 shows that, the project’s daily construction emissions will be below the applicable SCAQMD regional air quality standards and thresholds of significance. As a result, the project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Furthermore, by complying with the SCAQMD standards, the project would not contribute to 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). The project’s short-term construction impact on regional air resources is less than significant with mitigation. 6-3 6.1.2 Localized Emissions - Construction Table 22 illustrates the construction related localized emissions and compares the results to SCAQMD LST thresholds. Table 22 Localized Construction Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)1 Activity NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 On-site Emissions 40.50 21.15 8.95 5.68 SCAQMD Construction Threshold2 279.9 1,521.8 9.8 6.1 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No 1 Maximum daily emission during summer or winter; includes on-site project emissions only. 2 Reference 2006-2008 SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significant Thresholds for construction and operation. SRA-25, Lake Elsinore, 3.5-acre site, receptor distance 25 meters. As shown in Table 22, localized daily emissions of criteria pollutants are expected to be below the allowable thresholds of significance. By following the above mitigation measures, the project’s short-term construction impact to localized air resources is less than significant. 6.1.3 Fugitive Dust - Construction The Project is required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions associated with suspended particulate matter, also known as fugitive dust. Fugitive dust emissions are commonly associated with land clearing activities, cut- and-fill grading operations, and exposure of soils to the air and wind. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust is controlled with best-available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 require implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable suppression techniques are as follows: 1. All active construction areas shall be watered two (2) times daily. 2. Speed on unpaved roads shall be reduced to less than 15 mph. 6-4 3. Any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway shall be swept or washed at the site access points within 30 minutes. 4. Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material shall be covered or watered twice daily. 5. All operations on any unpaved surface shall be suspended if winds exceed 15 mph. 6. Access points shall be washed or swept daily. 7. Construction sites shall be sandbagged for erosion control. 8. Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). 9. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, and maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard space in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114. 10. Pave or gravel construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road and use gravel aprons at truck exits. 11. Replace the ground cover of disturbed areas as quickly possible. 12. A fugitive dust control plan should be prepared and submitted to SCAQMD prior to the start of construction. Localized construction emissions, shown in Section 6.1.2, indicate daily construction emissions, with standard control measures, would be below the applicable thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The proposed project’s short-term construction activities would cause less than significant Fugitive Dust impacts. 6.1.4 Odors - Construction Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during construction will emit odors; however, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. The project is required to comply with Rule 402 during construction, which states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed Project. Therefore, the project impact from odor emissions is less than significant. 6-5 6.1.5 Asbestos – Construction Asbestos is a carcinogen and is categorized as a hazardous air pollutant by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and regulated through the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Asbestos fibers imbedded within construction materials become a health hazard once they are disturbed and rendered airborne, such as through physical contact like building renovation and demolition activities. SCAQMD is the local enforcement authority for asbestos. SCAQMD Rule 1403 establishes the survey requirements, notification, and work practices to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities. Since the project does not require the demolition of any existing structures, the impact from asbestos contained in building products is considered less than significant. Asbestos also occurs naturally in serpentine and ultramafic rock. Based on the California Division of Mines and Geology General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, naturally occurring asbestos has not been shown to occur within in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during project construction is small. However, in the event NOA is found on the site, the project will be required to comply with SCAQMD and NESHAP standards. By following the required asbestos abatement protocols, the project impact is less than significant. 6.1.6 Diesel Particulate Matter - Construction The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions from the project would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy diesel equipment used during construction. 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 30-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. As shown in Tables 21 and 22, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed regional or local thresholds with the recommended mitigation measures. Given the short-term construction schedule, the 6-6 proposed project’s construction activity is not expected to be a long-term (i.e., 30 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. However, it should be noted that a quantified diesel health risk assessment (HRA) was not included within the scope of this analysis. In September 2000, the CARB adopted the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, which recommends several control measures to reduce the risks associated with diesel particulate matter (DPM). The key elements of the Plan are to clean up existing engines through engine retrofit emission control devices, to adopt stringent standards for new diesel engines, to lower the sulfur content of diesel fuel, and implement advanced technology emission control devices on diesel engines. It is presumed that with the recommended mitigation measures in place, which include a requirement for Tier 4 engines for all off-road diesel equipment, that the potential short term construction health risks will be adequately reduced to be less than significant. Tier 4 engines, along with the latest national fuel standards, will yield PM reductions of over 95% from the typical Tier 2 and Tier 3 engines5. The following mitigation measures are recommended during construction:: MM-2 Require all construction equipment to have Tier 4 low emission “clean diesel” engines (OEM or retrofit) that include diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters that meet the latest CARB best available control technology. MM-3 Construction equipment shall be maintained in proper tune. MM-4 All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from excessive idling. Excessive idling is defined as five (5) minutes or longer. MM-5 Minimize the simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. MM-6 The use of heavy construction equipment and earthmoving activity should be suspended during Air Alerts when the Air Quality Index reaches the “Unhealthy” level. MM-7 Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible. 5 EPA. Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule. (40 CFR Parts 9, 69, et al.) 6-7 MM-8 Establish staging areas for the construction equipment that are as distant as possible from adjacent sensitive receptors (High School). MM-9 Use haul trucks with on-road engines instead of off-road engines for on-site hauling. MM-10 Prepare and implement a Construction Management Plan which will include the required mitigation measures to be submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore and followed by construction contractors and personnel. 6.2 Long Term Air Quality Impacts - Operation 6.2.1 Regional Emissions - Operation Long-term operational air pollutant impacts from the project are shown in Table 23. The project is not expected to exceed any of the allowable daily emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants at the regional level. CalEEMod daily emissions outputs are provided in Appendix A. The project’s daily operational emissions will be below the applicable SCAQMD regional air quality standards and thresholds of significance, and the project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Furthermore, by complying with the SCAQMD standards, the project would not contribute to 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). The project related long-term air quality impacts are less than significant. 6-8 Table 23 Regional Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)1 Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Sources 2.03 4.65 25.74 0.09 8.81 2.38 Energy Sources 0.07 0.59 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.05 Area Sources 3.86 2.38 13.33 0.02 0.25 0.25 Total 5.96 7.62 39.32 0.11 9.11 2.67 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No 1 Maximum daily emission during summer or winter; includes both on-site and off-site project emissions. 6.2.2 Localized Operational Emissions - Operation Table 24 shows the localized operational emissions and compares the results to SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) thresholds of significance. As shown in Table 24, the emissions will be below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for localized operational emissions. The project will result in less than significant localized operational emissions impacts. Table 24 Localized Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)1 LST Pollutants NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) On-site Emissions2 3.20 14.87 0.74 0.42 SCAQMD Operation Threshold3 279.9 1,521.8 2.9 1.6 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No 1 Maximum daily emission in summer or winter. 2 Mobile source emissions include on-site vehicle emissions only. It is estimated that approximately 5% of mobile emissions will occur on the project site. 3 Reference: 2006-2008 SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significant Thresholds for construction and operation Table C-1 through C-6; SRA 25, Lake Elsinore, disturbance area of 3.5-acre and receptor distance of 25 meters. 6-9 6.2.3 Odors - Operation Land uses that commonly receive odor complaints include agricultural uses (farming and livestock), chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass molding facilities, food processing plants, landfills, refineries, rail yards, and wastewater treatment plants. The proposed project does not contain land uses that would typically be associated with significant odor emissions. The project will be required to comply with standard building code requirements related to exhaust ventilation, as well as comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 requires that a person may not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Project related odors are not expected to meet the criteria of being a nuisance. The project’s operation would result in less than significant odor impacts. 6.2.4 Toxic Air Contaminants - Operations The project would consist of residential apartment housing. This type of project does not include major sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions that would result in significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project impact is considered less than significant. 6.3 CO Hot Spot Emissions A CO hot spot is a localized concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) that is above the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. At the time of the publishing of the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the SCAB was designated nonattainment, and projects were required to perform hot spot analyses to ensure they did not exacerbate an existing problem. Since this time, the SCAB has achieved attainment status and the potential for hot spots caused by vehicular traffic congestion has been greatly reduced. In fact, the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) found that peak CO concentrations were primarily the result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, not traffic congestion. Additionally, the 2003 SCAQMD AQMP found that, at four of the busiest intersections in SCAB, there were no CO hot spots concentrations. 6-10 Based on the Lake Pointe Apartment Traffic Impact Study Scope of Work, March 26, 2021, RK Engineering Group and the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, the project is expected to generate a maximum of 84 peak hour trips. This is considered a less than significant amount of traffic which would not contribute to CO Hot Spots. The 2003 SCAQMD AQMP found that at four of the busiest intersections in Los Angeles there were no CO hot spots concentrations. Additionally, historical data indicates that the maximum concentration of CO recorded over the last three years at the nearest air monitoring station to the site is about 92% below the State 1-hour standard and 91% below the 8-hour standard. Therefore, if the busiest intersections in the basin do not exceed state or federal standards, and the nearest air monitoring station shows that CO levels are well below the standards in the project vicinity, it is then reasonable to conclude that the project would not significantly contribute to the formation of CO Hot Spots. 6.4 SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan Consistency 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 in 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. 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 should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. 6-11 The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether the project will 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 will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. 6.4.1 Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations The results of the short-term construction emission levels and long-term operational emission levels show that the project would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the exceedance of an air pollutant concentration standard and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. 6.4.2 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 that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2016, includes chapters on: the challenges in a changing region, creating a plan for our future, and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The project is consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Mixed Use (RMU) and the project would comply with the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The impact is considered less than significant. 7-1 7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to greenhouse gas would occur if the proposed project is determined to: 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 emissions of greenhouse gases. 7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Construction Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on-site and off-site construction activity using CalEEMod. Table 25 shows the construction greenhouse gas emissions, including equipment and worker vehicle emissions for all phases of construction. Construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and added to the long-term operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations. CalEEMod annual GHG output calculations are provided in Appendix B. Table 25 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Activity Emissions (MTC02e)1 On-site Off-site Total Site Preparation 16.85 0.80 17.65 Grading 26.26 1.32 27.58 Building Construction 268.08 151.01 419.09 Paving 20.19 1.29 21.48 Architectural Coating 2.56 1.82 4.38 Total 333.94 156.24 490.18 Amortized over 30 years2 11.13 5.21 16.34 1 MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and/or hydrofluorocarbon). 2 The emissions are amortized over 30 years and added to the operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations. Because impacts from construction activities occur over a relatively short-term period of time, they contribute a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime project GHG 7-2 emissions. By itself, the construction activities from this project are less than significant when compared to the thresholds recommended by SCAQMD. However, SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime and added to the overall project operational emissions. In doing so, construction GHG emissions are included in the overall contribution of the project, as further discussed in the following section. 7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Operation Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on-site and off-site operational activity using CalEEMod. Greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources, area sources and energy sources are shown in Table 26. CalEEMod annual GHG output calculations are provided in Appendix B. Table 26 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)1 Mobile Source 1,221.23 Energy Source 358.53 Area Source 35.20 Water 75.88 Waste 34.70 Construction (30 year average) 16.34 Total Annual Emissions 1,741.88 SCAQMD Tier 3 Screening Threshold2 3,000 Exceed Tier 3 Threshold? No 1 MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents 2 Per South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008 As shown in Table 26, the project GHG emissions are expected to be below the SCAQMD’s Tier 3 approach, which limits GHG emissions to 3,000 MTCO2e for residential projects. The project related long-term GHG impacts are less than significant. 7-3 7.3 City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan Consistency The Lake Elsinore CAP has been adopted to ensure the City meets the State-wide policies for reducing GHG emissions, as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) and Executive Order S-3-05. The City of Lake Elsinore selected efficiency-based targets for the years governed by the General Plan to reduce community-wide emissions to 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year by 2020 (a 22.3% reduction from the 2008 rate of 8.5 MT CO2e/SP) and to 4.4 MT CO2e per service population per year by 2030 (a 48.2% reduction from the 2008 rate of 8.5 MT CO2e/SP). These efficiency-based targets represent the AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 targeted emissions levels for 2020 and 2030 on a per service population basis. While the efficiency targets do not directly correlate to thresholds of significance for CEQA purposes, comparing the project’s GHG efficiency rate to the City targets is a good indicator of compatibility with the CAP. Table 27 shows the project’s GHG efficiency rates and compares the results to the City targets. Table 27 GHG Efficiency Rates – City of Lake Elsinore1 Category GHG Emission Project’s Efficiency Rate 4.06 MTCO2e/SP City-Wide Efficiency-Based Target2 4.4 MTCO2e/SP Exceed City Wide Efficiency Threshold? No 1 Service Population (S.P) is based on statewide default of 2.86 persons per dwelling unit. 2 Lake Elsinore’s city-wide efficiency-based target (2030) of 4.4 MT CO2e per service population per year in the CAP. The statewide average of 2.86 persons per dwelling unit is used in CalEEMod to estimate the population of the project, resulting in a total population for the proposed project of 429 persons. The project would produce approximately 4.06 MT CO2e per service population per year, which is lower than Lake Elsinore’s city-wide efficiency-based target of 4.4 MT CO2e per service population per year in the CAP. 7-4 The project will also be required to comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 part 11 of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 Part 6 Building Efficiency Standards to further reduce energy usage and GHG emissions. CALGreen and building code compliance are considered part of the project’s design features. The project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and the impact is considered less than significant. 8-1 8.0 References The following references were used in the preparing this analysis. CalEEMod. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2016.3.2. Website: http://caleemod.com/. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Website: www.capcoa.org/. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. August 2010. Website: http://www.capcoa.org/documents. California Air Resources Board. 2006. EMFAC2007 Mobile Source Emission Model. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm. California Air Resources Board. 2007. Staff Report. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Level and 2020 Emissions Limit. November 16, 2007. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf. California Air Resources Board. 2017. Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 2017. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2010d. Greenhouse Gas Inventory – 2020 Forecast. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Accessed July 2012. California Air Resources Board. 2011d. Landfill Methane Control Measure. Website: http://arb.ca.gov/cc/landfills/landfills.htm. Accessed October 3, 2011. California Air Resources Board. 2011e. Advanced Clean Cars. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/consumer_info/advanced_clean_cars/consumer_acc. htm. Accessed October 3, 2011. California Air Resources Board. 2011f. Refrigerant Management Program Regulation for Non-Residential Refrigeration Systems. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reftrack/reftrack.htm. Accessed October 3, 2011. City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan. http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=7249 Federal Clean Air Act, U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 85, § 7401 et seq. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Website: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR- FRONT.pdf. Accessed August 2012. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Website: www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm. Accessed April 22, 2011. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment 8-2 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed Aug 2012. Website: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html Moser et al. 2009. Moser, Susie, Guido Franco, Sarah Pittiglio, Wendy Chou, Dan Cayan. 2009. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science Impacts and Response Options for California. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. CEC-500-2008-071. Website: www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-071/CEC-500-2008-071.PDF. Accessed: August 2011. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008c. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse (GHG) Significance Threshold Document. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/December/081231a.htm. (Attachment E) Accessed: August 2012 U.S Environmental Protection Agency 2010a, Final GHG Tailoring Rule, 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 70, et al., May 2010. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Exhibits engineeringgroup, inc.LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-03 engineering N Site Plan Exhibit B ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Appendices Appendix A Daily Emissions Calculations Output (CalEEMod) Project Characteristics - Land Use - The project is proposing to construct and operate 150 apartment homes on approximately 8.26 acre site. Construction Phase - The project site is vacant and require no demolition. Trips and VMT - Vehicle Trips - Trip Generation Rates are based of Lakepointe Apartment Scoping Agreement, March 26 2021 by RK Engg. Group and ITE 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual. Woodstoves - Per SCAQMD rule 445, no wood burning devices are allowed in new developments. Water And Wastewater - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust control. Grading - The project is expected to cut approx.: 20,000 cy¶s - Fill approx. ±cy 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 150.00 Dwelling Unit 8.26 150,000.00 429 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 10 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.4 28 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2023Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study Riverside-South Coast County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 1 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 12 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 127.50 135.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 7.50 0.00 tblFleetMix HHD 0.07 0.01 tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 0.60 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.04 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.20 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 0.02 tblFleetMix LHD2 4.8060e-003 9.9200e-004 tblFleetMix MCY 4.5080e-003 4.8920e-003 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.12 tblFleetMix MH 8.9800e-004 1.8500e-004 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 3.6330e-003 tblFleetMix OBUS 1.4090e-003 2.9100e-004 tblFleetMix SBUS 9.1800e-004 1.8900e-004 tblFleetMix UBUS 1.1470e-003 2.3700e-004 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 12,200.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 9.38 8.26 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 8.14 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.28 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 7.32 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 2 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 3.9735 40.5457 21.8198 0.0399 18.2675 2.0457 20.3131 9.9840 1.8820 11.8660 0.0000 3,877.312 0 3,877.312 0 1.1966 0.0000 3,907.226 7 2022 47.2315 20.8916 20.2920 0.0422 6.7972 0.9418 7.7391 3.4237 0.8665 4.2901 0.0000 4,095.727 6 4,095.727 6 0.9323 0.0000 4,112.382 5 2023 47.2125 1.3512 2.5035 5.1500e- 003 0.2459 0.0722 0.3181 0.0652 0.0721 0.1373 0.0000 498.5575 498.5575 0.0213 0.0000 499.0911 Maximum 47.2315 40.5457 21.8198 0.0422 18.2675 2.0457 20.3131 9.9840 1.8820 11.8660 0.0000 4,095.727 6 4,095.727 6 1.1966 0.0000 4,112.382 5 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 3.9735 40.5457 21.8198 0.0399 7.1115 2.0457 9.1572 3.8519 1.8820 5.7338 0.0000 3,877.312 0 3,877.312 0 1.1966 0.0000 3,907.226 7 2022 47.2315 20.8916 20.2920 0.0422 2.7035 0.9418 3.6453 1.3370 0.8665 2.2035 0.0000 4,095.727 6 4,095.727 6 0.9323 0.0000 4,112.382 5 2023 47.2125 1.3512 2.5035 5.1500e- 003 0.2459 0.0722 0.3181 0.0652 0.0721 0.1373 0.0000 498.5575 498.5575 0.0213 0.0000 499.0911 Maximum 47.2315 40.5457 21.8198 0.0422 7.1115 2.0457 9.1572 3.8519 1.8820 5.7338 0.0000 4,095.727 6 4,095.727 6 1.1966 0.0000 4,112.382 5 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 3 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.25 0.00 53.75 61.00 0.00 50.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 4 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0150 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 Energy 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Mobile 2.0289 4.5690 25.7378 0.0886 8.7576 0.0536 8.8112 2.3276 0.0497 2.3773 8,888.523 8 8,888.523 8 0.2618 8,895.068 9 Total 5.9600 7.5409 39.3196 0.1073 8.7576 0.3509 9.1084 2.3276 0.3469 2.6746 0.0000 12,522.62 78 12,522.62 78 0.3525 0.0662 12,551.17 18 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0150 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 Energy 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Mobile 2.0289 4.5690 25.7378 0.0886 8.7576 0.0536 8.8112 2.3276 0.0497 2.3773 8,888.523 8 8,888.523 8 0.2618 8,895.068 9 Total 5.9600 7.5409 39.3196 0.1073 8.7576 0.3509 9.1084 2.3276 0.3469 2.6746 0.0000 12,522.62 78 12,522.62 78 0.3525 0.0662 12,551.17 18 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 5 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 12/1/2021 12/14/2021 5 10 2 Grading Grading 12/15/2021 1/11/2022 5 20 3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 11/29/2022 5 230 4 Paving Paving 11/30/2022 12/27/2022 5 20 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/28/2022 1/24/2023 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 303,750; Residential Outdoor: 101,250; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 6 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 108.00 16.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 22.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 7 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Water Unpaved Roads Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 8 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0853 0.0486 0.6655 1.9200e- 003 0.2012 1.1900e- 003 0.2024 0.0534 1.0900e- 003 0.0545 191.6552 191.6552 4.5700e- 003 191.7694 Total 0.0853 0.0486 0.6655 1.9200e- 003 0.2012 1.1900e- 003 0.2024 0.0534 1.0900e- 003 0.0545 191.6552 191.6552 4.5700e- 003 191.7694 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.9103 0.0000 6.9103 3.7985 0.0000 3.7985 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 6.9103 2.0445 8.9548 3.7985 1.8809 5.6794 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 9 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0853 0.0486 0.6655 1.9200e- 003 0.2012 1.1900e- 003 0.2024 0.0534 1.0900e- 003 0.0545 191.6552 191.6552 4.5700e- 003 191.7694 Total 0.0853 0.0486 0.6655 1.9200e- 003 0.2012 1.1900e- 003 0.2024 0.0534 1.0900e- 003 0.0545 191.6552 191.6552 4.5700e- 003 191.7694 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.6296 0.0000 6.6296 3.3792 0.0000 3.3792 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 1.1599 1.1599 1.0671 1.0671 2,871.928 5 2,871.928 5 0.9288 2,895.149 5 Total 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 6.6296 1.1599 7.7895 3.3792 1.0671 4.4463 2,871.928 5 2,871.928 5 0.9288 2,895.149 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 10 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0711 0.0405 0.5546 1.6000e- 003 0.1677 9.9000e- 004 0.1687 0.0445 9.1000e- 004 0.0454 159.7126 159.7126 3.8100e- 003 159.8078 Total 0.0711 0.0405 0.5546 1.6000e- 003 0.1677 9.9000e- 004 0.1687 0.0445 9.1000e- 004 0.0454 159.7126 159.7126 3.8100e- 003 159.8078 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.5358 0.0000 2.5358 1.2925 0.0000 1.2925 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 1.1599 1.1599 1.0671 1.0671 0.0000 2,871.928 5 2,871.928 5 0.9288 2,895.149 5 Total 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 2.5358 1.1599 3.6957 1.2925 1.0671 2.3597 0.0000 2,871.928 5 2,871.928 5 0.9288 2,895.149 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 11 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0711 0.0405 0.5546 1.6000e- 003 0.1677 9.9000e- 004 0.1687 0.0445 9.1000e- 004 0.0454 159.7126 159.7126 3.8100e- 003 159.8078 Total 0.0711 0.0405 0.5546 1.6000e- 003 0.1677 9.9000e- 004 0.1687 0.0445 9.1000e- 004 0.0454 159.7126 159.7126 3.8100e- 003 159.8078 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.6296 0.0000 6.6296 3.3792 0.0000 3.3792 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 0.9409 0.9409 0.8656 0.8656 2,872.046 4 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Total 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 6.6296 0.9409 7.5704 3.3792 0.8656 4.2448 2,872.046 4 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 12 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0665 0.0365 0.5115 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 153.8769 153.8769 3.4200e- 003 153.9624 Total 0.0665 0.0365 0.5115 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 153.8769 153.8769 3.4200e- 003 153.9624 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.5358 0.0000 2.5358 1.2925 0.0000 1.2925 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 0.9409 0.9409 0.8656 0.8656 0.0000 2,872.046 4 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Total 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 2.5358 0.9409 3.4767 1.2925 0.8656 2.1581 0.0000 2,872.046 4 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 13 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0665 0.0365 0.5115 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 153.8769 153.8769 3.4200e- 003 153.9624 Total 0.0665 0.0365 0.5115 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 153.8769 153.8769 3.4200e- 003 153.9624 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 14 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0348 1.3969 0.2457 4.1100e- 003 0.1025 2.3700e- 003 0.1048 0.0295 2.2600e- 003 0.0318 433.4803 433.4803 0.0296 434.2208 Worker 0.4789 0.2625 3.6829 0.0111 1.2072 6.9300e- 003 1.2141 0.3202 6.3800e- 003 0.3265 1,107.913 7 1,107.913 7 0.0246 1,108.529 5 Total 0.5138 1.6594 3.9286 0.0152 1.3096 9.3000e- 003 1.3189 0.3497 8.6400e- 003 0.3583 1,541.394 0 1,541.394 0 0.0543 1,542.750 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 15 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0348 1.3969 0.2457 4.1100e- 003 0.1025 2.3700e- 003 0.1048 0.0295 2.2600e- 003 0.0318 433.4803 433.4803 0.0296 434.2208 Worker 0.4789 0.2625 3.6829 0.0111 1.2072 6.9300e- 003 1.2141 0.3202 6.3800e- 003 0.3265 1,107.913 7 1,107.913 7 0.0246 1,108.529 5 Total 0.5138 1.6594 3.9286 0.0152 1.3096 9.3000e- 003 1.3189 0.3497 8.6400e- 003 0.3583 1,541.394 0 1,541.394 0 0.0543 1,542.750 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 16 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0665 0.0365 0.5115 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 153.8769 153.8769 3.4200e- 003 153.9624 Total 0.0665 0.0365 0.5115 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 153.8769 153.8769 3.4200e- 003 153.9624 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 17 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0665 0.0365 0.5115 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 153.8769 153.8769 3.4200e- 003 153.9624 Total 0.0665 0.0365 0.5115 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 153.8769 153.8769 3.4200e- 003 153.9624 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.9294 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 47.1339 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 18 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0976 0.0535 0.7502 2.2600e- 003 0.2459 1.4100e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.3000e- 003 0.0665 225.6861 225.6861 5.0200e- 003 225.8116 Total 0.0976 0.0535 0.7502 2.2600e- 003 0.2459 1.4100e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.3000e- 003 0.0665 225.6861 225.6861 5.0200e- 003 225.8116 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.9294 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 47.1339 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 19 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0976 0.0535 0.7502 2.2600e- 003 0.2459 1.4100e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.3000e- 003 0.0665 225.6861 225.6861 5.0200e- 003 225.8116 Total 0.0976 0.0535 0.7502 2.2600e- 003 0.2459 1.4100e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.3000e- 003 0.0665 225.6861 225.6861 5.0200e- 003 225.8116 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.9294 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 47.1210 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 20 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0915 0.0482 0.6924 2.1800e- 003 0.2459 1.3800e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.2700e- 003 0.0665 217.1095 217.1095 4.5000e- 003 217.2221 Total 0.0915 0.0482 0.6924 2.1800e- 003 0.2459 1.3800e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.2700e- 003 0.0665 217.1095 217.1095 4.5000e- 003 217.2221 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.9294 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 47.1210 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 21 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0915 0.0482 0.6924 2.1800e- 003 0.2459 1.3800e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.2700e- 003 0.0665 217.1095 217.1095 4.5000e- 003 217.2221 Total 0.0915 0.0482 0.6924 2.1800e- 003 0.2459 1.3800e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.2700e- 003 0.0665 217.1095 217.1095 4.5000e- 003 217.2221 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 22 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 2.0289 4.5690 25.7378 0.0886 8.7576 0.0536 8.8112 2.3276 0.0497 2.3773 8,888.523 8 8,888.523 8 0.2618 8,895.068 9 Unmitigated 2.0289 4.5690 25.7378 0.0886 8.7576 0.0536 8.8112 2.3276 0.0497 2.3773 8,888.523 8 8,888.523 8 0.2618 8,895.068 9 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 1,098.00 1,221.00 942.00 3,735,923 3,735,923 Total 1,098.00 1,221.00 942.00 3,735,923 3,735,923 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.595324 0.039337 0.202816 0.122129 0.015501 0.000992 0.003633 0.014473 0.000291 0.000237 0.004892 0.000189 0.000185 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 23 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 6400.48 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Total 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 24 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0150 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 Unmitigated 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0150 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 6.40048 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Total 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 25 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.2572 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 2.9700 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.2621 2.2394 0.9529 0.0143 0.1811 0.1811 0.1811 0.1811 0.0000 2,858.823 5 2,858.823 5 0.0548 0.0524 2,875.812 1 Landscaping 0.3729 0.1427 12.3780 6.5000e- 004 0.0685 0.0685 0.0685 0.0685 22.2828 22.2828 0.0214 22.8185 Total 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0149 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 26 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.2572 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 2.9700 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.2621 2.2394 0.9529 0.0143 0.1811 0.1811 0.1811 0.1811 0.0000 2,858.823 5 2,858.823 5 0.0548 0.0524 2,875.812 1 Landscaping 0.3729 0.1427 12.3780 6.5000e- 004 0.0685 0.0685 0.0685 0.0685 22.2828 22.2828 0.0214 22.8185 Total 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0149 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 27 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:41 AMPage 28 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Land Use - The project is proposing to construct and operate 150 apartment homes on approximately 8.26 acre site. Construction Phase - The project site is vacant and require no demolition. Trips and VMT - Vehicle Trips - Trip Generation Rates are based of Lakepointe Apartment Scoping Agreement, March 26 2021 by RK Engg. Group and ITE 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual. Woodstoves - Per SCAQMD rule 445, no wood burning devices are allowed in new developments. Water And Wastewater - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust control. Grading - The project is expected to cut approx.: 20,000 cy¶s - Fill approx. ±cy 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 150.00 Dwelling Unit 8.26 150,000.00 429 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 10 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.4 28 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2023Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study Riverside-South Coast County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 1 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 12 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 127.50 135.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 7.50 0.00 tblFleetMix HHD 0.07 0.01 tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 0.60 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.04 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.20 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 0.02 tblFleetMix LHD2 4.8060e-003 9.9200e-004 tblFleetMix MCY 4.5080e-003 4.8920e-003 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.12 tblFleetMix MH 8.9800e-004 1.8500e-004 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 3.6330e-003 tblFleetMix OBUS 1.4090e-003 2.9100e-004 tblFleetMix SBUS 9.1800e-004 1.8900e-004 tblFleetMix UBUS 1.1470e-003 2.3700e-004 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 12,200.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 9.38 8.26 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 8.14 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.28 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 7.32 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 2 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 3.9719 40.5474 21.6914 0.0397 18.2675 2.0457 20.3131 9.9840 1.8820 11.8660 0.0000 3,857.591 7 3,857.591 7 1.1960 0.0000 3,887.491 5 2022 47.2299 20.8928 19.6234 0.0409 6.7972 0.9418 7.7391 3.4237 0.8665 4.2901 0.0000 3,965.383 0 3,965.383 0 0.9319 0.0000 3,982.043 5 2023 47.2114 1.3528 2.3683 4.9200e- 003 0.2459 0.0722 0.3181 0.0652 0.0721 0.1373 0.0000 476.2387 476.2387 0.0208 0.0000 476.7578 Maximum 47.2299 40.5474 21.6914 0.0409 18.2675 2.0457 20.3131 9.9840 1.8820 11.8660 0.0000 3,965.383 0 3,965.383 0 1.1960 0.0000 3,982.043 5 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 3.9719 40.5474 21.6914 0.0397 7.1115 2.0457 9.1572 3.8519 1.8820 5.7338 0.0000 3,857.591 7 3,857.591 7 1.1960 0.0000 3,887.491 5 2022 47.2299 20.8928 19.6234 0.0409 2.7035 0.9418 3.6453 1.3370 0.8665 2.2035 0.0000 3,965.383 0 3,965.383 0 0.9319 0.0000 3,982.043 5 2023 47.2114 1.3528 2.3683 4.9200e- 003 0.2459 0.0722 0.3181 0.0652 0.0721 0.1373 0.0000 476.2387 476.2387 0.0208 0.0000 476.7578 Maximum 47.2299 40.5474 21.6914 0.0409 7.1115 2.0457 9.1572 3.8519 1.8820 5.7338 0.0000 3,965.383 0 3,965.383 0 1.1960 0.0000 3,982.043 5 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 3 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.25 0.00 53.75 61.00 0.00 50.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 4 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0150 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 Energy 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Mobile 1.6602 4.6459 21.5930 0.0803 8.7576 0.0537 8.8113 2.3276 0.0497 2.3774 8,068.621 6 8,068.621 6 0.2505 8,074.885 1 Total 5.5913 7.6178 35.1748 0.0990 8.7576 0.3510 9.1085 2.3276 0.3470 2.6746 0.0000 11,702.72 56 11,702.72 56 0.3412 0.0662 11,730.98 80 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0150 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 Energy 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Mobile 1.6602 4.6459 21.5930 0.0803 8.7576 0.0537 8.8113 2.3276 0.0497 2.3774 8,068.621 6 8,068.621 6 0.2505 8,074.885 1 Total 5.5913 7.6178 35.1748 0.0990 8.7576 0.3510 9.1085 2.3276 0.3470 2.6746 0.0000 11,702.72 56 11,702.72 56 0.3412 0.0662 11,730.98 80 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 5 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 12/1/2021 12/14/2021 5 10 2 Grading Grading 12/15/2021 1/11/2022 5 20 3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 11/29/2022 5 230 4 Paving Paving 11/30/2022 12/27/2022 5 20 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/28/2022 1/24/2023 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 303,750; Residential Outdoor: 101,250; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 6 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 108.00 16.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 22.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 7 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Water Unpaved Roads Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 8 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0838 0.0503 0.5372 1.7200e- 003 0.2012 1.1900e- 003 0.2024 0.0534 1.0900e- 003 0.0545 171.9348 171.9348 3.9700e- 003 172.0342 Total 0.0838 0.0503 0.5372 1.7200e- 003 0.2012 1.1900e- 003 0.2024 0.0534 1.0900e- 003 0.0545 171.9348 171.9348 3.9700e- 003 172.0342 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.9103 0.0000 6.9103 3.7985 0.0000 3.7985 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 6.9103 2.0445 8.9548 3.7985 1.8809 5.6794 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 9 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0838 0.0503 0.5372 1.7200e- 003 0.2012 1.1900e- 003 0.2024 0.0534 1.0900e- 003 0.0545 171.9348 171.9348 3.9700e- 003 172.0342 Total 0.0838 0.0503 0.5372 1.7200e- 003 0.2012 1.1900e- 003 0.2024 0.0534 1.0900e- 003 0.0545 171.9348 171.9348 3.9700e- 003 172.0342 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.6296 0.0000 6.6296 3.3792 0.0000 3.3792 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 1.1599 1.1599 1.0671 1.0671 2,871.928 5 2,871.928 5 0.9288 2,895.149 5 Total 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 6.6296 1.1599 7.7895 3.3792 1.0671 4.4463 2,871.928 5 2,871.928 5 0.9288 2,895.149 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 10 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0698 0.0419 0.4476 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 9.9000e- 004 0.1687 0.0445 9.1000e- 004 0.0454 143.2790 143.2790 3.3100e- 003 143.3618 Total 0.0698 0.0419 0.4476 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 9.9000e- 004 0.1687 0.0445 9.1000e- 004 0.0454 143.2790 143.2790 3.3100e- 003 143.3618 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.5358 0.0000 2.5358 1.2925 0.0000 1.2925 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 1.1599 1.1599 1.0671 1.0671 0.0000 2,871.928 5 2,871.928 5 0.9288 2,895.149 5 Total 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 2.5358 1.1599 3.6957 1.2925 1.0671 2.3597 0.0000 2,871.928 5 2,871.928 5 0.9288 2,895.149 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 11 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0698 0.0419 0.4476 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 9.9000e- 004 0.1687 0.0445 9.1000e- 004 0.0454 143.2790 143.2790 3.3100e- 003 143.3618 Total 0.0698 0.0419 0.4476 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 9.9000e- 004 0.1687 0.0445 9.1000e- 004 0.0454 143.2790 143.2790 3.3100e- 003 143.3618 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.6296 0.0000 6.6296 3.3792 0.0000 3.3792 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 0.9409 0.9409 0.8656 0.8656 2,872.046 4 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Total 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 6.6296 0.9409 7.5704 3.3792 0.8656 4.2448 2,872.046 4 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 12 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0655 0.0377 0.4123 1.3800e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 138.0508 138.0508 2.9800e- 003 138.1253 Total 0.0655 0.0377 0.4123 1.3800e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 138.0508 138.0508 2.9800e- 003 138.1253 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.5358 0.0000 2.5358 1.2925 0.0000 1.2925 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 0.9409 0.9409 0.8656 0.8656 0.0000 2,872.046 4 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Total 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 2.5358 0.9409 3.4767 1.2925 0.8656 2.1581 0.0000 2,872.046 4 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 13 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0655 0.0377 0.4123 1.3800e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 138.0508 138.0508 2.9800e- 003 138.1253 Total 0.0655 0.0377 0.4123 1.3800e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 138.0508 138.0508 2.9800e- 003 138.1253 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 14 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0370 1.3829 0.2917 3.9500e- 003 0.1025 2.4400e- 003 0.1049 0.0295 2.3400e- 003 0.0318 417.0834 417.0834 0.0330 417.9094 Worker 0.4714 0.2714 2.9683 9.9700e- 003 1.2072 6.9300e- 003 1.2141 0.3202 6.3800e- 003 0.3265 993.9660 993.9660 0.0214 994.5019 Total 0.5084 1.6543 3.2600 0.0139 1.3096 9.3700e- 003 1.3190 0.3497 8.7200e- 003 0.3584 1,411.049 4 1,411.049 4 0.0545 1,412.411 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 15 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0370 1.3829 0.2917 3.9500e- 003 0.1025 2.4400e- 003 0.1049 0.0295 2.3400e- 003 0.0318 417.0834 417.0834 0.0330 417.9094 Worker 0.4714 0.2714 2.9683 9.9700e- 003 1.2072 6.9300e- 003 1.2141 0.3202 6.3800e- 003 0.3265 993.9660 993.9660 0.0214 994.5019 Total 0.5084 1.6543 3.2600 0.0139 1.3096 9.3700e- 003 1.3190 0.3497 8.7200e- 003 0.3584 1,411.049 4 1,411.049 4 0.0545 1,412.411 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 16 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0655 0.0377 0.4123 1.3800e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 138.0508 138.0508 2.9800e- 003 138.1253 Total 0.0655 0.0377 0.4123 1.3800e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 138.0508 138.0508 2.9800e- 003 138.1253 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 17 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0655 0.0377 0.4123 1.3800e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 138.0508 138.0508 2.9800e- 003 138.1253 Total 0.0655 0.0377 0.4123 1.3800e- 003 0.1677 9.6000e- 004 0.1686 0.0445 8.9000e- 004 0.0454 138.0508 138.0508 2.9800e- 003 138.1253 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.9294 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 47.1339 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 18 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0960 0.0553 0.6047 2.0300e- 003 0.2459 1.4100e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.3000e- 003 0.0665 202.4746 202.4746 4.3700e- 003 202.5837 Total 0.0960 0.0553 0.6047 2.0300e- 003 0.2459 1.4100e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.3000e- 003 0.0665 202.4746 202.4746 4.3700e- 003 202.5837 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.9294 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 47.1339 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 19 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0960 0.0553 0.6047 2.0300e- 003 0.2459 1.4100e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.3000e- 003 0.0665 202.4746 202.4746 4.3700e- 003 202.5837 Total 0.0960 0.0553 0.6047 2.0300e- 003 0.2459 1.4100e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.3000e- 003 0.0665 202.4746 202.4746 4.3700e- 003 202.5837 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.9294 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 47.1210 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 20 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0903 0.0498 0.5572 1.9500e- 003 0.2459 1.3800e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.2700e- 003 0.0665 194.7907 194.7907 3.9200e- 003 194.8888 Total 0.0903 0.0498 0.5572 1.9500e- 003 0.2459 1.3800e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.2700e- 003 0.0665 194.7907 194.7907 3.9200e- 003 194.8888 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.9294 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 47.1210 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 21 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0903 0.0498 0.5572 1.9500e- 003 0.2459 1.3800e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.2700e- 003 0.0665 194.7907 194.7907 3.9200e- 003 194.8888 Total 0.0903 0.0498 0.5572 1.9500e- 003 0.2459 1.3800e- 003 0.2473 0.0652 1.2700e- 003 0.0665 194.7907 194.7907 3.9200e- 003 194.8888 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 22 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 1.6602 4.6459 21.5930 0.0803 8.7576 0.0537 8.8113 2.3276 0.0497 2.3774 8,068.621 6 8,068.621 6 0.2505 8,074.885 1 Unmitigated 1.6602 4.6459 21.5930 0.0803 8.7576 0.0537 8.8113 2.3276 0.0497 2.3774 8,068.621 6 8,068.621 6 0.2505 8,074.885 1 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 1,098.00 1,221.00 942.00 3,735,923 3,735,923 Total 1,098.00 1,221.00 942.00 3,735,923 3,735,923 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.595324 0.039337 0.202816 0.122129 0.015501 0.000992 0.003633 0.014473 0.000291 0.000237 0.004892 0.000189 0.000185 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 23 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 6400.48 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Total 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 24 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0150 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 Unmitigated 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0150 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 6.40048 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Total 0.0690 0.5899 0.2510 3.7600e- 003 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 0.0477 752.9976 752.9976 0.0144 0.0138 757.4723 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 25 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.2572 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 2.9700 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.2621 2.2394 0.9529 0.0143 0.1811 0.1811 0.1811 0.1811 0.0000 2,858.823 5 2,858.823 5 0.0548 0.0524 2,875.812 1 Landscaping 0.3729 0.1427 12.3780 6.5000e- 004 0.0685 0.0685 0.0685 0.0685 22.2828 22.2828 0.0214 22.8185 Total 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0149 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 26 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.2572 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 2.9700 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.2621 2.2394 0.9529 0.0143 0.1811 0.1811 0.1811 0.1811 0.0000 2,858.823 5 2,858.823 5 0.0548 0.0524 2,875.812 1 Landscaping 0.3729 0.1427 12.3780 6.5000e- 004 0.0685 0.0685 0.0685 0.0685 22.2828 22.2828 0.0214 22.8185 Total 3.8621 2.3821 13.3309 0.0149 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.2496 0.0000 2,881.106 4 2,881.106 4 0.0762 0.0524 2,898.630 6 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 27 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:43 AMPage 28 of 28 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter Appendix B Annual Emission Calculations Output (CalEEMod) Project Characteristics - Land Use - The project is proposing to construct and operate 150 apartment homes on approximately 8.26 acre site. Construction Phase - The project site is vacant and require no demolition. Trips and VMT - Vehicle Trips - Trip Generation Rates are based of Lakepointe Apartment Scoping Agreement, March 26 2021 by RK Engg. Group and ITE 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual. Woodstoves - Per SCAQMD rule 445, no wood burning devices are allowed in new developments. Water And Wastewater - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust control. Grading - The project is expected to cut approx.: 20,000 cy¶s - Fill approx. ±cy 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 150.00 Dwelling Unit 8.26 150,000.00 429 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 10 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.4 28 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2023Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study Riverside-South Coast County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 1 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 12 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 127.50 135.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 7.50 0.00 tblFleetMix HHD 0.07 0.01 tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 0.60 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.04 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.20 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 0.02 tblFleetMix LHD2 4.8060e-003 9.9200e-004 tblFleetMix MCY 4.5080e-003 4.8920e-003 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.12 tblFleetMix MH 8.9800e-004 1.8500e-004 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 3.6330e-003 tblFleetMix OBUS 1.4090e-003 2.9100e-004 tblFleetMix SBUS 9.1800e-004 1.8900e-004 tblFleetMix UBUS 1.1470e-003 2.3700e-004 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 12,200.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 9.38 8.26 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 8.14 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.28 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 7.32 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 2 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.0351 0.3638 0.2148 4.0000e- 004 0.1376 0.0178 0.1554 0.0724 0.0164 0.0888 0.0000 35.3194 35.3194 0.0109 0.0000 35.5924 2022 0.3397 2.1767 2.4815 5.1000e- 003 0.1779 0.1032 0.2811 0.0526 0.0969 0.1495 0.0000 448.9018 448.9018 0.0789 0.0000 450.8741 2023 0.4012 0.0115 0.0204 4.0000e- 005 2.0600e- 003 6.1000e- 004 2.6700e- 003 5.5000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 1.1600e- 003 0.0000 3.7110 3.7110 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.7150 Maximum 0.4012 2.1767 2.4815 5.1000e- 003 0.1779 0.1032 0.2811 0.0724 0.0969 0.1495 0.0000 448.9018 448.9018 0.0789 0.0000 450.8741 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.0351 0.3638 0.2148 4.0000e- 004 0.0539 0.0178 0.0717 0.0280 0.0164 0.0444 0.0000 35.3193 35.3193 0.0109 0.0000 35.5924 2022 0.3397 2.1767 2.4815 5.1000e- 003 0.1611 0.1032 0.2643 0.0450 0.0969 0.1419 0.0000 448.9014 448.9014 0.0789 0.0000 450.8737 2023 0.4012 0.0115 0.0204 4.0000e- 005 2.0600e- 003 6.1000e- 004 2.6700e- 003 5.5000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 1.1600e- 003 0.0000 3.7110 3.7110 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.7150 Maximum 0.4012 2.1767 2.4815 5.1000e- 003 0.1611 0.1032 0.2643 0.0450 0.0969 0.1419 0.0000 448.9014 448.9014 0.0789 0.0000 450.8737 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 3 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.6388 0.0458 1.5592 2.6000e- 004 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 34.9454 34.9454 3.0500e- 003 5.9000e- 004 35.1987 Energy 0.0126 0.1077 0.0458 6.9000e- 004 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 0.0000 356.9546 356.9546 0.0120 4.2700e- 003 358.5265 Mobile 0.2730 0.7722 3.6703 0.0134 1.4035 8.7400e- 003 1.4122 0.3735 8.0900e- 003 0.3816 0.0000 1,220.300 9 1,220.300 9 0.0371 0.0000 1,221.228 9 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.0064 0.0000 14.0064 0.8278 0.0000 34.7002 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.1006 62.3567 65.4572 0.3210 8.0500e- 003 75.8825 Total 0.9244 0.9257 5.2753 0.0143 1.4035 0.0283 1.4317 0.3735 0.0276 0.4011 17.1069 1,674.557 5 1,691.664 5 1.2009 0.0129 1,725.536 9 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.64 0.00 22.88 41.40 0.00 21.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 0.8114 0.8114 2 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 0.6404 0.6404 3 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.6406 0.6406 4 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.6308 0.6308 5 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.6047 0.6047 Highest 0.8114 0.8114 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 4 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.6388 0.0458 1.5592 2.6000e- 004 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 34.9454 34.9454 3.0500e- 003 5.9000e- 004 35.1987 Energy 0.0126 0.1077 0.0458 6.9000e- 004 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 0.0000 356.9546 356.9546 0.0120 4.2700e- 003 358.5265 Mobile 0.2730 0.7722 3.6703 0.0134 1.4035 8.7400e- 003 1.4122 0.3735 8.0900e- 003 0.3816 0.0000 1,220.300 9 1,220.300 9 0.0371 0.0000 1,221.228 9 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.0064 0.0000 14.0064 0.8278 0.0000 34.7002 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.1006 62.3567 65.4572 0.3210 8.0500e- 003 75.8825 Total 0.9244 0.9257 5.2753 0.0143 1.4035 0.0283 1.4317 0.3735 0.0276 0.4011 17.1069 1,674.557 5 1,691.664 5 1.2009 0.0129 1,725.536 9 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 5 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 12/1/2021 12/14/2021 5 10 2 Grading Grading 12/15/2021 1/11/2022 5 20 3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 11/29/2022 5 230 4 Paving Paving 11/30/2022 12/27/2022 5 20 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/28/2022 1/24/2023 5 20 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 303,750; Residential Outdoor: 101,250; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 6 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 108.00 16.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 22.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 7 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e- 004 0.0102 0.0102 9.4000e- 003 9.4000e- 003 0.0000 16.7179 16.7179 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 16.8530 Total 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e- 004 0.0903 0.0102 0.1006 0.0497 9.4000e- 003 0.0591 0.0000 16.7179 16.7179 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 16.8530 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Water Unpaved Roads Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 8 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.9000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 2.8300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 003 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.8000 0.8000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8004 Total 3.9000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 2.8300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 003 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.8000 0.8000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8004 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0346 0.0000 0.0346 0.0190 0.0000 0.0190 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e- 004 0.0102 0.0102 9.4000e- 003 9.4000e- 003 0.0000 16.7178 16.7178 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 16.8530 Total 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e- 004 0.0346 0.0102 0.0448 0.0190 9.4000e- 003 0.0284 0.0000 16.7178 16.7178 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 16.8530 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 9 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.9000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 2.8300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 003 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.8000 0.8000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8004 Total 3.9000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 2.8300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 003 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.8000 0.8000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8004 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0452 0.0000 0.0452 0.0222 0.0000 0.0222 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0149 0.1608 0.1031 1.9000e- 004 7.5400e- 003 7.5400e- 003 6.9400e- 003 6.9400e- 003 0.0000 16.9349 16.9349 5.4800e- 003 0.0000 17.0718 Total 0.0149 0.1608 0.1031 1.9000e- 004 0.0452 7.5400e- 003 0.0528 0.0222 6.9400e- 003 0.0292 0.0000 16.9349 16.9349 5.4800e- 003 0.0000 17.0718 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 10 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.2000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8666 0.8666 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8671 Total 4.2000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8666 0.8666 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8671 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0173 0.0000 0.0173 8.4900e- 003 0.0000 8.4900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0149 0.1608 0.1031 1.9000e- 004 7.5400e- 003 7.5400e- 003 6.9400e- 003 6.9400e- 003 0.0000 16.9349 16.9349 5.4800e- 003 0.0000 17.0718 Total 0.0149 0.1608 0.1031 1.9000e- 004 0.0173 7.5400e- 003 0.0248 8.4900e- 003 6.9400e- 003 0.0154 0.0000 16.9349 16.9349 5.4800e- 003 0.0000 17.0718 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 11 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.2000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8666 0.8666 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8671 Total 4.2000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8666 0.8666 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8671 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0272 0.0000 0.0272 0.0123 0.0000 0.0123 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8200e- 003 0.0730 0.0535 1.0000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.0300e- 003 3.0300e- 003 0.0000 9.1192 9.1192 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 9.1929 Total 6.8200e- 003 0.0730 0.0535 1.0000e- 004 0.0272 3.2900e- 003 0.0304 0.0123 3.0300e- 003 0.0153 0.0000 9.1192 9.1192 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 9.1929 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 12 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.4496 0.4496 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4499 Total 2.1000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.4496 0.4496 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4499 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0104 0.0000 0.0104 4.7000e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8200e- 003 0.0730 0.0535 1.0000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.0300e- 003 3.0300e- 003 0.0000 9.1192 9.1192 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 9.1929 Total 6.8200e- 003 0.0730 0.0535 1.0000e- 004 0.0104 3.2900e- 003 0.0137 4.7000e- 003 3.0300e- 003 7.7300e- 003 0.0000 9.1192 9.1192 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 9.1929 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 13 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.4496 0.4496 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4499 Total 2.1000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.4496 0.4496 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4499 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1962 1.7958 1.8818 3.1000e- 003 0.0930 0.0930 0.0875 0.0875 0.0000 266.4840 266.4840 0.0638 0.0000 268.0801 Total 0.1962 1.7958 1.8818 3.1000e- 003 0.0930 0.0930 0.0875 0.0875 0.0000 266.4840 266.4840 0.0638 0.0000 268.0801 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 14 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.1000e- 003 0.1616 0.0308 4.7000e- 004 0.0116 2.8000e- 004 0.0119 3.3500e- 003 2.6000e- 004 3.6200e- 003 0.0000 44.5049 44.5049 3.2400e- 003 0.0000 44.5860 Worker 0.0499 0.0323 0.3602 1.1800e- 003 0.1365 8.0000e- 004 0.1373 0.0363 7.3000e- 004 0.0370 0.0000 106.3663 106.3663 2.3100e- 003 0.0000 106.4240 Total 0.0540 0.1939 0.3909 1.6500e- 003 0.1481 1.0800e- 003 0.1492 0.0396 9.9000e- 004 0.0406 0.0000 150.8712 150.8712 5.5500e- 003 0.0000 151.0101 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1962 1.7958 1.8818 3.1000e- 003 0.0930 0.0930 0.0875 0.0875 0.0000 266.4837 266.4837 0.0638 0.0000 268.0798 Total 0.1962 1.7958 1.8818 3.1000e- 003 0.0930 0.0930 0.0875 0.0875 0.0000 266.4837 266.4837 0.0638 0.0000 268.0798 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 15 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.1000e- 003 0.1616 0.0308 4.7000e- 004 0.0116 2.8000e- 004 0.0119 3.3500e- 003 2.6000e- 004 3.6200e- 003 0.0000 44.5049 44.5049 3.2400e- 003 0.0000 44.5860 Worker 0.0499 0.0323 0.3602 1.1800e- 003 0.1365 8.0000e- 004 0.1373 0.0363 7.3000e- 004 0.0370 0.0000 106.3663 106.3663 2.3100e- 003 0.0000 106.4240 Total 0.0540 0.1939 0.3909 1.6500e- 003 0.1481 1.0800e- 003 0.1492 0.0396 9.9000e- 004 0.0406 0.0000 150.8712 150.8712 5.5500e- 003 0.0000 151.0101 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0110 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.6800e- 003 5.6800e- 003 5.2200e- 003 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 20.0276 20.0276 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1895 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0110 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.6800e- 003 5.6800e- 003 5.2200e- 003 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 20.0276 20.0276 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1895 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 16 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.2846 1.2846 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2853 Total 6.0000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.2846 1.2846 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2853 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0110 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.6800e- 003 5.6800e- 003 5.2200e- 003 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 20.0275 20.0275 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1895 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0110 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.6800e- 003 5.6800e- 003 5.2200e- 003 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 20.0275 20.0275 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1895 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 17 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.2846 1.2846 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2853 Total 6.0000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.2846 1.2846 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2853 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.0704 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 2.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3830 0.3830 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3836 Total 0.0707 2.1100e- 003 2.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3830 0.3830 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3836 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 18 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.2826 0.2826 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2828 Total 1.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.2826 0.2826 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2828 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.0704 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 2.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3830 0.3830 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3836 Total 0.0707 2.1100e- 003 2.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3830 0.3830 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3836 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 19 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.2826 0.2826 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2828 Total 1.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.2826 0.2826 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2828 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.3989 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6300e- 003 0.0111 0.0154 3.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.1703 2.1703 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.1735 Total 0.4005 0.0111 0.0154 3.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.1703 2.1703 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.1735 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 20 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.1000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 5.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.0700e- 003 5.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.5407 1.5407 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5415 Total 7.1000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 5.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.0700e- 003 5.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.5407 1.5407 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5415 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.3989 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6300e- 003 0.0111 0.0154 3.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.1703 2.1703 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.1735 Total 0.4005 0.0111 0.0154 3.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.1703 2.1703 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.1735 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 21 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.1000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 5.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.0700e- 003 5.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.5407 1.5407 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5415 Total 7.1000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 5.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.0700e- 003 5.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.5407 1.5407 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5415 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 22 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2730 0.7722 3.6703 0.0134 1.4035 8.7400e- 003 1.4122 0.3735 8.0900e- 003 0.3816 0.0000 1,220.300 9 1,220.300 9 0.0371 0.0000 1,221.228 9 Unmitigated 0.2730 0.7722 3.6703 0.0134 1.4035 8.7400e- 003 1.4122 0.3735 8.0900e- 003 0.3816 0.0000 1,220.300 9 1,220.300 9 0.0371 0.0000 1,221.228 9 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 1,098.00 1,221.00 942.00 3,735,923 3,735,923 Total 1,098.00 1,221.00 942.00 3,735,923 3,735,923 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.595324 0.039337 0.202816 0.122129 0.015501 0.000992 0.003633 0.014473 0.000291 0.000237 0.004892 0.000189 0.000185 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 23 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 232.2874 232.2874 9.5900e- 003 1.9800e- 003 233.1185 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 232.2874 232.2874 9.5900e- 003 1.9800e- 003 233.1185 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0126 0.1077 0.0458 6.9000e- 004 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 0.0000 124.6672 124.6672 2.3900e- 003 2.2900e- 003 125.4080 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0126 0.1077 0.0458 6.9000e- 004 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 0.0000 124.6672 124.6672 2.3900e- 003 2.2900e- 003 125.4080 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 2.33618e +006 0.0126 0.1077 0.0458 6.9000e- 004 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 0.0000 124.6672 124.6672 2.3900e- 003 2.2900e- 003 125.4080 Total 0.0126 0.1077 0.0458 6.9000e- 004 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 0.0000 124.6672 124.6672 2.3900e- 003 2.2900e- 003 125.4080 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 24 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 2.33618e +006 0.0126 0.1077 0.0458 6.9000e- 004 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 0.0000 124.6672 124.6672 2.3900e- 003 2.2900e- 003 125.4080 Total 0.0126 0.1077 0.0458 6.9000e- 004 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 8.7000e- 003 0.0000 124.6672 124.6672 2.3900e- 003 2.2900e- 003 125.4080 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 729039 232.2874 9.5900e- 003 1.9800e- 003 233.1185 Total 232.2874 9.5900e- 003 1.9800e- 003 233.1185 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 25 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.6388 0.0458 1.5592 2.6000e- 004 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 34.9454 34.9454 3.0500e- 003 5.9000e- 004 35.1987 Unmitigated 0.6388 0.0458 1.5592 2.6000e- 004 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 34.9454 34.9454 3.0500e- 003 5.9000e- 004 35.1987 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 729039 232.2874 9.5900e- 003 1.9800e- 003 233.1185 Total 232.2874 9.5900e- 003 1.9800e- 003 233.1185 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 26 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0469 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.5420 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 3.2800e- 003 0.0280 0.0119 1.8000e- 004 2.2600e- 003 2.2600e- 003 2.2600e- 003 2.2600e- 003 0.0000 32.4185 32.4185 6.2000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 32.6112 Landscaping 0.0466 0.0178 1.5472 8.0000e- 005 8.5600e- 003 8.5600e- 003 8.5600e- 003 8.5600e- 003 0.0000 2.5268 2.5268 2.4300e- 003 0.0000 2.5876 Total 0.6389 0.0458 1.5592 2.6000e- 004 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 34.9453 34.9453 3.0500e- 003 5.9000e- 004 35.1987 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 27 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0469 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.5420 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 3.2800e- 003 0.0280 0.0119 1.8000e- 004 2.2600e- 003 2.2600e- 003 2.2600e- 003 2.2600e- 003 0.0000 32.4185 32.4185 6.2000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 32.6112 Landscaping 0.0466 0.0178 1.5472 8.0000e- 005 8.5600e- 003 8.5600e- 003 8.5600e- 003 8.5600e- 003 0.0000 2.5268 2.5268 2.4300e- 003 0.0000 2.5876 Total 0.6389 0.0458 1.5592 2.6000e- 004 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 34.9453 34.9453 3.0500e- 003 5.9000e- 004 35.1987 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 28 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 65.4572 0.3210 8.0500e- 003 75.8825 Unmitigated 65.4572 0.3210 8.0500e- 003 75.8825 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 9.7731 / 6.1613 65.4572 0.3210 8.0500e- 003 75.8825 Total 65.4572 0.3210 8.0500e- 003 75.8825 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 29 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 9.7731 / 6.1613 65.4572 0.3210 8.0500e- 003 75.8825 Total 65.4572 0.3210 8.0500e- 003 75.8825 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 14.0064 0.8278 0.0000 34.7002 Unmitigated 14.0064 0.8278 0.0000 34.7002 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 30 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 69 14.0064 0.8278 0.0000 34.7002 Total 14.0064 0.8278 0.0000 34.7002 Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 69 14.0064 0.8278 0.0000 34.7002 Total 14.0064 0.8278 0.0000 34.7002 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 31 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 11.0 Vegetation 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/29/2021 8:38 AMPage 32 of 32 Lakepointe Apartments AQ & GHG Impact Study - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM APPENDIX 3 Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM APPENDIX 4 group, inc.engineering LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS NOISE IMPACT STUDY City of Lake Elsinore, California rk16549.1.doc JN:2395-2021-02 LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS NOISE IMPACT STUDY City of Lake Elsinore, California Prepared for: Mr. Kirk Bowlus BOWLUS PACIFIC 1662 Dustin Place Riverside, CA 92506 Prepared by: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 4000 Westerly Place, Suite 280 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bryan Estrada, AICP November 8, 2022 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives 1-1 1.2 Site Location 1-1 1.3 Project Description 1-2 1.4 Summary of Analysis Results 1-2 1.5 Recommended Mitigation Measures 1-3 1.6 Recommended Project Design Features 1-5 2.0 Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration .................................................. 2-1 2.1 Sound, Noise and Acoustics 2-1 2.2 Frequency and Hertz 2-1 2.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels 2-1 2.4 Addition of Decibels 2-1 2.5 Human Responses to Changes in Noise Levels 2-2 2.6 Noise Descriptors 2-2 2.7 Sound Propagation 2-5 2.8 Vibration Descriptors 2-7 2.9 Vibration Perception 2-7 2.10 Vibration Propagation 2-8 2.11 Construction Related Vibration Level Prediction 2-8 3.0 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Federal Regulations 3-1 3.2 State Regulations 3-2 3.3 City of Lake Elsinore Noise Regulations 3-2 3.3.1 Noise/Land Use Compatibility 3-2 3.3.2 Municipal Code Noise Standards 3-2 3.3.3 Construction Noise Regulation 3-3 4.0 Study Method and Procedures .............................................................. 4-1 4.1 Measurement Procedures and Criteria 4-1 4.2 Traffic Noise Modeling 4-2 4.3 Stationary Noise Modeling 4-3 4.2 Stationary Noise Modeling 4-2 4.3.1 Parking Lot Noise 4-4 4.3.2 HVAC Equipment Noise 4-5 4.4 Interior Noise Modeling 4-5 4.5 Construction Noise Modeling 4-5 4.6 Construction Vibration Modeling 4-6 Table of Contents (Cont.) Section Page 5.0 Existing Noise Environment................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Measurement Results 5-1 6.0 Operational Noise Impacts .................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Roadway Noise Impacts 6-1 6.2 Stationary Source Noise Impacts 6-1 6.3 Future Noise/Land Use Compatibility 6-3 6.4 Future Interior Noise 6-4 6.5 Recommended Project Design Features 6-5 7.0 Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts ........................................... 7-1 7.1 Typical Construction Noise Levels 7-1 7.2 Construction Noise Impact Analysis 7-2 7.3 Construction Vibration 7-6 List of Attachments Exhibits Location Map ........................................................................................................... A Site Plan ................................................................................................................... B Monitoring Locations ................................................................................................ C Tables CEQA Noise Impact Criteria ....................................................................................... 1 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria ...................................................................... 2 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ........................................................... 3 Suggested "n" Values Based on Soil Classes ................................................................ 4 Noise/Land Use Compatibility .................................................................................... 5 City of Lake Elsinore Exterior Noise Standards ............................................................ 6 City of Lake Elsinore Construction Noise Standards for Businesses .............................. 7 Roadway Parameters ................................................................................................. 8 Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix) for Urban Arterial Roadways ..................................... 9 Referenced Noise Levels – Parking Lot ....................................................................... 10 Referenced Noise Levels – HVAC .............................................................................. 11 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ........................................... 12 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria ....................................................... 13 Existing 24-Hour Noise Levels (SLM-1) ....................................................................... 14 Existing 24-Hour Noise Levels (SLM-2) ....................................................................... 15 List of Attachments (Cont.) Tables Daytime Stationary Noise Impact Analysis – Lakeside High School Property Line ......... 16 Daytime Stationary Noise Impact Analysis – Residential Property Line to the Northwest ................................................................ 17 Nighttime Stationary Noise Impact Analysis – Residential Property Line to the Northwest ................................................................ 18 Future Exterior Roadway Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) ...................................................... 19 Future Interior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) ..................................................................... 20 Typical Construction Noise Levels .............................................................................. 21 Construction Noise Impact Analysis – Lakeside High School ....................................... 22 Construction Noise Impact Analysis – Residential Property Line to the Northwest ....... 23 Typical Construction Vibration Levels ......................................................................... 24 Construction Vibration Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 25 Appendices City of Lake Elsinore Noise Standards ....................................................................... A Field Data and Photos ............................................................................................... B HVAC Equipment Specifications ................................................................................ C Stationary Noise Calculation Worksheets ................................................................... D Roadway Noise Calculation Worksheets..................................................................... E Construction and Vibration Calculation Worksheets .................................................. F 1-1 1.0 Introduction This report has been updated to reflect the minor modifications to the project description, based on the modified site plan, dated 9/12/22. The project now includes a total of 152 dwelling units (an increase of two units from what was previously studied). However, overall, the site plan has not significantly changed, and the project would not add any new or more intense uses that would generate additional noise levels beyond what was previously estimated. Hence, the findings of the previous April 5, 2021, analysis are still accurate and adequately address all project impacts. No additional changes have been made to this updated report beyond reference to the latest site plan. 1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives The purpose of this report is to evaluate the potential noise impacts from the proposed Lake Pointe Apartments (project) and provide recommendations, if necessary, to minimize any project noise impacts. The assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and utilizes the noise standards set forth by the City of Lake Elsinore and State of California. The following is provided in this report: • A description of the study area and the proposed project • Information regarding the fundamentals of noise • Identification of the regulatory setting and applicable noise standards • Analysis of the existing noise environment • Analysis of the project’s operational noise impact to adjacent receptors • Analysis of the project’s construction noise and vibration impact to adjacent sensitive receptors • Summary of recommended mitigation measures and project design features to reduce noise level impacts 1.2 Site Location The project site is located at the northerly corner of Riverside Drive (SR-74) and Lakeside High School/Le Harve Avenue, in the City of Lake Elsinore, California. The project site is currently vacant. The project site is located approximately 1,275 feet above sea level and the topography slopes gently (approximately 1%) to the southeast. 1-2 The project site is bounded by commercial uses to the northeast, Lakeside High School to the southwest, Riverside Drive to the southeast and vacant land use to the northwest. The project site is zoned for Residential Mixed Use (RMU) in the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map and Lake Elsinore City Plan General Plan Land Use Designation Map. The nearest noise sensitive land uses surrounding the project site are: 1. Residential homes located at approximately 275 feet to the northeast of the project site. 2. Lakeside High School located adjacent to the project site to the southwest. 3. Residential homes located at approximately 340 feet to the northwest of the site. The project site location map is provided in Exhibit A. 1.3 Project Description The project proposes to construct and operate 152 residential apartment dwelling units on an approximately 8.26 acre vacant site. The primary sources of noise generated by the project would include vehicular noise from cars traveling to and from the site on public roadways, on-site vehicular circulation (including delivery trucks and trash collection), and noise from HVAC equipment. The project will include a new six (6) foot high property line wall along the boundary of Lakeside High School. Construction of the project is estimated to begin in the year 2021 and last approximately 14 months. Construction activities are expected to consist of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The project is expected to be complete in the year 2023. The site plan used for this analysis is illustrated in Exhibit B. 1-3 1.4 Summary of Analysis Results Table 1 provides a summary of the noise analysis results, per the CEQA impact criteria checklist. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project is not expected to result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Table 1 CEQA Noise Impact Criteria Noise Impact Criteria Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in? a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X 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? X 1.5 Recommended Mitigations Measures The following recommended mitigation measures are provided to help ensure the project’s construction noise levels do not adversely impact the adjacent noise sensitive land uses: Construction Mitigation Measures MM-1 Obtain a construction work permit from the City of Lake Elsinore prior to starting construction. 1-4 MM-2 Provide notice to Lakeside High School of the proposed construction schedule/start date and post a construction notification sign along the perimeter of the project site in a location readily visible to the public. All notices and signs shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where persons may enquire about the construction process and register complaints to a designated construction noise disturbance coordinator. MM-3 Construct the perimeter noise wall along the Lakeside High School property line at the first phase of construction, prior to any major earthwork or construction activity. The designed noise screening will only be accomplished if the barrier’s weight is at least 3.5 pounds per square foot of face area without decorative cutouts or line-of-site openings between the shielded areas and the project site. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking to avoid flanking. Noise control barrier may be constructed using one, or any combination of the following materials: • Masonry block; • Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1-inch thick tongue and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot; MM-4 The project shall ensure all contractors implement construction best management practices to reduce construction noise levels. Best management practices would include the following: • All construction equipment shall be equipped with muffles and other suitable noise attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields). • Grading and construction contractors shall use quieter equipment as opposed to noisier equipment (such as rubber-tired equipment rather than track equipment), to the maximum extent feasible. • If feasible, electric hook-ups shall be provided to avoid the use of generators. If electric service is determined to be infeasible for the site, 1-5 only whisper-quiet generators shall be used (i.e., inverter generators capable of providing variable load. • Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible. • Locate staging area, generators and stationary construction equipment as far from the adjacent school as feasible. • Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. MM-5 No impact pile driving activities shall be permitted on the project site during construction. If impact pile driving is required, a follow-up noise and vibration impact assessment shall be conducted prior to start of any pile driving activity. 1.6 Recommended Project Design Features The following recommended project design features include standard rules and requirements, best practices and recognized design guidelines for reducing noise levels. Design features are assumed to be part of the conditions of the project and integrated into its design. DF-1 All HVAC equipment will be fully shielded from the line of sight of adjacent residential and school property lines. DF-2 Per Chapter 17.176.080(E) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property line is prohibited. DF-3 The project will be required to incorporate building construction techniques that achieve the minimum interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for all residential units. 1-6 DF-4 The project will comply with California Title 24 building insulation requirements for exterior walls, roofs and common separating assemblies (e.g. floor/ceiling assemblies and demising walls), which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. A final acoustical study will be required to demonstrate compliance with building code standards. a. Party wall and floor-ceiling assembly designs must provide a minimum STC/IIC rating of 50, based on lab tests. Field tested assemblies must provide a minimum STC/IIC rating of 45. b. Entry doors from interior corridors must provide an STC of 26. c. Penetrations or openings in sound rated assemblies must be treated to maintain required ratings. d. Interior noise levels due to exterior sources must not exceed a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or a day-night level (LDN) of 45 dBA, in any habitable room. DF-5 For proper acoustical performance, all exterior windows, doors, and sliding glass doors will have a positive seal and leaks/cracks must be kept to a minimum. 2-1 2.0 Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration This section of the report provides basic information about noise and presents some of the terms used within the report. 2.1 Sound, Noise and Acoustics Sound is a disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a moving object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to a human ear. For traffic, or stationary noise, the medium of concern is air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted. 2.2 Frequency and Hertz A continuous sound is described by its frequency (pitch) and its amplitude (loudness). Frequency relates to the number of pressure oscillations per second. Low-frequency sounds are low in pitch (bass sounding) and high-frequency sounds are high in pitch (squeak). These oscillations per second (cycles) are commonly referred to as Hertz (Hz). The human ear can hear from the bass pitch starting out at 20 Hz all the way to the high pitch of 20,000 Hz. 2.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels The amplitude of a sound determines it loudness. The loudness of sound increases or decreases, as the amplitude increases or decreases. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in units of micro-Newton per square inch meter (N/m2), also called micro-Pascal (μPa). One μPa is approximately one hundred billionths (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure level (SPL or Lp) is used to describe in logarithmic units the ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called decibels and abbreviated dB. 2.4 Addition of Decibels Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by simple plus or minus addition. When two (2) sounds of equal SPL are combined, they will produce an SPL 3 dB greater than the original single SPL. In other words, sound energy must be doubled to produce a 3 dB increase. 2-2 If two (2) sounds differ by approximately 10 dB the higher sound level is the predominant sound. 2.5 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, (A-weighted scale) and it perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. For purposes of this report as well as with most environmental documents, the A-scale weighting is typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibel (dBA). Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB. A change in 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change in 10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud1. As previously discussed, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g. doubling the volume of traffic on a highway), would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level. 2.6 Noise Descriptors Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, others are random. Some noise levels are constant, while others are sporadic. Noise descriptors were created to describe the different time-varying noise levels. Following are the most commonly used noise descriptors along with brief definitions. A-Weighted Sound Level The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. 1 Source: U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration. Dec. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. 2-3 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM. Decibel (dB) A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals. dB(A) A-weighted sound level (see definition above). Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ) The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period. Habitable Room Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, and similar spaces. L(n) The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 is the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly L50, L90 and L99, etc. 2-4 Noise Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...". Outdoor Living Area Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas). Percent Noise Levels See L(n). Sound Level (Noise Level) The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum. Sound Level Meter An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels. 2-5 Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) The dBA level which, if it lasted for one (1) second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event. 2.7 Sound Propagation As sound propagates from a source it spreads geometrically. Sound from a small, localized source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The movement of vehicles down a roadway makes the source of the sound appear to propagate from a line (i.e., line source) rather than a point source. This line source results in the noise propagating from a roadway in a cylindrical spreading versus a spherical spreading that results from a point source. The sound level attenuates for a line source at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance. As noise propagates from the source, it is affected by the ground and atmosphere. Noise models use hard site (reflective surfaces) and soft site (absorptive surfaces) to help calculate predicted noise levels. Hard site conditions assume no excessive ground absorption between the noise source and the receiver. Soft site conditions such as grass, soft dirt or landscaping attenuate noise at an additional rate of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance. When added to the geometric spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall noise attenuation of 3 dB per doubling of distance for a line source and 6.0 dB per doubling of distance for a point source. 2-6 Figure 1 Typical Sound Levels from Indoor and Outdoor Noise Sources2 2 Source: AASHSTO. 1993. Guide on Evaluation and Abatement of Traffic Noise 2-7 2.8 Vibration Descriptors Ground-borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground-borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although ground-borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Ground-borne noise is an effect of ground-borne vibration and only exists indoors since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves. Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude. PPV Known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) which is the maximum instantaneous peak in vibration velocity, typically given in inches per second. RMS Known as the root mean squared (RMS) can be used to denote vibration amplitude. VdB A commonly used abbreviation to describe the vibration level (VdB) for a vibration source. 2.9 Vibration Perception Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB. Outdoor sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground-borne noise or vibration. To counter the effects of ground-borne vibration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FTA, fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.3 inches per second without experiencing structural damage. 2-8 2.10 Vibration Propagation There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wavefront, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P-waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wavefront. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a "push-pull" fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wavefront. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse, or side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source. As stated above, this drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests. 2.11 Construction Related Vibration Level Prediction Operational activities are separated into two different categories. The vibration can be transient or continuous in nature. Each category can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the project area site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. The thresholds from Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in the table below provide general guidelines as to the maximum vibration limits for when vibration becomes potentially annoying. 2-9 Table 2 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Human Response PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10 Severe 2.00 0.40 Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo- stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual provides general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts. The table below provides general vibration damage potential thresholds: Table 3 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings ruin ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10 Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25 Older residential structures 0.50 0.30 New residential structures 1.00 0.50 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50 Soil conditions have an impact on how vibration propagates through the ground. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual provides suggested “n” values based on soil class. The table below outlines the manual’s suggested values and description. 2-10 Table 4 Suggested "n" Values Based on Soil Classes Soil Class Description of Soil Material Suggested Value of "n" I Weak or soft soils: loose soils, dry or partially saturated peat and muck, mud, loose beach sand, and dune sand. 1.4 II Most sands, sandy clays, silty clays, gravel, silts, weathered rock. 1.3 III Hard soils: densely compacted sand, dry consolidated clay, consolidated glacial till, some exposed rock. 1.1 IV Hard, component rock: bedrock, freshly exposed hard rock. 1.0 3-1 3.0 Regulatory Setting The proposed project is located in the City of Lake Elsinore and noise regulations are addressed through the various federal, state, and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below. 3.1 Federal Regulations The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three (3) purposes: • Publicize noise emission standards for interstate commerce • Assist state and local abatement efforts • Promote noise education and research The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was originally tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated leaving other federal agencies and committees to develop noise policies and programs. Some examples of these agencies are as follows: The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various agencies. The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible to regulate noise from aircraft and airports. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible to regulate noise from the interstate highway system. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive noise exposure to workers. The Federal government and the State advocate that local jurisdiction use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being constructed adjacent to a highway or, or alternatively that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized. Since the Federal government and the State have preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning. 3-2 3.2 State Regulations Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model is the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix.” The matrix allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise. The State of California has established noise insulation standards as outlined in Title 24 and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which in some cases requires acoustical analyses to outline exterior noise levels and to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed the interior threshold. The State mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable. 3.3 City of Lake Elsinore Noise Regulations The City of Lake Elsinore outlines their noise regulations and standards within the General Plan, Chapter 3, Public Safety Welfare and the Municipal Code, Chapter 17.176, Noise Control. For purposes of this analysis, the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan is used to evaluate the project’s noise/land use compatibility and ensure the project is consistent with the established plans, policies and programs for noise control within the City. The noise standards established in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code are considered the thresholds of significance for establishing impact. The noise standards from the Lake Elsinore General Plan and Municipal Code are provided in Appendix A. 3.3.1 Noise/Land Use Compatibility The City of Lake Elsinore Public Safety Welfare establishes planning criteria for determining a development’s noise/land use compatibility based on the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). 3-3 Table 5 summarizes the City’s Noise/Land Use Compatibility guidelines for land uses applicable to this project: Table 5 Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines1 Land Use Noise Limit (dBA CNEL) Clearly Compatible Normally Compatible Normally Incompatible Clearly Incompatible Residential – Single Family, Duplex, Multiple Family Less than 60 60-70 70-75 75 or greater 1. Lake Elsinore General Plan Public Safety & Welfare. The City of Lake Elsinore defines the noise compatibility categories as follows: Clearly Compatible: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Normally Compatible: New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Normally Incompatible: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Incompatible: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. 3.3.2 Municipal Code Noise Standards Table 6 shows the City of Lake Elsinore’s Noise Standards for the adjacent properties, as established in the Municipal Code, Chapter 17.176, Noise Control. 3-4 Table 6 City of Lake Elsinore Exterior Noise Standards1 Land Use Category Time Period Noise Standard Single-Family Residential (Exterior) Daytime (7am - 10pm) 50 dBA Nighttime (10pm – 7am) 40 dBA Limited Commercial and Office2 (Exterior) Daytime (7am - 10pm) 60 dBA Nighttime (10pm – 7am) 55 dBA 1. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Chapter 17.176 - Noise Control. 2. The LEMC does not specify noise standards for schools. For purposes of this study, the public space standard for limited commercial and office is applicable for assessing impacts to Lakeside High School. 3.3.3 Construction Noise Regulation: The City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 - Noise Control, establishes the following construction and demolition noise standards: 1. Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities or by variance issued by the City. 2. Noise Restrictions at Affected Properties. Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed those listed in the following schedule: 3-5 Table 7 City of Lake Elsinore Construction Noise Standards Land Use Category Construction Activity Maximum Noise Level3 Single-Family Residential Mobile Equipment1 75 dBA Stationary Equipment2 60 dBA Semi- Residential/Commercial Mobile Equipment1 85 dBA Stationary Equipment2 70 dBA 1 Maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short-term operation (less than 10 days) of mobile equipment. “Mobile noise source” means any noise source other than a fixed source. 2 Maximum noise levels for repetitively scheduled and relatively long-term operation (more than 10 days) of stationary equipment: 3 Daily, including Sundays and Legal Holidays, all hours. 4-1 4.0 Study Method and Procedures The following section describes the measurement procedures, measurement locations, and noise modeling procedures and assumptions used in the noise analysis. 4.1 Measurement Procedures and Criteria Noise measurements are taken to determine the existing noise levels. A noise receiver or receptor is any location in the noise analysis in which noise might produce an impact. The following criteria are used to select measurement locations and receptors: • Locations expected to receive the highest noise impacts, such as the first row of houses • Locations that are acoustically representative and equivalent of the area of concern • Human land usage • Sites clear of major obstruction and contamination RK conducted the sound level measurements in accordance with Caltrans technical noise specifications. All measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). A Piccolo-II Type 2 integrating-averaging level meter was used to conduct long-term (24- hour) noise measurements at the project site and property boundaries. The Leq, Lmin, Lmax, L2, L8, L25, and L50 statistical data were recorded over the measurement time period intervals and the information was utilized to define the noise characteristics for the project. The following gives a brief description of the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement procedures for sound level measurements: • Microphones for sound level meters were placed approximately five (5) feet above ground for long-term noise measurements • Sound level meters were calibrated before and after each measurement • Following the calibration of equipment, a windscreen was placed over the microphone • Frequency weighting was set on “A” and slow response • Results of the short-term noise measurements were recorded on field data sheets 4-2 • During any short-term noise measurements, any noise contaminations such as barking dogs, local traffic, lawn mowers, or aircraft fly-overs were noted • Temperature and sky conditions were observed and documented Appendix B includes photos, field sheets, and measured noise data. 4.2 Traffic Noise Modeling Traffic noise from vehicular traffic was projected using a version of the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the key input parameters. The following outlines the key adjustments made to the computer model for the roadway inputs: • Roadway classification – (e.g. freeway, major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc), • Roadway Active Width – (distance between the center of the outer most travel lanes on each side of the roadway) • Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes, Travel Speeds, Percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks • Roadway grade and angle of view • Site Conditions (e.g. soft vs. hard) • Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period The following outlines key adjustments to the computer model for the project site parameter inputs: • Vertical and horizontal distances (Sensitive receptor distance from noise source) • Noise barrier vertical and horizontal distances (Noise barrier distance from sound source and receptor). • Traffic noise source spectra • Topography Table 8 indicates the roadway parameters utilized for this study. 4-3 Table 8 Roadway Parameters Roadway Classification1 Lanes Capacity (ADT)1 Speed (MPH) Site Conditions Riverside Drive Urban Arterial 6 34,000 45 Hard 1 Source: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Section 2.0, Community Form. Table 9 indicates the vehicle distribution and truck mix utilized for all roadways in this study area. Table 9 Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix) for Urban Arterial Roadways1,2 Motor-Vehicle Type Daytime % (7 AM - 7 PM) Evening % (7 PM - 10 PM) Night % (10 PM - 7 AM) Total % of Traffic Flow Automobiles 69.5 12.9 9.6 92.00 Medium Trucks 1.44 0.06 1.5 3.00 Heavy Trucks 2.4 0.1 2.5 5.00 1 Roadway classification and average daily traffic (ADT) volume capacity is based on County of Riverside General Plan. 2 Vehicle percentages specified are indicated in a memo published by County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health. 4.3 Stationary Noise Modeling The stationary noise generated by the project was projected using a computer program that replicates the FHWA Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the reference energy noise level. For each stationary source, the referenced noise level was applied to the model. The model outputs the projected noise level based on the following key parameters: • Measured referenced noise level – (e.g. how loud a source is at a specific distance) • Vertical and horizontal distances (sensitive receptor distance from noise source) • Noise barrier vertical and horizontal distances (noise barrier distance from sound source and receptor). • Typical noise source spectra • Topography 4-4 4.3.1 Parking Lot Noise Parking lot noise would occur from vehicles and trucks entering and exiting the site, idling, exhaust, loading and delivery activities, doors slamming, tires screeching, people talking, and the occasional horn honking. Parking lot noise would occur throughout the site and is assessed by using referenced noise level data collected by RK. Table 10 Referenced Noise Levels – Parking Lot1 Source1 Distance from Source (feet) Noise Levels (dBA) Leq Parking Lot 6.0 63.8 1 Referenced noise levels measured by RK over a 10-minute period. 4.3.2 HVAC Equipment Noise Table 11 indicates the referenced noise levels for on-site HVAC equipment. Referenced noise levels are based on a traditional commercial grade system, similar to a LENNOX 7.5 to 12.5 ton unit. To be conservative, the referenced equipment is not considered to be a higher- end “quiet” system. Quieter units can be rated at less than 70 dB. However, this analysis is conservative and examines the impact from a more traditional and louder HVAC unit. The manufacture specifications for the referenced unit is shown in Appendix C. Table 11 HVAC Referenced Noise Levels Source1 Distance from Source (feet) Noise Levels (dBA) Leq HVAC Equipment 1 88 1 Referenced noise levels measured by RK over a 10-minute period. The noise analysis evaluates the impact of HVAC equipment operating during both daytime and nighttime hours. 4-5 4.4 Interior Noise Modeling The interior noise level is the difference between the projected exterior noise level at the structure’s façade and the noise reduction provided by the structure itself. Typical building construction will provide a conservative 12 dBA noise level reduction with a “windows open” condition and a very conservative 20 dBA noise level reduction with “windows closed”. RK estimated the interior noise level by subtracting the building shell design from the estimated exterior noise level. The interior noise analysis is based on industry standards for building noise reduction established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the 2013 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (TeNS), the California Office of Noise Control Catalog of STC and IIC Ratings for Wall and Floor/Ceiling Assemblies, and the California Building Standards Code, Title 24. The TeNS manual shows that the noise reduction due to building exteriors with ordinary sash windows (windows closed) is at least 20 decibels. By providing upgraded STC rated windows, the project design is considered adequate to meet interior noise standards. The building’s exterior walls will be constructed per the latest building code insulation requirements and provide occupants with the most protection from exterior noise. Insulated exterior walls, designed per the latest California Building Standards, would provide a minimum of STC 35-40. Windows, on the other hand, are one of the acoustically weakest parts of the structure. Therefore, for a conservative estimate of preliminary interior noise, the building’s noise reduction potential is limited to the STC of the windows. 4.5 Construction Noise Modeling The construction noise analysis utilizes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model, together with several key construction parameters. Key inputs include distance to the sensitive receiver, equipment usage, and baseline parameters for the project site. This study evaluates the potential exterior noise impacts during each phase of construction. Noise levels were projected at an average distance of 200 feet for equipment operating over an 8-hour period from closest school building façade and at an average distance of 330 feet to the nearest adjacent residential property line. While some construction noise activity may occur closer than these distances, noise generating activities are averaged over an 8-hour period for purposes of assessing impacts. 4-6 • Construction phasing and equipment usage assumptions are referenced from the Lake Pointe Apartments Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, City of Lake Elsinore, RK Engineering Group, March 2021. 4.6 Construction Vibration Modeling The construction vibration assessment is based on the methodology set-forth within the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. The vibration impacts from vibratory rollers and compactors, heavy truck loading and bulldozer activity is analyzed. All vibratory activity is analyzed as a continuous and/or frequent event and is required to comply with the applicable guidance thresholds criteria. It is expected that vibration levels will be highest during paving phase. No impact pile driving is expected as part of this project. Vibratory impacts were calculated from the site area property line to the closest sensitive receptors and structures using the reference vibration levels, soil conditions and the reference equation PPV= PPV ref (25/D)^n (in/sec) (from Caltrans Manual) where: PPV = reference measurement at 25 feet from vibration source D = distance from equipment to property line n= vibration attenuation rate through ground (n=1.0 was utilized for this study) Table 12 shows the Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria. Table 12 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10 Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25 Older residential structures 0.50 0.30 New residential structures 1.00 0.50 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50 Table 13 shows the Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria. 4-7 Table 13 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Human Response Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10 Severe 2.00 0.40 5-1 5.0 Existing Noise Environment The existing noise environment for the project site and surrounding areas has been established based on noise measurement data collected by RK. Existing sources of ambient noise consist of traffic noise propagating from adjacent roadways, school activities, and noise from the existing residential and commercial uses near the site. 5.1 Sound Level Measurement (SLM) Results To determine the existing noise level environment, RK conducted two (2) 24-hour sound level measurements (SLM) at the project study area. Noise levels were measured on March 25, 2021 using a Piccolo-II Type 2 integrating- averaging sound level meter. The information was utilized to establish the noise characteristics of the existing ambient environment. The noise monitoring locations were selected based on the proximity and location to adjacent sensitive receptors. Exhibit C graphically illustrates the location of the sound level measurements. • SLM-1 was taken approximately 300 feet to the northwest of the project site, adjacent to the backyards of residential homes located along Lake Vista Drive. • SLM-2 was taken approximately 300 feet from the centerline of Riverside Drive, near the projects northerly boundary. Noise monitoring locations represent the existing noise levels near the adjacent noise sensitive land uses. Noise measurement results are summarized in Table 14 and Table 15. Appendix B includes photographs, field sheets and measured noise data. 5-2 Table 14 Existing 24-Hour Noise Levels (SLM-1)1 Time Leq (dBA) Time Leq (dBA) 12:00 AM 44.2 12:00 PM 48.7 1:00 AM 42.2 1:00 PM 49.7 2:00 AM 41.1 2:00 PM 52.5 3:00 AM 47.4 3:00 PM 54.3 4:00 AM 44.6 4:00 PM 50.7 5:00 AM 50.2 5:00 PM 48.5 6:00 AM 49.9 6:00 PM 47.8 7:00 AM 54.3 7:00 PM 48.0 8:00 AM 61.0 8:00 PM 48.2 9:00 AM 52.8 9:00 PM 45.8 10:00 AM 53.7 10:00 PM 44.1 11:00 AM 49.8 11:00 PM 44.9 24-Hour CNEL 54.9 1 SLM-1 was taken along residential property line, approximately 300 feet northwest of the project site. SLM-1 was recorded on 03/25/2021. Table 15 Existing 24-Hour Noise Levels (SLM-2)1 Time Leq (dBA) Time Leq (dBA) 12:00 AM 37.9 12:00 PM 52.0 1:00 AM 37.9 1:00 PM 52.8 2:00 AM 38.9 2:00 PM 56.9 3:00 AM 49.1 3:00 PM 55.5 4:00 AM 38.7 4:00 PM 47.9 5:00 AM 44.4 5:00 PM 45.8 6:00 AM 45.5 6:00 PM 44.4 7:00 AM 45.7 7:00 PM 43.8 8:00 AM 48.1 8:00 PM 45.6 9:00 AM 46.9 9:00 PM 43.0 10:00 AM 50.2 10:00 PM 43.3 11:00 AM 50.1 11:00 PM 45.4 24-Hour CNEL 52.4 1 SLM-2 was taken approximately 300 feet northwest of the centerline of Riverside Drive. SLM-2 was recorded on 03/25/2021. 6-1 6.0 Operational Noise Impacts This section analyzes the impact from operational noise sources generated by the project. The primary sources of noise generated by the project would include vehicular noise from cars traveling to and from the site on public roadways, on-site vehicular circulation within the parking lot (including delivery trucks and trash collection), and noise from HVAC equipment. The project must demonstrate that noise levels generated by the project site would not be in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. 6.1 Roadway Noise Impacts Traffic noise along Riverside Drive is considered to be one of the main sources of noise impacting the project site and the surrounding area. Typically, it would require a doubling of traffic volume along a roadway to result in a barely perceptible change in noise (+3 dBA)3. The following qualitative analysis is provided to evaluate the project’s impact to roadway. Based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 2017, the project is expected to generate 1,098 average daily trips (ADT). Upon review of the Lake Elsinore General Plan, it is noted that traffic volume along Riverside Drive was previously measured in 2005 to be approximately 19,400 ADT and projected under future buildout conditions to reach up to 34,000 ADT. Hence, the increase of 1,098 ADT from project traffic will not result in a doubling of traffic along Riverside Drive and, as a result, would not result in a perceptible change in roadway noise. Therefore, the increase in roadway noise from the project may be presumed to be less than significant. 6.2 Stationary Noise Impacts On-site stationary noise impacts are assessed at the property lines of the residential and school uses adjacent to the site. Table 16 shows the exterior stationary noise impact analysis at the property line of Lakeside High School. The noise impact analysis is performed for daytime hours only at the school, since school operations and instruction are not expected to occur during nighttime hours. 3 Caltrans. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (TeNS). 2013. 6-2 Table 16 Daytime Stationary Noise Impact Analysis - Lakeside High School Property Line Time Source Distance to P/L Noise Level (Leq) Daytime (7AM - 10PM) HVAC Units1 50 Feet 52.0 dBA Parking Lot 50 Feet 45.4 dBA Combined Noise Level 52.8 dBA Lake Elsinore Noise Standard2 60 dBA Does Noise Level Exceed Standard (?) No 1 Includes the combined impact of six (6) HVAC units operating simultaneously. 2 LEMC Chapter 17.176 – Noise Control. Limited commercial and office exterior noise standard. Tables 17 and 18 show the exterior stationary noise impact analysis at the property line of nearest adjacent residential property line to the northwest of the site. Noise level impacts are analyzed during both daytime and nighttime hours at the residential properties. Table 17 Daytime Stationary Noise Impact Analysis - Residential Property Line to the Northwest Time Source Distance to P/L Noise Level (Leq) Daytime (7AM - 10PM) HVAC Units1 50 Feet 38.0 dBA Parking Lot 50 Feet 27.3 dBA Combined Noise Level 38.4 dBA Lake Elsinore Noise Standard2 50 dBA Does Noise Level Exceed Standard (?) No 1 Includes the combined impact of six (6) HVAC units operating simultaneously. 2 LEMC Chapter 17.176 – Noise Control. Single-Family residential exterior noise standard 6-3 Table 18 Nighttime Stationary Noise Impact Analysis - Residential Property Line to the Northwest Time Source Distance to P/L Noise Level (Leq) Nighttime (7AM - 10PM) HVAC Units1 50 Feet 38.0 dBA Parking Lot 50 Feet 27.3 dBA Combined Noise Level 38.4 dBA Lake Elsinore Noise Standard2 40 dBA Does Noise Level Exceed Standard (?) No 1 Includes the combined impact of six (6) HVAC units operating simultaneously. 2 LEMC Chapter 17.176 – Noise Control. Single-Family residential exterior noise standard Based on the results of stationary noise impact analysis shown in Tables 16 through 18, the project is not expected to exceed the City’s Exterior Noise Standards at adjacent noise sensitive land uses. Therefore, the impact from stationary noise sources on the project site would be less than significant. Appendix D includes the stationary noise calculation worksheets. 6.3 Future Noise/Land Use Compatibility The future noise/land use compatibility is analyzed for general planning purposes (not necessarily under the scope of CEQA) and to help establish future outdoor noise levels on the project site. Noise/land use compatibility is based on future roadway noise levels along Riverside Drive, which is expected to be the main source of noise at the project site. Table 19 indicates the noise level projections at the facades of the residential units nearest the subject roadways. Based on the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, portions of the project site are expected to fall within the Normally Incompatible range for Residential – Single Family development. Thus, a final noise study will be required prior to receiving building permits to ensure interior noise standards can be met. The roadway calculation sheets are provided in Appendix E. 6-4 Table 19 Future Exterior Roadway Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)1 Roadway Exterior Façade Study Locations Noise Level at Façade (dBA CNEL) Noise/Land Use Compatibility Riverside Drive First Row Units 71.2 Normally Incompatible 1 Exterior noise levels calculated for first row units facing subject roadway. 6.4 Future Interior Noise Homes located along Riverside Drive have the potential to be exposed to noise levels that exceed 70 dBA CNEL under future buildout conditions. As a result, a detailed noise analysis should be provided prior to building permits to demonstrate the building shell construction provides adequate insulation to achieve the required 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. A preliminary interior noise analysis has been performed for the first row of habitable dwellings facing adjacent roadways using a typical “windows open” and “windows closed” condition. A “windows open” condition assumes 12 dBA of noise attenuation from the exterior noise level. A “windows closed” condition” assumes 20 dBA of noise attenuation from the exterior noise level. Table 20 indicates the future interior noise levels along the adjacent roadways. Table 20 Future Interior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)1 Roadway Exterior Façade Study Location Exterior Noise Level at Façade Required Interior Noise Reduction Interior Noise Level w/Standard Windows (STC ~ 25) STC Rating "Windows Open" 1 "Windows Closed" 2 Riverside Drive First Row Units 71.2 26.2 59.2 51.2 31 1 A minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction is assumed with the "windows open" condition. 2 A minimum of 20 dBA noise reduction is assumed with the "windows closed" condition. The project is expected to be able to meet the interior noise standards for all residential dwellings. In order to meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level requirements, upgraded STC rated windows will be required for first row units. . 6-5 6.5 Recommended Project Design Features The following recommended project design features include standard rules and requirements, best practices and recognized design guidelines for reducing noise levels. Design features are assumed to be part of the conditions of the project and integrated into its design. DF-1 All HVAC equipment will be fully shielded from the line of sight of adjacent residential and school property lines. DF-2 Per Chapter 17.176.080(E) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property line is prohibited. DF-3 The project will be required to incorporate building construction techniques that achieve the minimum interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for all residential units. DF-4 The project will comply with California Title 24 building insulation requirements for exterior walls, roofs and common separating assemblies (e.g. floor/ceiling assemblies and demising walls), which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. A final acoustical study will be required to demonstrate compliance with building code standards. e. Party wall and floor-ceiling assembly designs must provide a minimum STC/IIC rating of 50, based on lab tests. Field tested assemblies must provide a minimum STC/IIC rating of 45. f. Entry doors from interior corridors must provide an STC of 26 or more. g. Penetrations or openings in sound rated assemblies must be treated to maintain required ratings. h. Interior noise levels due to exterior sources must not exceed a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or a day-night level (LDN) of 45 dBA, in any habitable room. 6-6 DF-5 For proper acoustical performance, all exterior windows, doors, and sliding glass doors will have a positive seal and leaks/cracks must be kept to a minimum. 7-1 7.0 Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Temporary construction noise and vibration impacts have been assessed from the project site to the surrounding adjacent land uses. The degree of construction noise will vary depending on the type of construction activity taking place and the location of the activity relative to the surrounding properties. Chapter 17.176 of the City’s municipal code states the following: Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities or by variance issued by the City. Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed the following: • The maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short-term operation (less than 10 days) of mobile equipment is 85 dBA. • The maximum noise levels for repetitively scheduled and relatively long-term operation (more than 10 days) of stationary equipment is 75 dBA. Construction phasing and equipment usage assumptions are referenced from Lake Pointe Apartments Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, City of Lake Elsinore, RK Engineering Group, March 2021. 7.1 Typical Construction Noise Levels Table 21 shows typical construction noise levels compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for common type construction equipment. Typical construction noise levels are used to estimate potential project construction noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. 7-2 Table 21 Typical Construction Noise Levels1 Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet Earth Moving Compactors (Rollers) 73 - 76 Front Loaders 73 - 84 Backhoes 73 - 92 Tractors 75 - 95 Scrapers, Graders 78 - 92 Pavers 85 - 87 Trucks 81 - 94 Materials Handling Concrete Mixers 72 - 87 Concrete Pumps 81 - 83 Cranes (Movable) 72 - 86 Cranes (Derrick) 85 - 87 Stationary Pumps 68 - 71 Generators 71 - 83 Compressors 75 - 86 Impact Equipment Pneumatic Wrenches 82 - 87 Jack Hammers, Rock Drills 80 - 99 Pile Drivers (Peak) 95-105 Other Vibrators 68 - 82 Saws 71 - 82 1 Referenced Noise Levels from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 7.2 Construction Noise Impact Analysis This assessment analyzes potential noise impacts during all expected phases of construction, including; site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Noise levels are calculated based on an average distance of mobile equipment over an 8-hour period to the nearest adjacent property. The project’s estimated construction noise levels have been calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1. 7-3 Tables 22 show the noise level impacts at the Lakeside High School property lines. Construction noise calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix F. TABLE 22 Construction Noise Impact Analysis - Lakeside High School Phase Equipment Quantity Calculated Noise Level at 250 ft (dBA) Combined 8-hr Noise Level (dBA) Lmax Leq Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 63.7 75.6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 66.0 Grading Excavators 1 64.7 75.2 Graders 1 69.0 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 65.6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 68.0 Building Construction Cranes 1 60.6 74.2 Forklifts 3 59.0 Generator Sets 1 65.6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 68.0 Welders 1 58.0 Paving Pavers 2 62.2 69.2 Paving Equipment 2 61.0 Rollers 2 61.0 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 61.6 61.6 Worst Case Construction Phase Noise Level from Mobile Equipment - Leq 75.6 Lake Elsinore Construction Noise Standard – Semi-Residential/Commercial (Mobile Equipment) 85.0 Potentially Significant Short-Term Noise Impact (Yes/No?) No 7-4 Tables 23 show the noise level impacts at the Lakeside High School property lines. Construction noise calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix F. TABLE 23 Construction Noise Impact Analysis - Residential Property line to the Northwest Phase Equipment Quantity Calculated Noise Level at 330 ft (dBA) Combined 8-hr Noise Level (dBA) Lmax Leq Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 61.3 71.2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 63.6 Grading Excavators 1 60.3 70.9 Graders 1 64.6 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 61.3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 63.6 Building Construction Cranes 1 56.2 69.9 Forklifts 3 54.6 Generator Sets 1 61.2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 63.6 Welders 1 53.6 Paving Pavers 2 57.8 64.8 Paving Equipment 2 56.6 Rollers 2 56.6 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 61.6 57.3 Worst Case Construction Phase Noise Level - Leq 71.2 Lake Elsinore Construction Noise Standard – Single Family Residential (Mobile Equipment) 75 Potentially Significant Short-Term Noise Impact (Yes/No?) No 7-5 As shown in Tables 23 and 24, the project construction noise levels are expected to be below the City of Lake Elsinore mobile equipment noise standards the adjacent High School and residential land uses. The project may also include stationary equipment noise for repeatedly scheduled and long term operation (period of 10 days or more) of stationary equipment. Therefore, several mitigation measures are recommended to reduce construction noise impacts to the surrounding sensitive land uses and are shown below. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, project impacts are expected to be reduced to less than significant. MM-1 Obtain a construction work permit from the City of Lake Elsinore prior to starting construction. MM-2 Provide notice to Lakeside High School of the proposed construction schedule/start date and post a construction notification sign along the perimeter of the project site in a location readily visible to the public. All notices and signs shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where persons may enquire about the construction process and register complaints to a designated construction noise disturbance coordinator. MM-3 Construct the perimeter noise wall along the Lakeside High School property line at the first phase of construction, prior to any major earthwork or construction activity. The designed noise screening will only be accomplished if the barrier’s weight is at least 3.5 pounds per square foot of face area without decorative cutouts or line-of-site openings between the shielded areas and the project site. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking to avoid flanking. Noise control barrier may be constructed using one, or any combination of the following materials: • Masonry block; • Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1-inch thick tongue and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot; 7-6 MM-4 The project shall ensure all contractors implement construction best management practices to reduce construction noise levels. Best management practices would include the following: • All construction equipment shall be equipped with muffles and other suitable noise attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields). • Grading and construction contractors shall use quieter equipment as opposed to noisier equipment (such as rubber-tired equipment rather than track equipment), to the maximum extent feasible. • If feasible, electric hook-ups shall be provided to avoid the use of generators. If electric service is determined to be infeasible for the site, only whisper-quiet generators shall be used (i.e., inverter generators capable of providing variable load. • Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible. • Locate staging area, generators and stationary construction equipment as far from the adjacent school as feasible. • Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. 7.3 Construction Vibration To determine the vibratory impacts during construction, reference construction equipment vibration levels were utilized and then extrapolated to the façade of the nearest adjacent structures. All structures surrounding the project site are “new residential structures”. No historical or fragile buildings are known to be located within the vicinity of the site. The construction of the proposed project is not expected to require the use of substantial vibration inducing equipment or activities, such as pile drivers or blasting. The main sources of vibration impacts during construction of the project would be the operation of equipment such as bulldozer activity, loading trucks, and vibratory rollers. 7-7 The construction vibration assessment utilizes the referenced vibration levels and methodology set-forth within the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Table 24 shows the referenced vibration levels. Table 24 Typical Construction Vibration Levels1 Equipment Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) (inches/second) at 25 feet Approximate Vibration Level (LV) at 25 feet Piledriver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112 0.644 (typical) 104 Piledriver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105 0.170 typical 93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94 Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66 (slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drill 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 1 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. Table 25 shows the project’s construction-related vibration analysis at the nearest structures to the project construction area. Construction impacts are assessed from the closest area on the project site to the nearest adjacent structure. The closes structure to the project is identified to be the commercial building located to the northeast, approximately 40 feet from the property line. 7-8 Table 25 Construction Vibration Impact Analysis Construction Activity Distance to Nearest Structure (ft) Duration Calculated Vibration Level - PPV (in/sec) Damage Potential Level Annoyance Criteria Level Large Bulldozer 40 Continuous/Frequent 0.053 No Impact Vibratory Roller 40 Continuous/Frequent 0.125 Fragile buildings Loaded Trucks 40 Continuous/Frequent 0.045 No Impact As shown in Table 15, project related construction activity is not expected to cause any potential damage to the nearest structures. MM-5 No impact pile driving activities shall be permitted on the project site during construction. If impact pile driving is required, a follow-up noise and vibration impact assessment shall be conducted prior to start of any pile driving activity. Construction vibration calculation worksheets are shown in Appendix F. Exhibits engineeringgroup, inc.LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS NOISE IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-02 engineering N Site Plan Exhibit B Appendices Appendix A City of Lake Elsinore Noise Standards Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Sections: 17.176.010 Purpose. 17.176.020 Definitions. 17.176.030 Authority and duties of the Noise Control Office(r) (NCO). 17.176.040 General noise regulations. 17.176.050 Noise measurement procedure. 17.176.060 Exterior noise limits. 17.176.070 Interior noise standards. 17.176.080 Prohibited acts. 17.176.090 Motor vehicles operating on public right-of-way. 17.176.100 Special provisions – Exemptions. 17.176.110 Special variances. 17.176.010 Purpose. In order to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise and vibration in the City, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit such noise and vibration generated from or by all sources as specified in this chapter. It shall be the policy of the City to maintain quiet in those areas which exhibit low noise levels and to implement programs aimed at reducing noise in those areas within the City where noise levels are above acceptable values. It is determined that certain noise levels and vibrations are detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety, and are contrary to public interest. Therefore, the City Council does ordain and declare that creating, maintaining, causing or allowing to be created, caused or maintained, any noise or vibration in a manner prohibited by or not in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, is a public nuisance and shall be punishable as such. [Ord. 772 § 17.78.010, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.010]. 17.176.020 Definitions. All terminology used in this chapter, not defined below, shall be in conformance with applicable publications of the. American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or its successor body. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 1 of 17 The following words, phrases and terms as used in this chapter shall have the meaning as indicated below: “A-weighted sound level” means the sound level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting network. The level so read is designated dB(A) or dBA. “Agricultural property” means a parcel of real property of not less than 10 contiguous acres in size, which is undeveloped for any use other than agricultural purposes. “Ambient noise level” means the composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal of existing level of environmental noise at a given location. “Commercial area” means property which is zoned for commercial purposes, including, but not limited to, retail and wholesale businesses, personal services, and professional offices. “Construction” means any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, alteration, or similar action, for or of public or private rights-of-way, structures, utilities or similar property. “Cumulative period” means an additive period of time composed of individual time segments which may be continuous or interrupted. “Decibel” means a unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the ratio of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals. “Demolition” means any dismantling, intentional destruction or removal of structures, utilities, public or private right-of-way surfaces, or similar property. “Emergency work” means any work performed for the purpose of preventing or alleviating the physical trauma or property damage threatened or caused by an emergency. “Fixed noise source” means a stationary device which creates sounds while fixed or motionless, including, but not limited to, residential, agricultural, industrial and commercial machinery and equipment, pumps, fans, compressors, air conditioners, and refrigeration. “Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)” means the value specified by the manufacturer as the recommended maximum loaded weight of a single motor vehicle. In cases where trailers and tractors are separable, the gross combination weight rating, which is the value specified by the manufacturer as the recommended maximum loaded weight of the combination vehicle, shall be used. “Impulsive sound” means sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Examples of sources of impulsive sound include explosions, drop forge impacts, and the discharge of firearms. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 2 of 17 “Industrial area” means property which is zoned for manufacturing and related uses. “Intrusive noise” means that noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency and time of occurrence, and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. “Licensed” means the possession of a formal license or a permit issued by the appropriate jurisdictional authority; or, where no permits or licenses are issued, the sanctioning of the activity by the jurisdiction as noted in public record. “Mobile noise source” means any noise source other than a fixed source. “Motor vehicle” shall include any and all self-propelled vehicles as defined in the California Motor Vehicle Code, including all on-highway type motor vehicles subject to registration under said code, and all off-highway type motor vehicles subject to identification under said code. “Motorboat” means any vessel propelled by machinery, whether or not such machinery is the principal source of propulsion but shall not include a vessel which has a valid marine document issued by the Bureau of Customs of the United States government or any Federal agency successor thereto (Section 651(d), Harbors and Navigation Code). “Muffler or sound dissipative device” means a device consisting of a series of chambers or baffle plates, or other mechanical design, for the purpose of receiving exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine, and effective in reducing noise. “Noise Control Officer (NCO)” means a person or persons designated by the Community Development Director as responsible for enforcement of this chapter. “Noise disturbance” means any sound which, as judged by the Noise Control Officer, (1) endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals, or (2) annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities, or (3) endangers or injures personal or real property, or (4) violates the factors set forth in LEMC 17.176.040. Compliance with the quantitative standards as listed herein shall constitute elimination of a noise disturbance. “Noise sensitive zone” means any area designated pursuant to LEMC 17.176.070 for the purpose of ensuring exceptional quiet. “Noise zone” means any defined areas or regions of a generally consistent land use wherein the ambient noise levels are within a range of five dB. “Person” means any individual, association, partnership, or corporation, and includes any officer, employee, department, agency or instrumentality of a State or any political subdivision of a State. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 3 of 17 “Powered model vehicle” means any self-propelled, airborne, waterborne, or land-borne plane, vessel, or vehicle, which is not designed to carry persons, including, but not limited to, any model airplane, boat, car, or rocket. “Public right-of-way” means any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, sidewalk or alley or similar place which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity. “Public space” means any real property or structures thereon which are owned or controlled by a governmental entity. “Pure tone” means any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or a set of single pitches by the Noise Control Officer. For the purposes of this chapter, a pure tone shall exist if the one-third octave band sound pressure level in the band with the tone exceeds the arithmetric average of the sound pressure levels of the two contiguous one-third octave bands by five dB for center frequencies of 500 Hz and above and by eight dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz and by 15 dB for center frequencies less than or equal to 125 Hz. “Real property boundary” means an imaginary line along the ground surface, and its vertical extension, which separates the real property owned by one person from that owned by another person, but not including intrabuilding real property divisions. “Residential area” means property which is zoned for residential uses. “Sound amplifying equipment” means any device for the amplification of the human voice, music, or any other sound, excluding standard automobile radios when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which the radio is installed, and, as used in this chapter, warning devices on authorized emergency vehicles or horns or other warning devices on any vehicle used only for traffic safety purposes. “Sound level meter” means an instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement of sound levels, which meets or exceeds the requirements pertinent for type S2A meters in American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters, S1.4-1971, or the most recent revision thereof. “Sound truck” means any motor vehicle, or any other vehicle, regardless of motive power, whether in motion or stationary, having mounted thereon, or attached thereto, any sound amplifying equipment. “Vibration perception threshold” means the minimum ground- or structure-borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving objects. The perception threshold shall be presumed to be a motion velocity of 0.01 inches per second over the range of one to 100 Hz. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 4 of 17 “Weekday” means any day, Monday through Friday, which is not a legal holiday. [Ord. 772 § 17.78.020, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.020]. 17.176.030 Authority and duties of the Noise Control Office(r) (NCO). A. Lead Agency. The noise control program established by this chapter shall be administered by the Community Development Director. B. Powers. In order to implement and enforce this chapter and for the general purpose of noise abatement and control, the NCO shall have, in addition to any other authority vested in it, the power to: 1. Conduct, or cause to be conducted, studies, research, and monitoring related to noise, including joint cooperative investigation with public or private agencies, and the application for, and acceptance of, grants. 2. On all public and private projects which are likely to cause noise in violation of this chapter and which are subject to mandatory review or approval by other departments. a. Review for compliance with the intent and provisions of this chapter. b. Require sound analyses which identify existing and projected noise sources and associated noise levels. c. Require usage of adequate measures to avoid violation of any provision of this chapter. 3. Upon presentation of proper credentials, enter and/or inspect any private property, place, report, or records at any time when granted permission by the owner or by some other person with apparent authority to act for the owner. When permission is refused or cannot be obtained, a search warrant may be obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction upon showing of probable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter may exist. Such inspection may include administration of any necessary tests. 4. Prepare recommendations, to be approved by the City Council, for the designation of noise sensitive zones which contain noise sensitive activities. 5. Prepare recommendations, based upon noise survey data and analytical studies, to be approved by the City Council, for the designation of zones of similar ambient environmental noise within regions of generally consistent land use. These zones shall be identified in terms of their day and nighttime ambient noise levels and their land use classifications as given in LEMC 17.176.060, Table 1. [Ord. 772 § 17.78.030, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.030]. 17.176.040 General noise regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 5 of 17 any person to willfully or negligently make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes any discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The factors which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. The sound level of the objectionable noise. B. The sound level of the ambient noise. C. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities. D. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates. E. The number of persons affected by the noise source. F. The time of day or night the noise occurs. G. The duration of the noise and its tonal, informational or musical content. H. Whether the noise is continuous, recurrent, or intermittent. I. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. [Ord. 772 § 17.78.040, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.040]. 17.176.050 Noise measurement procedure. A. Upon receipt of a complaint from a citizen, the Noise Control Office(r) or his agent, equipped with sound level measurement equipment satisfying the requirements specified in LEMC 17.176.020, shall investigate the complaint. The investigation shall consist of a measurement and the gathering of data to adequately define the noise problem and shall include the following: 1. Nonacoustic Data. a. Type of noise source. b. Location of noise source relative to complainant’s property. c. Time period during which noise source is considered by complainant to be intrusive. d. Total duration of noise produced by noise source. e. Date and time of noise measurement survey. B. Noise Measurement Procedure. Utilizing the A-weighting scale of the sound level meter and the The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 6 of 17 “slow” meter response (use “fast” response for impulsive type sounds), the noise level shall be measured at a position or positions at any point on the receiver’s property. In general, the microphone shall be located four to five feet above the ground; 10 feet or more from the nearest reflective surface where possible. However, in those cases where another elevation is deemed appropriate, the latter shall be utilized. If the noise complaint is related to interior noise levels, interior noise measurements shall be made within the affected residential unit. The measurements shall be made at a point at least four feet from the wall, ceiling, or floor nearest the noise source, with windows in the normal seasonal configuration. Calibration of the measurement equipment, utilizing an acoustic calibration, shall be performed immediately prior to recording any noise data. [Ord. 772 § 17.78.050, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.050]. 17.176.060 Exterior noise limits. A. Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use. 1. The noise standards for the various categories of land use identified by the Noise Control Office(r) as presented in Table 1 shall, unless otherwise specifically indicated, apply to all such property within a designated zone. 2. No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the incorporated City or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed: a. The noise standard for that land use as specified in Table 1 for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; or b. The noise standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; or c. The noise standard plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or d. The noise standard plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or e. The noise standard plus 20 dB or the maximum measured ambient level, for any period of time. 3. If the measured ambient level differs from that permissible within any of the fast four noise limit categories above, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be adjusted in five dB increments in each category as appropriate to encompass or reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 7 of 17 noise level under this category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level 4. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different zones, the noise level limit applicable to the lower noise zone plus six dB shall apply. 5. If possible, the ambient noise shall be measured at the same location along the property line utilized in subsection (A)(2) of this section with the alleged offending noise source inoperative. If, for any reason, the alleged offending noise source cannot be shut down, the ambient noise must be estimated by performing a measurement in the same general area of the source but at a sufficient distance such that the noise from the source is at least 10 dB below the ambient in order that only the ambient level be measured. If the difference between the ambient and the noise source is five to 10 dB, then the level of the ambient itself can be reasonably determined by subtracting a one-decibel correction to account for the contribution of the source. B. Correction for Character of Sound. In the event the alleged offensive noise, as judged by the Noise Control Officer, contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or is a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the standard limits set forth in Table 1 shall be reduced by five dB. TABLE 1 EXTERIOR NOISE LIMITS (Levels Not to Be Exceeded More Than 30 Minutes in Any Hour) Receiving Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA) Single-Family Residential 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 40 50 Multiple Dwelling Residential 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 45 50 Public Space Limited Commercial and Office 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 55 60 General Commercial 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 60 65 Light Industrial Anytime 70 Heavy Industrial Anytime 75 [Ord. 772 § 17.78.060, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.060]. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 8 of 17 17.176.070 Interior noise standards. A. Maximum Permissible Dwelling Interior Sound Levels. 1. The interior noise standards for multifamily residential dwellings as presented in Table 2 shall apply, unless otherwise specifically indicated, within all such dwellings with windows in their normal seasonal configuration. TABLE 2 Noise Zone Type of Land Use Time Internal Allowable Interior Noise Level (dBA) All Multifamily Residential 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 35 45 2. No person shall operate or cause to be operated within a dwelling unit, any source of sound or allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured inside a neighboring receiving dwelling unit to exceed: a. The noise standard as specified in Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or b. The noise standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or c. The noise standard plus 10 dB or the maximum measured ambient, for any period of time. 3. If the measured ambient level differs from that permissible within any of the noise limit categories above, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be adjusted in five dB increments in each category as appropriate to reflect said ambient noise level. B. Correction for Character of Sound. In the event the alleged offensive noise, as judged by the Noise Control Officer, contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or is a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the standard limits set forth in Table 2 shall be reduced by five dB. [Ord. 772 § 17.78.070, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.070]. 17.176.080 Prohibited acts. No person shall unnecessarily make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, any noise disturbance. The following acts, and the causing or permitting thereof, are declared to be in The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 9 of 17 violation of this chapter: A. Operating, playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television set, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which produces or reproduces sound: 1. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line or at any time to violate the provisions of LEMC 17.176.060(A), except for which a variance has been issued by the City. 2. In such a manner as to exceed the levels set forth for public space in Table 1, measured at a distance of at least 50 feet (15 meters) from such device operating on a public right-of-way or public space. B. Using or operating for any purpose any loudspeaker, loudspeaker system, or similar device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential real property line, or at any time violates the provisions of LEMC 17.176.060(A), except for any noncommercial public speaking, public assembly or other activity for which a variance has been issued by the City. C. Offering for sale, selling anything, or advertising by shouting or outcry within any residential or commercial area or noise sensitive zone of the City except by variance issued by the City. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the selling by outcry of merchandise, food, and beverages at licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses, or other similar licensed public entertainment events. D. Owning, possessing or harboring any animal or bird which frequently or for long duration, howls, barks, meows, squawks, or makes other sounds which create a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line or within a noise sensitive zone. This provision shall not apply to public zoos. E. Loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property line or at any time to violate the provisions of LEMC 17.176.060(A). F. Construction/Demolition. 1. Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities or by variance issued by the City. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 10 of 17 2. Noise Restrictions at Affected Properties. Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed those listed in the following schedule: AT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES: Mobile Equipment Maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short-term operation (less than 10 days) of mobile equipment: Type I Areas Single-Family Residential Type II Areas Multifamily Residential Type III Areas Semi- Residential/Commercial Daily, except Sundays and Legal Holidays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day Sunday and Legal Holidays 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Stationary Equipment Maximum noise levels for repetitively scheduled and relatively long-term operation (period of 10 days or more) of stationary equipment: Type I Areas Single-Family Residential Type II Areas Multifamily Residential Type III Areas Semi- Residential/Commercial Daily, except Sundays and Legal Holidays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day Sunday and Legal Holidays 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA AT BUSINESS PROPERTIES: Mobile Equipment Maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short-term operation of mobile equipment: Daily, including Sundays and Legal Holidays, all hours: maximum of 85 dBA. Stationary Equipment Maximum noise levels for repetitively scheduled and relatively long-term operation of stationary The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 11 of 17 equipment: Daily, including Sundays and Legal Holidays, all hours: maximum of 75 dBA. 3. All mobile or stationary internal combustion engine powered equipment or machinery shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and air intake silencers in proper working order. G. Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of any individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet (46 meters) from the source if on a public space or public right-of- way. H. Powered Model Vehicles. Operating or permitting the operation of powered model vehicles: 1. Between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. so as to create a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line or at any time to violate the provisions of LEMC 17.176.060(A). 2. In such a manner as to exceed the levels set forth for public space land use in Table 1, measured at a distance not less than 100 feet (30 meters) from any point on the path of a vehicle operating on public space or public right-of-way. I. Stationary Nonemergency Signaling Devices. 1. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any electronically amplified signal from any stationary bell, chime, siren, whistle, or similar device, intended primarily for nonemergency purposes, from any place, for more than 10 seconds in any hourly period. 2. Houses of religious worship shall be exempt from the operation of this provision. 3. Sound sources covered by this provision and not exempted under subsection (I)(2) of this section shall be exempted by a variance issued by the City. J. Emergency Signaling Devices. 1. The intentional sounding or permitting the sounding outdoors of any fire, burglar, or civil defense alarm, siren, whistle, or similar stationary emergency signaling device, except for emergency purposes or for testing, as provided in subsection (J)(2) of this section. 2. a. Testing of a stationary emergency signaling system shall not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. Any such testing shall use only the minimum cycle test time. In no case shall such test time exceed 60 seconds. b. Testing of the complete emergency signaling system, including the functioning of the signaling device and the personnel response to the signaling device, shall not occur more The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 12 of 17 than once in each calendar month. Such testing shall not occur before 7:00 a.m., or after 10:00 p.m. The time limit specified in subsection (J)(2)(a) of this section shall not apply to such complete system testing. 3. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any exterior burglar or fire alarm or any motor vehicle burglar alarm unless such alarm is terminated within 15 minutes of activation. K. Noise Sensitive Zones. 1. Creating or causing the creation of any sound within any noise sensitive zone, so as to exceed the specified land use noise standards set forth in LEMC 17.176.060(A); provided, that conspicuous signs are displayed indicating the zone; or 2. Creating or causing the creation of any sound within or adjacent to any noise sensitive zone, containing a hospital, nursing home, school, court or other designated area, so as to interfere with the functions of such activity or annoy the occupants in the activity; provided, that conspicuous signs are displayed indicating the presence of the zone. L. Domestic Power Tools and Machinery. 1. Operating or permitting the operation of any mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., so as to create a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line. 2. Any motor, machinery, pump, such as swimming pool equipment, etc., shall be sufficiently enclosed or muffled and maintained so as not to create a noise disturbance in accordance with LEMC 17.176.060. M. Residential Air-Conditioning or Air-Handling Equipment. Operating or permitting the operation of any air-conditioning or air-handling equipment in such a manner as to exceed any of the following sound levels: Measurement Location Units Installed before 1-1-80 dB(A) Units Installed on or after 1- 1-80 dB(A) Any point on neighboring property line, 5 feet above grade level, no closer than 3 feet from any wall.60 55 Center of neighboring patio, 5 feet above grade level, no closer than 3 feet from any wall.55 50 Outside the neighboring living area window nearest the equipment location, not more than 3 feet from the window opening, but at The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 13 of 17 least 3 feet from any other surface.55 50 N. Places of Public Entertainment. Operating or permitting the operation or playing of any loudspeaker, musical instrument, motorized racing vehicle, or other source of sound in any place of public entertainment that exceeds 95 dBA as read on the slow response of a sound level meter at any point normally occupied by a customer, without a conspicuous and legible sign stating: WARNING! SOUND LEVELS WITHIN MAY CAUSE HEARING IMPAIRMENT. [Ord. 772 § 17.78.080, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.080]. 17.176.090 Motor vehicles operating on public right-of-way. Motor vehicles noise limits on a public right-of-way are regulated as set forth in the California Motor Vehicle Code, Sections 23130 and 23130.5. Equipment violations which create noise problems are covered under Sections 27150 and 27151. Any peace officer of any jurisdiction in California may enforce these provisions. Therefore, it shall be the policy of the City to enforce these sections of the California Motor Vehicle Code. A. Refuse Collection Vehicles. 1. No person shall collect refuse with a refuse collection vehicle between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. within or adjacent to a residential area or noise sensitive zone. 2. No person authorized to engage in waste disposal service or garbage collection shall operate any truck-mounted waste or garbage loading and/or compacting equipment or similar device in any manner so as to create any noise exceeding the following levels, measured at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment in an open area: a. New equipment purchased or leased on or after a date six months from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter: 80 dBA. b. New equipment purchased or leased on or after 36 months from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter: 75 dBA. c. Existing equipment, on or after five years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter: 80 dBA. B. Motor Vehicle Horns. It is unlawful for any person to sound a vehicular horn except as a warning signal (Motor Vehicle Code, Section 27001). C. Motorized Recreational Vehicles Operating off Public Right-of-Way. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any motorized recreational vehicle off a public right-of-way in such a manner that the sound levels emitted therefrom violate the provisions of LEMC 17.176.060(A). This section shall apply to all motorized recreational vehicles whether or not duly licensed and registered, The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 14 of 17 including, but not limited to, commercial or noncommercial racing vehicles, motorcycles, go carts, amphibious craft, campers, snowmobiles and dune buggies, but not including motorboats. D. Reserved. E. Vehicle, Motorboat, or Aircraft Repair and Testing. 1. Repairing, rebuilding, modifying, or testing any motor vehicle, motorboat, or aircraft in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance across a residential real property line, or at any time to violate the provisions of LEMC 17.176.060(A). 2. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit, restrict, penalize, enjoin, or in any manner regulate the movement of aircraft which are in all respects conducted in accordance with, or pursuant to, applicable Federal laws or regulations. F. Standing Motor Vehicles. No person shall operate or permit the operation of any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) in excess of 10,000 pounds, or any auxiliary equipment attached to such a vehicle, for a period longer than 15 minutes in any hour while the vehicle is stationary, for reasons other than traffic congestion, on a public right-of-way or public space within 150 feet (46 meters) of a residential area or designated noise sensitive zone, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. [Ord. 984, 1994; Ord. 772 § 17.78.090, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.090]. 17.176.100 Special provisions – Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter: A. The emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency. B. The emission of sound in the performance of emergency work. C. Warning devices necessary for the protection of public safety, as for example, police, fire and ambulance sirens, and train horns. D. Regularly scheduled school bands, school athletic and school entertainment events between the hours of 8:45 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., provided a special events permit is also required for band activities on City streets. E. Regularly scheduled activities conducted on public parks, public playgrounds, and public or private school grounds. However, the use of public address or amplified music systems is not permitted to exceed the exterior noise standard of adjacent property at the property line. F. All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment which are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 15 of 17 G. Mobile noise sources associated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application; provided, that the application is made in accordance with restricted material permits issued by or regulations enforced by the Agricultural Commissioner. H. Mobile noise sources associated with agricultural operations, provided such operations take place on Monday through Friday, excepting legal holidays, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. All other operations shall comply with this chapter. I. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided such operations take place on Monday through Friday, excepting legal holidays, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., or on holidays and weekends between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. All other operations shall comply with this chapter. J. Any activity to the extent that regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal law. [Ord. 772 § 17.78.100, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.100]. 17.176.110 Special variances. A. The NCO is authorized to grant variances for exemption from any provision of this chapter, subject to limitations as to area, noise levels, time limits, and other terms and conditions as the NCO determines are appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the noise emanating therefrom. This section shall in no way affect the duty to obtain any permit or license required by law for such activities. B. Any person seeking a variance pursuant to this section shall file an application with the NCO. The application shall contain information which demonstrates that bringing the source of sound or activity for which the variance is sought into compliance with this chapter would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the applicant, on the community, or on other persons. The application shall be accompanied by a fee. A separate application shall be filed for each noise source; provided, however, that several mobile sources under common ownership, or several fixed sources on a single property may be combined into one application. Notice of an application for a variance shall be published according to City code. Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by allowance of the variance may file a statement with the NCO containing any information to support his claim. If at any time the NCO finds that a sufficient controversy exists regarding an application, a public hearing will be held. C. In determining whether to grant or deny the application, the NCO shall balance the hardship on the applicant, the community, and other persons of not granting the variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, the adverse impact on property affected, and any other adverse impacts of granting the variance. Applicants for variances and persons contesting variances may be required to submit such information as the NCO may reasonably require. In granting or denying an application, the NCO shall keep on public file a copy of the decision and the reasons for denying or granting the variance. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 16 of 17 D. Variances shall be granted by notice to the applicant containing all necessary conditions, including a time limit on the permitted activity. The variance shall not become effective until all conditions are agreed to by the applicant. Noncompliance with any condition of the variance shall terminate the variance and subject the person holding it to those provisions of this chapter for which the variance was granted. E. A variance will not exceed 365 days from the date on which it was granted. Application for extension of time limits specified in variances or for modification of other substantial conditions shall be treated like applications for initial variances under subsection (B) of this section. [Ord. 772 § 17.78.110, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.110]. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1438, passed September 22, 2020. Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.176 NOISE CONTROL Page 17 of 17 Chapter 3.0 3-25 3.6.3 Seismic Activity Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 6 Minimize the rise of loss of life, injury, property damage, and economic and social displacement due to seismic and geological hazards resulting from earthquakes and geological constraints. Policies 6.1 Encourage the pursuit of federal and state programs that assist in the seismic upgrading of buildings to meet building and safety codes. 6.2 Continue to require Alquist-Priolo and other seismic analyses be conducted for new development to identify the potential for ground shaking, liquefaction, slope failure, seismically induced landslides, expansion and settlement of soils, and other related geologic hazards for areas of new development in accordance with the Fault Rupture Hazard Overlay District adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code. The City may require site-specific remediation measures during permit review that may be implemented to minimize impacts in these areas. Implementation Program Through project review and the CEQA processes the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with Alquist-Priolo and other guidelines where appropriate. Agency/Department Public Works Department 3.7 Noise 3.7.1 Introduction Noise is defined as unwanted sound. It is part of everyday life in an urban community, resulting from on- and off-road vehicle traffic, railroads, aircraft, construction vehicles and other heavy equipment, other commercial activities, and loud music. The existing background or “ambient” noise level in the community is the product of the cumulative effects of a variety of noise sources that accumulate over a period of time. Exposure to excessive noise has often been cited as a health hazard. Activities at Lake Elsinore Chapter 3.0 3-26 Roadway traffic is a major source of noise within the City. Some other reported noise sources in Lake Elsinore include industrial and manufacturing facilities, Skylark Airport, schools, construction activities, and recreational activities associated with the lake, the motocross park, and Diamond Stadium. The goals and policies in this section are designed to locate new development in areas with compatible noise levels and minimize intrusive noise from existing and new development. 3.7.2 Noise Baselines Land uses in the Lake Elsinore planning area include varying densities of both clustered and non-contiguous residential development, different densities and types of businesses and commercial developments, open space, and recreation. The locations and densities of these land uses, in conjunction with major transportation routes and other significant activities within the Lake Elsinore area, such as construction, contribute to the ambient noise conditions, or setting, of the area. Sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of noise could adversely affect the use of the land. These land uses include uses such as schools, hospitals, residences, libraries, and recreation areas. The City has designated noise- sensitive zones for land uses that require exceptional quiet. Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 provide regulations to ensure noise and land use compatibility and recommend noise standards. Table 3-1. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix Land Use Categories Day-Night Noise Level (LDN) Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80> Residential Single, Family, Duplex, Multiple Family A A B B C D D Residential Mobile Homes A A B C C D D Commercial Regional District Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Commercial Regional Village, District Special Commercial, Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C Commercial Industrial Institutional Office Building, Research and Development, Professional Offices, City Office Building A A A B B C D Commercial Regional Institutional Civic Center Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall B B C C D D D Chapter 3.0 3-27 Land Use Categories Day-Night Noise Level (LDN) Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80> Commercial Recreation Children’s Amusement Park, Miniature Golf Course, Go-cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club A A A B B D D Commercial General, Special Industrial Institutional Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities A A A A B B B Institutional General Hospital, Church, Library, Schools, Classroom A A B C C D D Open Space Parks A A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers, Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat A A A A B C C Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A Interpretation Zone A Clearly Compatible Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B Normally Compatible New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed nose insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C Normally Incompatible New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D Clearly Incompatible New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Chapter 3.0 3-28 Table 3-2. Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use Categories Energy Average LDN Categories Uses Interior Exterior Residential Single Family, Duplex, Multiple Family 45 3, 5 60 Mobile Homes – 60 4 Commercial, Institutional Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 5 – Hospital, School’s classroom 45 – Church, Library 45 – Interpretation 1. Indoor environment excluding: Bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 2. Outdoor environment limited to: Private yard of single family, multi-family private patio or balcony which is served by a means of exit from inside, Mobile Home Park. 3. Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as of Chapter 12, Section 1205 of UBC. 4. Exterior noise level should be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL. 5. As per California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Division T25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4, Section T25-28. Topography and Climate Noise amplitude and attenuation characteristics are key factors in the establishment of noise conditions and vary considerably according to natural climate and topographical features. Meteorological factors affecting noise characteristics within the Lake Elsinore planning area include temperature changes, Santa Ana winds, and the amount and duration of rainfall. Topographical features in the planning area include the steep Santa Ana Mountains and Elsinore Mountains to the south and west; the large centrally located, low-lying Lake Elsinore and surrounding local valley; and the rolling hills throughout much of the area. Man-made features within the planning area, such as buildings and structures, agricultural fields, and roadways, also affect noise amplitude and attenuation. Vehicular Traffic Because two highly utilized transportation corridors, I-15 and SR 74, traverse the City, roadway traffic is one of the more prevalent sources of noise within the area. Traffic noise varies in how it affects land uses depending upon the type of roadway, distance of the land use from that roadway, topographical setting, and other physical land features such as landscaping, walls, buildings, and other structures. Some variables that affect the amount of noise emitted from a Chapter 3.0 3-29 road are speed of traffic, flow of traffic, and type of traffic (e.g., tractor trailers versus cars). Another variable affecting the overall measure of noise is a perceived increase in sensitivity to vehicular noise at night. Industry Industrial and manufacturing facilities are stationary noise producers that may affect sensitive land uses. Industrial land uses have the potential to exert a relatively high level of noise impact within their immediate operating environments. The scope and degree of noise impacts generated by industrial uses is dependent upon various critical factors, including the type of industrial activity, hours of operation, and the site’s location relative to other land uses. Noise-related complaints are often aimed at facilities such as Elsinore Ready-Mix, a concrete manufacturer located in Country Club Heights. Other noise complaints usually come from neighbors who live next to land that is under-developed. Airports Skylark Airport is a privately owned airport that occupies approximately 150 acres of land located at the southern city limits on Corydon Road. In 2010, the airport housed 21 single- engine aircraft, five multi-engine aircraft, and four gliders. This airport provides glider and skydiving opportunities for the community and surrounding region. The runway surface at Skylark Airport consists of gravel and sand; as such, this surface generally does not permit optimal conditions for frequent and convenient airport operations. Skylark Airport is a private use airport with runways that are 2800 feet in length and fall under the category of Short General Aviation Runways. Schools Schools can be a source of nuisance noise for neighboring residential uses. Noise-generating activities include children at play, bells, and public address systems. High schools may include stadiums used for day and evening athletic events, and the use of public address/loudspeaker systems can also generate substantial noise levels during the day and/or evening. Chapter 3.0 3-30 Other Noise Sources Other sources of noise include recreational boating and personal watercraft on Lake Elsinore, the Motocross Park, Diamond Stadium, and construction activities. Vibration As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized by displacement, velocity, and/or acceleration. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Vibration can be felt outdoors, but the perceived intensity of vibration impacts are much greater indoors due to the shaking of the structure. The most common sources of vibration in the Lake Elsinore planning area are transit vehicles, construction equipment, and large vehicles. Several land uses are especially sensitive to vibration and therefore have a lower vibration threshold. These uses include but are not limited to concert halls, hospitals, libraries, vibration-sensitive research operations, residential areas, schools, and offices. 3.7.3 Noise Goal, Policies and Implementation Program Goal 7 Maintain an environment for all City residents and visitors free of unhealthy, obtrusive, or otherwise excessive noise. Policies 7.1 Apply the noise standards set forth in the Lake Elsinore Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix (see Table 3-1) and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards (see Table 3-2) when considering all new development and redevelopment proposed within the City. 7.2 Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas. 7.3 Strive to reduce the effect of transportation noise on the I-15. 7.4 Consider estimated roadway noise contours based upon Figure 3.6, Noise Contours, when making land use design decisions along busy roadways throughout the City. Lake Elsinore Motocross Track Sources: City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Noise Contours Figure 3.6´0 2.51.25 Miles Sphere of Influence City Boundary Motocross Track Elsinore Ready Mix Ballpark Airport 60 Idn contour pref 65 Idn contour pref 70 Idn contour pref Noise Contours Appendix B Field Data and Photos Project:Engineer:B. Estrada Date:3/25/2021 JN:2395-2021-02 Measurement Address:City:Site No.: Le Harve Street and Riverside Drive (SR-74)Lake Elsinore Sound Level Meter:Calibration Record:Notes: Piccolo II Input, dB/ Reading, dB/ Offset, dB/ Time Serial #P0218042101 1 94.0 2:02 PM Temp:67 Serial #P0218092808 2 94.0 2:05 PM Windspeed:8 MPH Calibrator:3 Direction:WSW 4 Skies:Clear Serial #500732 5 Camera: Photo Nos. Notes:Measurement Type: Long-term X Short-term Field Sheet 1 Meter Settings: x A-WTD  LINEAR x SLOW  1/1 OCT x INTERVALS ___60____- MINUTE  C-WTD  IMPULSE  FAST  1/3 OCT x LN PERCENTILE VALUES Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study CA114 Sound Calibrator c 1 2 c Project:Engineer:B. Estrada Date:3/25/2021 JN:2395-2021-02 Measurement Address:City:Site No.: Le Harve Street and Riverside Drive (SR-74)Lake Elsinore Field Sheet - SLM-1 Location Photos 1 Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study Project:Engineer:B. Estrada Date:3/25/2021 JN:2395-2021-02 Measurement Address:City:Site No.: Le Harve Street and Riverside Drive (SR-74)Lake Elsinore Field Sheet - SLM-2 Location Photos Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study 2 PROJECT:Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study JOB #:2395-2021-02 NOISE METER Piccolo II SLM, 24-Hour Measurement DATE:25-Mar-21 LOCATION:SLM-1 BY:B. Estrada Time Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50 12:00 AM 44.2 70.6 36.6 49.1 46.2 44.0 42.3 1:00 AM 42.2 59.9 35.9 47.8 45.0 42.7 40.8 2:00 AM 41.1 65.3 35.5 45.9 43.3 41.4 40.0 3:00 AM 47.4 85.6 34.2 46.1 43.7 41.5 39.6 4:00 AM 44.6 70.0 35.9 49.8 47.2 44.3 41.5 5:00 AM 50.2 81.6 41.6 54.4 51.6 49.4 47.6 6:00 AM 49.9 76.6 42.9 54.4 51.5 49.5 48.2 7:00 AM 54.3 64.4 43.9 59.7 58.0 56.0 53.1 8:00 AM 61.0 86.3 43.1 67.0 63.4 60.1 56.7 9:00 AM 52.8 70.2 41.9 62.6 56.5 49.8 47.6 10:00 AM 53.7 76.3 41.1 62.4 58.3 52.4 49.1 11:00 AM 49.8 62.6 42.0 56.8 53.4 49.6 47.8 12:00 PM 48.7 65.9 40.8 54.9 51.4 48.8 47.2 1:00 PM 49.7 66.3 42.9 56.0 52.1 49.6 48.1 2:00 PM 52.5 71.1 44.9 59.4 54.9 51.9 50.5 3:00 PM 54.3 76.0 44.7 61.5 57.8 54.1 51.8 4:00 PM 50.7 71.4 42.6 56.6 53.5 50.9 49.0 5:00 PM 48.5 66.3 41.2 54.2 50.8 48.6 47.1 6:00 PM 47.8 72.5 40.7 53.0 49.5 47.4 46.0 7:00 PM 48.0 73.2 41.1 53.3 49.5 47.6 46.3 8:00 PM 48.2 69.7 40.3 54.2 50.0 48.0 46.4 9:00 PM 45.8 61.8 39.3 50.5 47.9 46.1 44.8 10:00 PM 44.1 61.9 37.1 50.0 46.7 44.3 42.7 11:00 PM 44.9 66.1 37.3 50.5 47.2 45.1 43.6 Daytime 52.9 86.3 37.1 59.6 55.8 52.4 49.9 Nighttime 46.7 85.6 34.2 50.9 48.0 45.8 44.2 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMNoise Level (dBA)SLM-1 24-Hour Noise Monitoring Results Leq CNEL PROJECT:Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study JOB #:2395-2021-02 NOISE METER Piccolo II SLM, 24-Hour Measurement DATE:25-Mar-21 LOCATION:SLM-2 BY:B. Estrada Time Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50 12:00 AM 37.9 58.3 30.6 43.6 40.6 37.6 35.4 1:00 AM 37.9 57.3 29.2 45.0 41.7 37.8 35.1 2:00 AM 38.9 58.4 28.9 47.7 43.0 38.1 34.0 3:00 AM 49.1 82.5 28.5 43.0 38.9 35.9 33.4 4:00 AM 38.7 57.6 29.6 44.9 42.0 38.8 36.2 5:00 AM 44.4 68.4 34.8 49.6 46.6 43.8 41.5 6:00 AM 45.5 65.0 37.6 50.7 47.7 45.5 43.9 7:00 AM 45.7 59.2 39.8 50.2 48.1 46.4 45.0 8:00 AM 48.1 64.1 37.9 55.3 51.2 48.5 46.0 9:00 AM 46.9 65.2 36.1 55.4 49.8 46.1 43.4 10:00 AM 50.2 72.2 36.8 58.2 52.8 48.2 45.1 11:00 AM 50.1 66.6 37.6 58.4 54.1 49.3 45.3 12:00 PM 52.0 72.6 36.8 60.6 56.2 50.3 46.0 1:00 PM 52.8 68.7 38.7 62.1 57.2 51.3 46.5 2:00 PM 56.9 74.7 40.5 65.7 61.2 56.4 51.9 3:00 PM 55.5 73.2 40.4 64.0 59.9 54.9 50.5 4:00 PM 47.9 62.6 38.3 55.7 51.4 47.4 45.1 5:00 PM 45.8 68.3 37.7 52.5 47.3 44.5 42.8 6:00 PM 44.4 62.0 36.8 50.5 47.1 44.5 42.5 7:00 PM 43.8 61.1 36.3 49.8 45.9 43.9 42.4 8:00 PM 45.6 65.2 37.1 51.6 47.9 45.0 43.0 9:00 PM 43.0 55.1 35.1 49.3 46.0 43.3 41.6 10:00 PM 43.3 63.8 33.5 50.8 46.8 43.0 40.3 11:00 PM 45.4 62.6 33.3 54.6 49.2 43.9 40.2 Daytime 50.5 74.7 33.5 58.8 54.4 49.7 46.0 Nighttime 44.1 82.5 28.5 49.2 45.1 41.5 39.1 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMNoise Level (dBA)SLM-2 24-Hour Noise Monitoring Results Leq CNEL Appendix C HVAC Equipment Specifications Expanded Sound Data / Page 10 ENERGENCE® / LANDMARK® / RAIDER® (7.5 TO 12.5 TONS) 2 Test Conditions External Static Pressure in. w.c. CFM Octave Band Sound Power Levels dBA, re 10-12 Watts 1 Sound Rating Number (dBA) Center Frequency - HZ 3 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Outdoor Sound Levels LCH/LGH/092 thru 120 KCA/KGA092 thru 120 KCB/KGB092 thru 120 - - -- - -63 76 79 84 83 79 73 66 88 LCH/LGH150 KCA/KGA150 KCB/KGB150 - - -- - -62 75 81 87 85 80 73 67 90 KHA092, 102 and 120 - - -- - -- - -76 79 84 83 79 73 66 88 KHA150 - - -- - -- - -77 80 85 84 79 74 66 88 KHB092, 102 - - -- - -- - -72 75 76 73 67 60 50 86 KHB122 - - -- - -- - -73 74 75 72 66 60 50 85 Supply Air Only 0.75 2515 51 61 68 71 71 69 67 63 - - - 0.75 2850 52 61 69 72 71 70 68 64 - - - 0.75 3000 52 61 69 72 72 70 69 64 - - - 0.75 3400 52 63 70 73 73 71 70 66 - - - 0.75 3600 53 63 71 73 74 72 71 66 - - - 0.75 4000 53 64 72 74 75 73 72 68 - - - 0.75 4125 53 64 72 74 76 74 72 69 - - - 0.75 4800 54 66 75 76 79 76 74 71 - - - Return Air Only 0.75 2515 47 52 54 56 56 54 51 44 - - - 0.75 2850 48 52 54 56 57 55 52 46 - - - 0.75 3000 48 51 55 56 57 55 53 47 - - - 0.75 3400 49 53 57 57 58 56 55 50 - - - 0.75 3600 49 54 57 58 59 57 56 51 - - - 0.75 4000 51 55 58 58 60 58 57 52 - - - 0.75 4125 51 56 58 59 61 59 58 53 - - - 0.75 4800 51 55 60 60 63 62 60 56 - - - Exhaust Fan Only - Return 0.13 - - -62 69 72 75 74 72 66 59 - - - Outdoor Sound Levels ZCA/ZGA092 thru 120 - - -- - -- - -72 74 79 80 76 70 63 84 ZCA/ZGA150 - - -- - -- - -76 81 87 86 80 77 76 91 ZHA092, 102 - - -- - -- - -76 79 84 83 79 73 66 88 ZHA120 - - -- - -- - -77 80 85 84 79 74 66 88 Supply Air Only 0.75 2510 56 63 66 73 72 70 69 63 - - - 0.75 2850 56 64 68 74 74 72 70 64 - - - 0.75 3000 56 65 68 74 74 72 71 65 - - - 0.75 3400 57 66 70 76 77 74 73 67 - - - 0.75 4000 57 68 73 78 80 76 75 70 - - - 0.75 4190 57 68 74 79 81 77 76 70 - - - 0.75 5000 59 70 77 81 84 80 79 74 - - - Return Air Only 0.75 2510 54 56 59 60 57 55 55 48 - - - 0.75 2850 54 58 60 61 59 57 57 50 - - - 0.75 3000 54 58 60 61 60 58 57 51 - - - 0.75 3400 54 59 61 63 61 59 59 52 - - - 0.75 4000 55 61 63 64 64 62 62 55 - - - 0.75 4190 54 61 65 65 65 63 63 56 - - - 0.75 5000 55 63 67 68 68 66 65 59 - - - Note − The octave sound power data does not include tonal corrections. 1 Sound Rating Number according to AHRI Standard 270 or AHRI Standard 370. 2 Indoor tested according to AHRI Standard 260. 3 63HZ band is not certified and is usually lower than reported Appendix D Stationary Noise Calculation Worksheets NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FHWA - RD-77-108 PROJECT:LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS JOB #:2395-2021-02 SOURCE:HVAC EQUIPMENT DATE: 02-Apr-21 LOCATION:LAKESIDE HIGH SCHOOL BY:B. ESTRADA NOISE INPUT DATA OBS DIST= 50.0 DT WALL=10.0 DT W/OB= 40.0 BARRIER+ HTH WALL=25.0 ******** TOPO SHIELDING = -9.80 BARRIER =0.0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)NOISE HTH EL=25.0 OBS HTH=5.0 NOISE HTH=25.0 OBS EL =0.0 (10 = 3.0 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) NOISE EL =0.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) DROP-OFF=20.0 (20 = 6.0 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) DIST (FT) Leq REF LEVEL 1 88.0 PROJ LEVEL 50 54.0 SHIELDING 50 -9.8 ADJ PROJ LEVEL 50 44.2 NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION DUE TO DISTANCE =-33.97940009 TOTAL NOISE LEVEL (dBA) Leq AMBIENT LEVEL 0.0 ADJ PROJ LEVELS 44.2 TOTAL NOISE LEVEL W/ PROJECT 44.2 NOISE OUTPUT DATA (dBA) DROP OFF COEFFICENTS NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FHWA - RD-77-108 PROJECT:LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS JOB #:2395-2021-02 SOURCE:PARKING LOT DATE: 02-Apr-21 LOCATION:RESIDENTIAL P/L NORTHWEST OF PROJECT SITE BY:B. ESTRADA NOISE INPUT DATA OBS DIST= 50.0 DT WALL=50.0 DT W/OB= 0.0 BARRIER+ HTH WALL=0.0 ********TOPO SHIELDING =0.00 BARRIER =0.0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)NOISE HTH EL=5.0 OBS HTH=5.0 NOISE HTH=5.0 OBS EL =0.0 (10 = 3.0 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) NOISE EL =0.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) DROP-OFF=20.0 (20 = 6.0 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) DIST (FT) Leq REF LEVEL 6 63.8 PROJ LEVEL 50 45.4 SHIELDING 50 0.0 ADJ PROJ LEVEL 50 45.4 NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION DUE TO DISTANCE =-18.41637508 TOTAL NOISE LEVEL (dBA) Leq AMBIENT LEVEL 0.0 ADJ PROJ LEVELS 45.4 TOTAL NOISE LEVEL W/ PROJECT 45.4 DROP OFF COEFFICENTS NOISE OUTPUT DATA (dBA) NOISE INTERVAL AVERAGER (2.0) PROJECT:LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS JOB #: 2395-2021-02 SOURCE:COMBINED NOISE SOURCES DATE: 02-Apr-21 LOCATION:LAKSIDE HIGH SCHOOL BY: B. ESTRADA LEQ 10^(LEQ/10) 1 HVAC 44.2 26,302.7 2 HVAC 44.2 26,302.7 3 HVAC 44.2 26,302.7 4 HVAC 44.2 26,302.7 5 HVAC 44.2 26,302.7 6 HVAC 44.2 26,302.7 7 PARKING LOT 45.4 34,673.7 8 9 10 52.8 192,489.8 NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS (dBA) Source Total Noise Level (dBA) NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FHWA - RD-77-108 PROJECT:LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS JOB #:2395-2021-02 SOURCE:PARKING LOT DATE: 02-Apr-21 LOCATION:RESIDENTIAL P/L NORTHWEST OF PROJECT SITE BY:B. ESTRADA NOISE INPUT DATA OBS DIST= 400.0 DT WALL=400.0 DT W/OB= 0.0 BARRIER+ HTH WALL=0.0 ********TOPO SHIELDING =0.00 BARRIER =0.0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)NOISE HTH EL=5.0 OBS HTH=5.0 NOISE HTH=5.0 OBS EL =0.0 (10 = 3.0 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) NOISE EL =0.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) DROP-OFF=20.0 (20 = 6.0 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) DIST (FT) Leq REF LEVEL 6 63.8 PROJ LEVEL 400 27.3 SHIELDING 400 0.0 ADJ PROJ LEVEL 400 27.3 NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION DUE TO DISTANCE =-36.47817482 TOTAL NOISE LEVEL (dBA) Leq AMBIENT LEVEL 0.0 ADJ PROJ LEVELS 27.3 TOTAL NOISE LEVEL W/ PROJECT 27.3 DROP OFF COEFFICENTS NOISE OUTPUT DATA (dBA) NOISE INTERVAL AVERAGER (2.0) PROJECT:LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS JOB #: 2395-2021-02 SOURCE:COMBINED NOISE SOURCES DATE: 02-Apr-21 LOCATION:RESIDENTIAL P/L NORTHWEST OF PROJECT SITE BY: B. ESTRADA LEQ 10^(LEQ/10) 1 HVAC 32.0 1,584.9 2 HVAC 32.0 1,584.9 3 HVAC 32.0 1,584.9 4 HVAC 32.0 1,584.9 5 Parking Lot 27.3 537.0 6 7 8 9 10 38.4 6,876.6 NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS (dBA) Source Total Noise Level (dBA) NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FHWA - RD-77-108 PROJECT:LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS JOB #:2395-2021-02 SOURCE:HVAC EQUIPMENT DATE: 02-Apr-21 LOCATION:RESIDENTIAL P/L NORTHWEST OF PROJECT SITE BY:B. ESTRADA NOISE INPUT DATA OBS DIST= 350.0 DT WALL=10.0 DT W/OB= 340.0 BARRIER+ HTH WALL=25.0 ******** TOPO SHIELDING = -5.09 BARRIER =0.0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)NOISE HTH EL=25.0 OBS HTH=5.0 NOISE HTH=25.0 OBS EL =0.0 (10 = 3.0 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) NOISE EL =0.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) DROP-OFF=20.0 (20 = 6.0 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) DIST (FT) Leq REF LEVEL 1 88.0 PROJ LEVEL 350 37.1 SHIELDING 350 -5.1 ADJ PROJ LEVEL 350 32.0 NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION DUE TO DISTANCE =-50.88136089 TOTAL NOISE LEVEL (dBA) Leq AMBIENT LEVEL 0.0 ADJ PROJ LEVELS 32.0 TOTAL NOISE LEVEL W/ PROJECT 32.0 NOISE OUTPUT DATA (dBA) DROP OFF COEFFICENTS Appendix E Roadway Noise Calculation Worksheets FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT:LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS JOB #:0888-2020-05 ROADWAY:RIVERSIDE DRIVE DATE:5-Apr-21 LOCATION:FIRST ROW UNITS FACING ROADWAY (FIRST FLOOR)ENGINEER:D. Shivaiah ADT =34,000 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 75 SPEED =45 DIST C/L TO WALL =75 PK HR % =10 RECEIVER HEIGHT =5.0 NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST =72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER =0 ROAD ELEVATION =0.0 PAD ELEVATION =0.0 GRADE =0.0 %ROADWAY VIEW:LF ANGLE=-90 PK HR VOL =3,400 RT ANGLE=90 DF ANGLE=180 AUTOMOBILES = 10 HTH WALL=0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS =10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE)AMBIENT=0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS =10 BARRIER =1 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM) VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 65.86 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 65.80 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.010 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 65.86 VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.2 68.8 67.5 61.5 69.9 70.5 MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.6 45.4 37.6 46.8 53.0 53.0 HEAVY TRUCKS 71.3 54.4 56.6 55.8 62.1 62.4 NOISE LEVELS (dBA)74.7 69.0 67.9 62.6 70.6 71.2 VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.2 68.8 67.5 61.5 69.9 70.5 MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.6 45.4 37.6 46.8 53.0 53.0 HEAVY TRUCKS 71.3 54.4 56.6 55.8 62.1 62.4 NOISE LEVELS (dBA)74.7 69.0 67.9 62.6 70.6 71.2 NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA CNEL 99 314 994 3143 LDN 87 275 870 2750 GRADE ADJUSTMENTDAY NOISE INPUT DATA ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO 0.695 NOISE CONTOUR (FT) - - 0.00 0.014 0.024 NOISE OUTPUT DATA NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING) NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING) - - Appendix F Construction Noise and Vibration Calculation Worksheets Report date: 3/30/2021 Case Description: Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study ‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐ Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Site Preparation Residential 75 45 45 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dozer No 40 81.7 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 200 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Dozer 69.6 65.6 Tractor 72 68 Dozer 69.6 65.6 Dozer 69.6 65.6 Tractor 72 68 Tractor 72 68 Tractor 72 68 Total 72 75.6 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/30/2021 Case Description: Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study ‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐ Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Grading Residential 75 45 45 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 200 0 Grader No 40 85 200 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Excavator 68.7 64.7 Grader 73 69 Dozer 69.6 65.6 Tractor 72 68 Tractor 72 68 Tractor 72 68 Total 73 75.2 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/30/2021 Case Description: Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study ‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐ Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Building Construction Residential 75 45 45 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Crane No 16 80.6 200 0 Pickup Truck No 40 75 200 0 Generator No 50 80.6 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Welder / Torch No 40 74 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Pickup Truck No 40 75 200 0 Pickup Truck No 40 75 200 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Crane 68.5 60.6 Pickup Truck 63 59 Generator 68.6 65.6 Tractor 72 68 Welder / Torch 62 58 Tractor 72 68 Tractor 72 68 Pickup Truck 63 59 Pickup Truck 63 59 Total 72 74.2 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/30/2021 Case Description: Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study ‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐ Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Paving Residential 75 45 45 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Paver No 50 77.2 200 0 Roller No 20 80 200 0 Roller No 20 80 200 0 Paver No 50 77.2 200 0 Roller No 20 80 200 0 Roller No 20 80 200 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Paver 65.2 62.2 Roller 68 61 Roller 68 61 Paver 65.2 62.2 Roller 68 61 Roller 68 61 Total 68 69.2 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/30/2021 Case Description: Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study ‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐ Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Architectural Coating Residential 75 45 45 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Compressor (air)No 40 77.7 200 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Compressor (air)65.6 61.6 Total 65.6 61.6 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/30/2021 Case Description: Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study ‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐ Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Site Preparation Residential 75 45 45 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dozer No 40 81.7 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 330 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Dozer 65.3 61.3 Tractor 67.6 63.6 Dozer 65.3 61.3 Dozer 65.3 61.3 Tractor 67.6 63.6 Tractor 67.6 63.6 Tractor 67.6 63.6 Total 67.6 71.2 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/30/2021 Case Description: Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study ‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐ Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Grading Residential 75 45 45 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 330 0 Grader No 40 85 330 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Excavator 64.3 60.3 Grader 68.6 64.6 Dozer 65.3 61.3 Tractor 67.6 63.6 Tractor 67.6 63.6 Tractor 67.6 63.6 Total 68.6 70.9 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/30/2021 Case Description: Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study ‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐ Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Building Construction Residential 75 45 45 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Crane No 16 80.6 330 0 Pickup Truck No 40 75 330 0 Generator No 50 80.6 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Welder / Torch No 40 74 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Pickup Truck No 40 75 330 0 Pickup Truck No 40 75 330 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Crane 64.2 56.2 Pickup Truck 58.6 54.6 Generator 64.2 61.2 Tractor 67.6 63.6 Welder / Torch 57.6 53.6 Tractor 67.6 63.6 Tractor 67.6 63.6 Pickup Truck 58.6 54.6 Pickup Truck 58.6 54.6 Total 67.6 69.9 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/30/2021 Case Description: Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study ‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐ Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Paving Residential 75 45 45 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Paver No 50 77.2 330 0 Roller No 20 80 330 0 Roller No 20 80 330 0 Paver No 50 77.2 330 0 Roller No 20 80 330 0 Roller No 20 80 330 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Paver 60.8 57.8 Roller 63.6 56.6 Roller 63.6 56.6 Paver 60.8 57.8 Roller 63.6 56.6 Roller 63.6 56.6 Total 63.6 64.8 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 3/30/2021 Case Description: Lakepointe Apartments Noise Impact Study ‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐ Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Architectural Coating Residential 75 45 45 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 330 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Compressor (air) 61.3 57.3 Total 61.3 57.3 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS Lakepointe Apartments Vibration Effects JOB #: School Building to the South PPV =0.013 in/sec Equipment Type =2 PPVref =0.089 D =        145.00 n =             1.10 Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Crack and Seat 2.400 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Vibratory Roller 0.210 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Large Bulldozer Reference PPV at 25 ft. EQUIPMENT PPV REFERENCE LEVELS Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Distance from Equipment to receiver in ft. Vibration attenuation rate through the ground OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PPV = PPVref(25/D)n (in/sec) LOCATION:ENGINEER:D. Shivaiah VIBRATION INPUT/OUTPUT DATA PROJECT:2395‐2021‐02 ACTIVITY:Large Bulldozer DATE:30‐Mar‐21 1 of 2 VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS JOB #: School Building to the South PPV =0.030 in/sec Equipment Type =1 PPVref =0.210 D =        145.00 n =             1.10 Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Crack and Seat 2.400 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Distance from Equipment to receiver in ft. Vibration attenuation rate through the ground EQUIPMENT PPV REFERENCE LEVELS Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Vibratory Roller 0.210 OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PPV = PPVref(25/D)n (in/sec) Vibratory Roller Reference PPV at 25 ft. LOCATION: ENGINEER:D. Shivaiah VIBRATION INPUT/OUTPUT DATA PROJECT:Lakepointe Apartments Vibration Effects 2395‐2021‐02 ACTIVITY:Vibratory Roller DATE:30‐Mar‐21 1 of 2 VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS JOB #: School Building to the South PPV =0.011 in/sec Equipment Type =4 PPVref =0.076 D =        145.00 n =             1.10 Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Crack and Seat 2.400 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Vibratory Roller 0.210 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Loaded Trucks Reference PPV at 25 ft. EQUIPMENT PPV REFERENCE LEVELS Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Distance from Equipment to receiver in ft. Vibration attenuation rate through the ground OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PPV = PPVref(25/D)n (in/sec) LOCATION: ENGINEER:D. Shivaiah VIBRATION INPUT/OUTPUT DATA PROJECT:2395‐2021‐02 ACTIVITY:Loaded Truck DATE:30‐Mar‐21 Lakepointe Apartments Vibration Effects 1 of 2 VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS Lakepointe Apartments Vibration Effects JOB #: Commercial Building to the North PPV =0.053 in/sec Equipment Type =2 PPVref =0.089 D =          40.00 n =             1.10 Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PROJECT:2395‐2021‐02 ACTIVITY:Large Bulldozer DATE:30‐Mar‐21 LOCATION:ENGINEER:D. Shivaiah VIBRATION INPUT/OUTPUT DATA OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PPV = PPVref(25/D)n (in/sec) Large Bulldozer Reference PPV at 25 ft. EQUIPMENT PPV REFERENCE LEVELS Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Distance from Equipment to receiver in ft. Vibration attenuation rate through the ground Vibratory Roller 0.210 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Crack and Seat 2.400 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 1 of 2 VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS JOB #: Commercial Building to the North PPV =0.125 in/sec Equipment Type =1 PPVref =0.210 D =          40.00 n =             1.10 Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PROJECT:Lakepointe Apartments Vibration Effects 2395‐2021‐02 ACTIVITY:Vibratory Roller DATE:30‐Mar‐21 LOCATION:ENGINEER:D. Shivaiah VIBRATION INPUT/OUTPUT DATA OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PPV = PPVref(25/D)n (in/sec) Vibratory Roller Reference PPV at 25 ft. Distance from Equipment to receiver in ft. Vibration attenuation rate through the ground EQUIPMENT PPV REFERENCE LEVELS Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Vibratory Roller 0.210 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Crack and Seat 2.400 1 of 2 VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS JOB #: Commercial Building to the North PPV =0.045 in/sec Equipment Type =4 PPVref =0.076 D =          40.00 n =             1.10 Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PROJECT:2395‐2021‐02 ACTIVITY:Loaded Truck DATE:30‐Mar‐21 Lakepointe Apartments Vibration Effects LOCATION:ENGINEER:D. Shivaiah VIBRATION INPUT/OUTPUT DATA OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PPV = PPVref(25/D)n (in/sec) Loaded Trucks Reference PPV at 25 ft. EQUIPMENT PPV REFERENCE LEVELS Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Distance from Equipment to receiver in ft. Vibration attenuation rate through the ground Vibratory Roller 0.210 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Crack and Seat 2.400 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 1 of 2 Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM APPENDIX 5a Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM APPENDIX 5b November 09, 2022 Mr. George Mears BOWLUS PACIFIC 1662 Dustin Place Riverside, CA 92506 Subject: Lakepointe Apartments Project Focused Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, CA Dear Mr. Mears: A. Introduction & Purpose of Report RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this Focused Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Lakepointe Apartments Project located north of the Lakeside High School along Riverside Drive (State Highway 74), in the City of Lake Elsinore. This letter report serves as a supplemental analysis to the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021, prepared by RK Engineering Group Inc. RK previously prepared the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021. Since then, the proposed Lakepointe Apartments development plan has been slightly modified, increasing from 150 multifamily dwelling units to 152 multifamily dwelling units. This Focused Traffic Impact Analysis will demonstrate that the increase in trip generation from 150 multifamily dwelling units to 152 multifamily dwelling units is expected to be nominal and will not cause any new traffic impacts to the previously studied intersections. In addition, based on comments received by Caltrans, the City of Lake Elsinore has requested a Focused Traffic Impact Analysis be prepared to analyze the impacts of the Riverside Drive (Highway 74) at “Proposed Street” intersection that was not previously studied in the 2021 Traffic Study. This Focused Traffic Impact Analysis is prepared in accordance with the scope of work that has been submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore staff, which is contained in Appendix A, as well as the City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, revised May 3, 2022. BOWLUS PACIFIC RK17752 / 2395-2021-01 Page 2 B. Project Description & Study Area The proposed Lakepointe Apartments Residential Project (hereinafter referred to as “project”) is located north of the Lakeside High School and west of Riverside Drive (State Highway 74), in the City of Lake Elsinore. As previously mentioned, the modified project consists of the construction of 152 multifamily residential dwelling units. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Access to the project site is planned to be provided via: • One (1) proposed unsignalized full-access driveway to be maintained on a newly constructed street (“Proposed” Street) shared between the project and existing retail uses north of the project site. • One (1) proposed unsignalized right-in/right driveway along Riverside Drive. This focused traffic impact analysis evaluates the following study intersection: 1. Riverside Drive (State Highway 74) (N/S) at “Proposed” Street (E/W) As analyzed in the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021, the project is planned to open in 2023 and will be evaluated in one single phase. Exhibit A illustrates the location of the proposed project. Exhibit B shows the modified proposed site plan. Consistent with the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021, this Focused Traffic Impact Analysis evaluates traffic conditions for the following scenarios during the weekday AM (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and weekday PM (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak hours. Since the one (1) study intersection does not currently exist, only the “With Project” traffic scenarios from the 2021 Traffic Study will be analyzed. • Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions; and • Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions. BOWLUS PACIFIC RK17752 / 2395-2021-01 Page 3 C. Existing Conditions (2021) Traffic Volumes In the 2021 traffic study, existing (2021) traffic volumes were derived by applying a two percent (2%) per year adjustment factor to 2019 historical traffic counts as at the time, collection of new and valid traffic count data was not feasible due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This Focused Traffic Impact Analysis utilizes these baseline 2021 traffic volumes referenced in the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021. Volumes have been tracked from the intersection of Riverside Drive (State Highway 74) at Lincoln Street to determine the existing (2021) through volumes at the “Proposed” Street along Riverside Drive. Existing (2021) traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit C for the one (1) study intersection. D. Project Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. Trip generation is typically estimated based on the trip generation rates from the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. This publication provides a comprehensive evaluation of trip generation rates for a variety of land uses. To maintain consistency with the previously prepared 2021 Traffic Study, the trip generation rates from the 2017 ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) have been utilized in this Focused Traffic Impact Analysis. Table 1 shows the ITE trip generation rates utilized for the trip generation analysis for the modified Lakepointe Apartments development plan as well as the previous Lakepointe Apartments development plan as detailed in the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021. BOWLUS PACIFIC RK17752 / 2395-2021-01 Page 4 Table 1 ITE Trip Generation Rates1 Land Use ITE Code Units2 AM PM Daily In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 1 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017). 2 DU = Dwelling Units. Table 2 shows the trip generation comparison for the modified Lakepointe Apartments development plan vs. the previous Lakepointe Apartments development plan utilizing the trip generation rates shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2, the modified project is forecast to generate approximately 1,113 daily weekday trips, which include approximately 70 AM peak hour trips and approximately 85 PM peak hour trips. When the modified project is compared to the previous project from the 2021 Traffic Study (i.e., 1,098 daily trips, 69 AM trips, and 84 PM trips), this results in 15 greater trips on a daily basis, 1 greater trip during the AM peak hour, and 1 greater trip during the PM peak hour. This increase in project traffic from the modified development plan (i.e., 15 greater daily trips, 1 greater AM peak hour trip, and 1 greater PM peak hour trip) is considered nominal, and therefore no new traffic impacts are expected to be generated to the previously studied intersections from the 2021 traffic study. Table 2 Project Trip Generation Comparison – Modified Project vs. Previous Project1 Land Use (ITE Code) Quantity Units2 AM PM Daily In Out Total In Out Total Modified Lakepointe Apartments Description [1] 152 DU 17 53 70 53 32 85 1,113 Previous Lakepointe Apartments Description3 [2] 150 DU 16 53 69 53 31 84 1,098 Modified vs. Previous Lakepointe Apartments Trip Generation [1] – [2] +1 0 +1 0 +1 +1 +15 1 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017). 2 DU: Dwelling Units. 3 Source: Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021 BOWLUS PACIFIC RK17752 / 2395-2021-01 Page 5 E. Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing and proposed land uses and highways within the study area. The outbound and inbound project trip distribution patterns are consistent with the directional orientation of traffic originally analyzed in the 2021 Traffic Study. The outbound and inbound project trip distributions for the proposed project are shown in Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2, respectively. F. Project and Future Traffic Volumes Project Traffic Volumes The assignment of project traffic to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the project’s trip generation, trip distribution, and proposed arterial highway and local street systems that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the site. It should be noted that in order to provide a conservative assessment, the trip generation for the modified project (i.e., 1,113 daily trips, 70 AM peak hour trips, 85 PM peak hour trips) have been utilized. Project traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit E. Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Traffic Volumes Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project traffic volumes consist of two (2) years of annual growth on top of the existing Year 2021 traffic volumes at two percent (2%) per year (i.e., 4% total growth), plus traffic generated by the proposed project. Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Traffic Volumes for weekday AM and PM peak hours are shown in Exhibit F. Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Traffic Volumes Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project traffic volumes consist of two (2) years of annual growth on top of the existing Year 2021 traffic volumes at two percent (2%) per BOWLUS PACIFIC RK17752 / 2395-2021-01 Page 6 year (i.e., 4% total growth), plus traffic generated by the cumulative projects and traffic generated by the proposed project. Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Traffic Volumes for weekday AM and PM peak hours are shown in Exhibit G. G. Study Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Analysis In accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, revised May 3, 2022, the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6) is utilized as the technical guide in the evaluation of traffic operations. The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of factors such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. The definitions of level of service for interrupted flow (flow regulated by the existence of traffic control devices) are: • LOS A (Free Flow / Insignificant Delays) describes traffic operations in which progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is extremely short. Generally, LOS A operations for signalized intersections tend to result in most vehicles arriving during the green phase and traveling through the intersection without stopping. • LOS B (Stable Operation / Minimal Delays) describes traffic operations in which progression slightly diminishes but is still considered highly favorable and the cycle length is short. Vehicles stop more often causing a marginal increase in average delay. • LOS C (Stable Operation / Acceptable Delays) describes traffic operations in which progression is favorable and the cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear. Many vehicles still pass through the intersection but a significant number of vehicles are stopping. Average delay is fair. BOWLUS PACIFIC RK17752 / 2395-2021-01 Page 7 • LOS D (Approaching Unstable / Tolerable Delays) describes traffic operations in which progression is ineffective and/or cycle length is long. A considerable amount of vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Average delay is adequate. • LOS E (Unstable Operation / Significant Delays) describes traffic operations in which progression is unfavorable and the cycle length is exceedingly long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. Average delay is high. • LOS F (Forced Flow / Excessive Delays) describes traffic operations in which progression is extremely poor and the cycle length is extremely long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. Average delay is vast. For intersections with stop control on the minor approach only, the calculation of level of service is dependent on the occurrence of gaps occurring in the free-flow traffic movement of the major street, and the level of service is determined based on the worst individual movement on the stop-controlled minor approach or movements sharing a single lane on the stop-controlled minor approach. Table 3 shows the level of service criteria based on the HCM methodology. Table 3 HCM Intersection LOS & Delay Ranges LOS Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) Unsignalized A 0.00 - 10.00 B 10.01 - 15.00 C 15.01 - 25.00 D 25.01 - 35.00 E 35.01 - 50.00 F >50.00 BOWLUS PACIFIC RK17752 / 2395-2021-01 Page 8 The City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, revised May 3, 2022, in general, requires that peak hour intersection operate at LOS “D” or better to be considered acceptable. Therefore, any City intersection operating at LOS “E” or LOS “F” will be considered deficient. However, LOS “E” will be considered acceptable in both the Main Street Overlay area and the Ballpark District Planning Districts in an effort to increase and revitalize these areas. Any intersection operating at LOS “F” will be considered deficient. As such, the minimum acceptable LOS for the one (1) study intersection is LOS “D” or better. Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Level of Service Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project LOS calculations for the study intersection are shown in Table 4 and are based on the Project Completion Conditions (2023) traffic volumes shown in Exhibit F. Table 4 Study Intersection LOS Analysis Summary Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Study Intersection Traffic Control1 Methodology Acceptable LOS Delay (sec/veh)2,3 Level of Service AM PM AM PM 1. Riverside Drive (State Highway 74) at “Proposed” Street CSS HCM 6 D 22.1 21.0 C C 1 CSS = Cross-Street Stop 2 Deficient operation shown in Bold. 3 HCM Analysis Software: PTV Vistro, Version 2022. Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown for intersections with cross- street stop control. BOWLUS PACIFIC RK17752 / 2395-2021-01 Page 9 As shown in Table 4, the one (1) study intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours under Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project. Detailed LOS analysis worksheets for Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project are included in Appendix B. Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Level of Service Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project LOS calculations for the study intersection are shown in Table 5 and are based on the Cumulative Conditions (2023) traffic volumes shown in Exhibit G. Table 5 Study Intersection LOS Analysis Summary Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Study Intersection Traffic Control1 Methodology Acceptable LOS Delay (sec/veh)2,3 Level of Service AM PM AM PM 1. Riverside Drive (State Highway 74) at “Proposed” Street CSS HCM 6 D 32.7 30.6 D D 1 CSS = Cross-Street Stop 2 Deficient operation shown in Bold. 3 HCM Analysis Software: PTV Vistro, Version 2022. Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown for intersections with cross- street stop control. As shown in Table 5, the one (1) study intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project. Detailed LOS analysis worksheets for Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project are included in Appendix C. H. Northbound Left-Turn Pocket Feasibility Analysis This section of the Focused Traffic Impact Analysis addresses the feasibility of a northbound left-turn pocket from Riverside Drive onto the “Proposed” Street serving the project access driveway. BOWLUS PACIFIC RK17752 / 2395-2021-01 Page 10 As previously shown in Appendices B & C, the 95th percentile queue (utilizing the HCM 6 methodology) for the northbound left-turn movement is not expected to exceed 4 feet for any traffic scenario analyzed in this Focused Traffic Impact Analysis. Northbound left- turning vehicles can easily queue within the existing two-way-left-turn (TWLT) median along Riverside Drive before turning onto the “Proposed” Street. A striped left-turn pocket could be accommodated should that be the preference of the City. This would require restriping the existing TWLT median along Riverside Drive. A maximum pocket of approximately 100 feet could be provided to allow for a 90-foot back- to-back transition with the existing 150-foot southbound left-turn pocket at Le Harve Street. A striped northbound left-turn pocket would better enforce the proposed right-turn only access restrictions (i.e., no left-turn ingress/egress) at the project access driveway along Riverside Drive, as compared to the existing TWLT median. I. Conclusions RK Engineering Group, Inc. has completed this Focused Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Lakepointe Apartments Project. RK previously prepared the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021. Since then, the proposed Lakepointe Apartments development plan has been slightly modified, increasing from 150 multifamily dwelling units to 152 multifamily dwelling units. When the modified project is compared to the previous project from the 2021 Traffic Study (i.e., 1,098 daily trips, 69 AM trips, and 84 PM trips), this results in 15 greater trips on a daily basis, 1 greater trip during the AM peak hour, and 1 greater trip during the PM peak hour. This increase in project traffic from the modified development plan (i.e., 15 greater daily trips, 1 greater AM peak hour trip, and 1 greater PM peak hour trip) is considered nominal, and therefore no new traffic impacts are expected to be generated to the previously studied intersections from the 2021 traffic study. The one (1) study intersection of Riverside Drive (State Highway 74) at “Proposed” Street is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours under Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project and Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project traffic scenarios. Lastly, the northbound left-turn movement is not expected to exceed 4 feet for any traffic scenario analyzed in this Focused Traffic Impact Analysis. Northbound left-turning vehicles can easily queue within the existing two-way-left-turn (TWLT) median along Riverside Drive BOWLUS PACIFIC RK17752 / 2395-2021-01 Page 11 before turning onto the “Proposed” Street. A striped left-turn pocket could be accommodated should that be the preference of the City. This would require restriping the existing TWLT median along Riverside Drive. A maximum pocket of approximately 100 feet could be provided to allow for a 90-foot back-to-back transition with the existing 150-foot southbound left-turn pocket at Le Harve Street. RK appreciates the opportunity to assist BOWLUS PACIFIC on this project. If you have any questions regarding this analysis and report, please call me at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Justin Tucker, P.E. Michael Torres, E.I.T. Principal Engineer Engineer II ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Exhibits LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Location Map Exhibit A La keside Hi gh School Stadiu m W ay La ke Crest D rive Le H arve Str e et = Project Site Legend: = Project Site Boundary = Future Roadway / Project Access Riverside Drive1 1 = Study Area Intersection engineeringgroup, inc.LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 engineering N Site Plan Exhibit B LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Existing Conditions (2021) Traffic Volumes Exhibit C La keside Hi gh School Stadiu m W ay La ke Crest D rive Le H arve Str e et = Project Site Legend: = Project Site Boundary = AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Riverside Drive850/928952/7971. Riverside Drive (N-S) at Proposed Street (E-W) 10/20 = Future Roadway / Project Access LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Outbound Project Trip Distribution Exhibit D-1 La keside Hi gh School Stadiu m W ay La ke Crest D rive Le H arve Str e et = Project Site Legend: = Project Site Boundary 60 40 60 40 38 2 2 10 = Percent from Project Riverside Drive= Future Roadway / Project Access LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Inbound Project Trip Distribution Exhibit D-2 La keside Hi gh School Stadiu m W ay La ke Crest D rive Le H arve Str e et = Project Site Legend: = Project Site Boundary 70 30 10 = Percent to Project 60 Riverside Drive2 38 40 40 30 60 70 = Future Roadway / Project Access LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Project Traffic Volumes Exhibit E La keside Hi gh School Stadiu m W ay La ke Crest D rive Le H arve Str e et = Project Site Legend: = Project Site Boundary = AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Riverside Drive1. Riverside Drive (N-S) at Proposed Street (E-W) 10/20 0/07/2132/19 0/0 5/165/16= Future Roadway / Project Access LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Exhibit F La keside Hi gh School Stadiu m W ay La ke Crest D rive Le H arve Str e et = Project Site Legend: = Project Site Boundary = AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Riverside Drive1. Riverside Drive (N-S) at Proposed Street (E-W) 10/20 884/9667/2132/19 0/0 995/8455/16Traffic Volumes = Future Roadway / Project Access LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Exhibit G La keside Hi gh School Stadiu m W ay La ke Crest D rive Le H arve Str e et = Project Site Legend: = Project Site Boundary = AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Riverside Drive1. Riverside Drive (N-S) at Proposed Street (E-W) 10/20 1223/12727/2132/19 0/0 1280/11935/16Traffic Volumes = Future Roadway / Project Access _____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Appendices Appendix A Focused Traffic Impact Analysis Scoping Agreement Traffic Impact Analysis -23- May 2022 Preparation Guide Exhibit B SCOPING AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY This letter acknowledges the City of Lake Elsinore requirements for traffic impact analysis of the following project. The analysis must follow the City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Study Guidelines dated May 2020. Case No. (i.e. TR, PM, CUP, PP) Related Cases - SP No. Provide SP No. and list of other approved or active projects within the SP. EIR No. GPA No. CZ No. Project Name: Project Address: Project Description: Consultant Developer Name: Address: Telephone: A. Trip Generation Source: (ITE 11th Edition or other as approved) Current GP Land Use Proposed Land Use Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Current Trip Generation Proposed Trip Generation (PCE) In Out Total In Out Total AM Trips PM Trips Internal Trip Allowance Yes No ( % Trip Discount) Pass-By Trip Allowance Yes No ( % Trip Discount) Internal and Pass-By trip allowance percentages shall be per NCHRP 684 and the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The pass-by trips at adjacent study area intersections and project driveways shall be indicated on a report figure. Internal trips that use external streets shall be indicated on a report figure. B. Trip Geographic Distribution: N % S % E % W % (Attach exhibit for detailed assignment) C. Background Traffic Project Build-out Year: Phase Year(s), if needed: _____________________________ Annual Ambient Growth Rate: % Other area projects to be analyzed: (to be provided by the City planning department) Model/Forecast methodology 60 Lakepointe Apartments Construction of 152 multi-family housing dwelling units. Residential Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use (RMU) Residential Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use (RMU) HCM 6th Edition and Vistro 2022. Northwest corner of Riverside Drive/Le-Harve Street intersection in the City of Lake Elsinore, CA. George Mears 1662 Dustin Place Riverside, CA 92506 (951) 894-7117 Justin Tucker, P.E. 4000 Westerly Place, Suite 280 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 474-0809 70 85 - - - - - - 17 53 53 32 2023 040 0 2 See Exhibit C-1 and Exhibit C-2 for Outbound and Inbound Project Trip Distributions. Trip Distribution is consistent with previous 2021 traffic study. Traffic Impact Analysis -24- May 2022 Preparation Guide Exhibit B – Scoping Agreement – Page 2 D. Study intersections: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and distribution are determined, or comments from other agencies.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. E. Study Roadway Segments: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and distribution are determined, or comments from other agencies.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. E. Other Jurisdictional Impacts Is this project within one-mile radius of another jurisdiction or a State Highway? Yes No If so, name of Agency: F. Site Plan (please attach figure) G. Specific issues to be addressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysis described in the Guideline) (To be filled out by City) H. Existing Conditions Traffic count data must be new or recent within 1 calendar year. Provide traffic count dates if using other than new counts. Date of counts:__________________________________________________ I. Traffic Study Requirements Traffic Study Required: ___ ____________________________________________ Focused Study Required: ___ ____________________________________________ Exempt from Analysis: ___ ____________________________________________ Recommended by: _____________________________ ________ Consultant’s Representative Date Scoping Agreement Submitted on _____________ Revised on ___________________ Approved Scoping Agreement: _________________________ ________ City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Date Department 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Riverside Drive (N/S) at "Proposed" Street (E/W) Caltrans April 4, 2019 Justin Tucker, P.E.10/24/2022 10/14/2022 10/24/2022 See Exhibit B 1 LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS Focused Traffic Impact Study Scoping Agreement October 24, 2022 The following provides information on the proposed project and summarizes the analysis scope, parameters, and assumptions for review and approval. RK previously prepared the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021. Since then, the proposed Lakepointe Apartments development plan has been slightly modified, increasing from 150 multifamily dwelling units to 152 multifamily dwelling units. As directed by City staff, since the project trip generation difference is expected to result in a nominal increase, a memorandum letter would suffice demonstrating the modified project will not cause any new traffic impacts to the previously studied intersections. However, based on comments received by Caltrans, the City of Lake Elsinore requests that a Focused Traffic Impact Study be prepared to analyze the impacts of the Riverside Drive (Highway 74) at “Proposed Street” intersection that was not previously studied in the 2021 Traffic Study. This Focused Traffic Impact Study will conservatively utilize the trip generation forecast for the modified project (i.e., 152 multifamily dwelling units). This scope of work has been prepared consistent with the previously prepared Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021. A. Project Description: The proposed Lakepointe Apartments Residential Project (hereinafter referred to as “project”) is located north of the Lakeside High School and west of Riverside Drive (State Highway 74), in the City of Lake Elsinore. As discussed above, the modified project consists of the construction of 152 multifamily residential dwelling units. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Access for the project site is planned to be provided via: • One (1) proposed unsignalized full-access driveway maintained on a newly constructed street shared between the project and existing retail uses north of the site. The Focused Traffic Study will analyze the feasibility of a northbound left-turn pocket from Riverside Drive (within the existing TWLT striped median), onto the “Proposed” Street serving this project access driveway. • One (1) proposed unsignalized right-in/right-out driveway along Riverside Drive. 2 As analyzed in the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021, the project is planned to open in 2023 and will be evaluated in one single phase. Exhibit A shows the location of the proposed project. Exhibit B shows the proposed site plan. B. Project Trip Generation: Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. Trip generation is typically estimated based on the trip generation rates from the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. This publication provides a comprehensive evaluation of trip generation rates for a variety of land uses. To maintain consistency with the previously prepared 2021 Traffic Study, the trip generation rates from the 2017 ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) have been utilized for this scoping agreement. Table 1 shows the ITE trip generation rates utilized for the trip generation analysis for the modified Lakepointe Apartments development plan as well as the previous Lakepointe Apartments development plan as detailed in the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021. Table 1 ITE Trip Generation Rates1 Land Use Units2 ITE Code AM PM Daily In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) DU 220 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 1 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017). 2 DU: Dwelling Units. Table 2 shows the trip generation comparison for the modified Lakepointe Apartments development plan vs. the previous Lakepointe Apartments development plan utilizing the trip generation rates shown in Table 1. 3 As shown in Table 2, the modified project is forecast to generate approximately 1,113 daily weekday trips, which include approximately 70 AM peak hour trips and approximately 85 PM peak hour trips. When the modified project is compared to the previous project from the 2021 Traffic Study (i.e., 1,098 daily trips, 69 AM trips, and 84 PM trips), this results in 15 greater trips on a daily basis, 1 greater trip during the AM peak hour, and 1 greater trip during the PM peak hour. C. Project Trip Distribution: Exhibit C-1 shows the outbound trip distribution for the proposed project. Exhibit C-2 shows the inbound trip distribution for the proposed project. D. Study Intersections: The Focused Traffic Analysis will evaluate the following study intersection: 1. Riverside Drive (State Highway 74) (N/S) at “Proposed” Street (E/W). E. Analysis Scenarios: Consistent with the previously prepared Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021, the analysis will evaluate traffic conditions for the following scenarios during the weekday AM (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and weekday PM (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak hours. Since the one (1) study intersection does not currently exist, only the “With Project” traffic scenarios from the 2021 Traffic Study will be analyzed. • Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions; and • Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions. Table 2 Project Trip Generation Comparison – Modified Project vs. Previous Project1 Land Use (ITE Code) Quantity Units2 AM PM Daily In Out Total In Out Total Modified Lakepointe Apartments Description [1] 152 DU 17 53 70 53 32 85 1,113 Previous Lakepointe Apartments Description3 [2] 150 DU 16 53 69 53 31 84 1,098 Modified vs. Previous Lakepointe Apartments Trip Generation [1] – [2] +1 0 +1 0 +1 +1 +15 1 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017). 2 DU: Dwelling Units. 3 Source: Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021 4 F. Traffic Analysis Parameters: This Focused Traffic Analysis will utilize the following parameters: • PTV Vistro 2022 analysis software and the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6) methodology. • Optimized signal timing. G. Existing Traffic Counts: The analysis will utilize the 2019 traffic volumes utilized in the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021. Volumes will be tracked from the intersection of Riverside Drive (State Highway 74) at Lincoln Street to determine the existing through volumes at the “Proposed” street along Riverside Drive (State Highway 74). H. Project Completion (Year 2023) Conditions Traffic Volumes: Project completion (Year 2023) background traffic volumes will be derived by applying an annual growth rate of two percent (2%) per year to Year 2019 existing traffic volumes (i.e., 8% total growth). I. Cumulative Conditions (Year 2023) Conditions Traffic Volumes: Cumulative (Year 2023) background traffic volumes will be derived by applying an annual growth rate of two percent (2%) per year to Year 2019 existing traffic volumes (i.e., 8% total growth) and addition of traffic associated with the specific cumulative previously utilized in the Lakepointe Apartments Traffic Impact Study, dated July 7, 2021. J. Performance Criteria: The City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, revised May 3, 2022, the City of Lake Elsinore, in general, requires that peak -hour intersections operate at LOS “D” or better to be considered acceptable. Therefore, any City intersection operating at LOS “E” or LOS “F” will be considered deficient. However, LOS “E” will be considered acceptable in both the Main Street Overlay area and the Ballpark District Planning Districts in an effort to increase activity and revitalize these areas. Any intersection operating at LOS “F” will be considered deficient. As such, the minimum acceptable LOS for the one (1) study intersection is LOS “D” or better. K. Impact Criteria: Improvements shall be identified to improve intersection operations to the General Plan target LOS (LOS “D” or better). 5 If you have any questions regarding this scope of work, please call us at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Approved by: Justin Tucker, P.E. City of Lake Elsinore Principal Engineer Attachments Date Attachments LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Location Map Exhibit A La keside Hi gh School St a diu m W ay La ke C rest D r ive Le H a rv e Street = Project Site Legend: = Project Site Boundary = Proposed Roadway Riverside Drive1 1 = Study Area Intersection LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Site Plan Exhibit B LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Outbound Project Trip Distribution Exhibit C-1 La keside Hi gh School St a diu m W ay La ke C rest D r ive Le H a rv e Street = Project Site Legend: = Project Site Boundary = Proposed Roadway 60 40 60 40 38 2 2 10 = Percent from Project Riverside Drive LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 2395-2021-01 Inbound Project Trip Distribution Exhibit C-2 La keside Hi gh School St a diu m W ay La ke C rest D r ive Le H a rv e Street = Project Site Legend: = Project Site Boundary = Proposed Roadway 70 30 10 = Percent to Project 60 Riverside Drive2 38 40 40 30 60 70 Appendix B Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project LOS Analysis Worksheets 0.139Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 22.1Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Riverside Drive (NS) at Proposed Street (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Proposed StreetRiverside DriveRiverside DriveName Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 034510479317Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0812622332Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.95000.95000.95000.95000.95000.9500Peak Hour Factor 03259958847Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 03259958847Base Volume Input [veh/h] Proposed StreetRiverside DriveRiverside DriveName Volumes RK Engineering Group Inc. Scenario 1: 1 Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions – AM Peak Hour (JN: 2395-2021-01) Lakepointe Apartments Focused TIA Version 2022 (SP 0-10) Generated with CIntersection LOS 0.41d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] CAAApproach LOS 22.070.000.08d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 11.8911.890.000.000.000.8095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.480.480.000.000.000.0395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] CCAAABMovement LOS 20.4022.070.000.000.0010.50d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.140.000.010.010.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 200Number of Storage Spaces in Median YesTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings RK Engineering Group Inc. Scenario 1: 1 Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions – AM Peak Hour (JN: 2395-2021-01) Lakepointe Apartments Focused TIA Version 2022 (SP 0-10) Generated with 0.081Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 21.0Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Riverside Drive (NS) at Proposed Street (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Proposed StreetRiverside DriveRiverside DriveName Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 02017889101722Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0542222546Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.95000.95000.95000.95000.95000.9500Peak Hour Factor 0191684596621Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 0191684596621Base Volume Input [veh/h] Proposed StreetRiverside DriveRiverside DriveName Volumes RK Engineering Group Inc. Scenario 2: 2 Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions – PM Peak Hour (JN: 2395-2021-01) Lakepointe Apartments Focused TIA Version 2022 (SP 0-10) Generated with CIntersection LOS 0.32d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] CAAApproach LOS 20.960.000.21d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 6.596.590.000.000.002.2695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.260.260.000.000.000.0995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] CCAAAAMovement LOS 16.9420.960.000.000.009.94d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.080.000.010.010.03V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 200Number of Storage Spaces in Median YesTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings RK Engineering Group Inc. Scenario 2: 2 Project Completion Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions – PM Peak Hour (JN: 2395-2021-01) Lakepointe Apartments Focused TIA Version 2022 (SP 0-10) Generated with Appendix C Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project LOS Analysis Worksheets 0.208Volume to Capacity (v/c): DLevel Of Service: 32.7Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Riverside Drive (NS) at Proposed Street (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Proposed StreetRiverside DriveRiverside DriveName Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0345134712877Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0813373222Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.95000.95000.95000.95000.95000.9500Peak Hour Factor 0325128012237Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 0325128012237Base Volume Input [veh/h] Proposed StreetRiverside DriveRiverside DriveName Volumes RK Engineering Group Inc. Scenario 3: 3 Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions – AM Peak Hour (JN: 2395-2021-01) Lakepointe Apartments Focused TIA Version 2022 (SP 0-10) Generated with DIntersection LOS 0.45d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] DAAApproach LOS 32.660.000.07d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 18.7918.790.000.000.001.0595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.750.750.000.000.000.0495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] DDAAABMovement LOS 30.2232.660.000.000.0012.17d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.210.000.010.010.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 200Number of Storage Spaces in Median YesTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings RK Engineering Group Inc. Scenario 3: 3 Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions – AM Peak Hour (JN: 2395-2021-01) Lakepointe Apartments Focused TIA Version 2022 (SP 0-10) Generated with 0.125Volume to Capacity (v/c): DLevel Of Service: 30.6Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Riverside Drive (NS) at Proposed Street (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Proposed StreetRiverside DriveRiverside DriveName Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 020171256133922Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0543143356Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.95000.95000.95000.95000.95000.9500Peak Hour Factor 019161193127221Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 019161193127221Base Volume Input [veh/h] Proposed StreetRiverside DriveRiverside DriveName Volumes RK Engineering Group Inc. Scenario 4: 4 Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions – PM Peak Hour (JN: 2395-2021-01) Lakepointe Apartments Focused TIA Version 2022 (SP 0-10) Generated with DIntersection LOS 0.33d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] DAAApproach LOS 30.630.000.19d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 10.4410.440.000.000.003.1595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.420.420.000.000.000.1395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] DDAAABMovement LOS 25.5930.630.000.000.0011.88d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.120.000.010.010.04V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 200Number of Storage Spaces in Median YesTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings RK Engineering Group Inc. Scenario 4: 4 Cumulative Conditions (2023) With Project Conditions – PM Peak Hour (JN: 2395-2021-01) Lakepointe Apartments Focused TIA Version 2022 (SP 0-10) Generated with Addendum No. 1 to the Initial Study / MND 2016-01 (SCH#2016071001) Lake Pointe Apartments Project ADDENDUM APPENDIX 5c N53°06'08"W 953.43' N36°57'32"E 370.41'S53°05'49"E 972.01' RIVERSIDE DRIVECLN36°55'32"E 370.32'POOLTOT LOT 8 CARPORTSMaintenanceBldg10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 8 CARPORTS 8 CARPORTS 8 CARPORTS 8 CARPORTS 7 CARPORTS9 10 11 11 10 10 11 11 11 11 17 17 5 410 7NOPARKINGVAN EV CHARGEREVEV CHARGEREV 6 CARPORTS6 CARPORTSNOPARKINGPRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE 101010877 99 10 9 7 CARPORTS NOPARKINGNO PARKING ACCESS EASEMENT TO PARCELS 28' DRIVE26' DRIVE26' DRIVE28' DRIVENEW STREET RETENTION28'-6" DRIVETRASHTRASHTRASHTRASHGATE 28' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING) 28' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING) 28' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING) 28' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING)26' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING)26' DRIVEPRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE MONUMEN T S IGN40'379-090-011, 379-090-012 & 379-090-023SM 10 1154 GATE 6 7 CALL BOX MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/27/23 SCALE: 1" = 30' - 0"1 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN 18 BLDG. TYPE C (4) BLDG. TYPE C (5) BLDG. TYPE D (6) BLDG. TYPE F (7) BLDG. TYPE A (1) BLDG. TYPE B (3) BLDG. TYPE C (2) BLDG. TYPE E (8) BLDG. TYPE D (9) 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY3 STORY 2 STORY CLUBHOUSE LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS LAKE ELSINORE, CA 152 Apartment Homes LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP BUILDING TYPE A PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 8 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. TOTAL: 8,544 S.F. 640 S.F. 640 S.F. 8 D.U. BUILDING TYPE B PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 82 S.F. 8 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 8 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. TOTAL: 15,272 S.F. 1,312 S.F. 1,312 S.F. 16 D.U. BUILDING TYPE C (3 BUILDINGS) PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 16 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. TOTAL: 17,088 S.F. 1,280 S.F. 1,280 S.F. 16 D.U. BUILDING TYPE D (2 BUILDINGS) PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 82 S.F. 8 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 0 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 8 D.U. TOTAL: 16,360 S.F. 1,312 S.F. 1,312 S.F. 16 D.U. BUILDING TYPE E PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 82 S.F. 18 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 0 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 6 D.U. TOTAL: 22,362 S.F. 2,004 S.F. 1,968 S.F. 24 D.U. CLUBHOUSE: CLUBHOUSE 2,212 S.F. MAIL PATIO 176 S.F. PORCH 60 S.F. MAINTENANCE BUILDING: MAINTENANCE BUILDING 780 S.F. BUILDING TYPE F PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F.QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 184 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 24 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. TOTAL: 25,632 S.F. 640 S.F. 640 S.F. 24 D.U. BUILDINGS TOTAL PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 35,322 S.F. 1,512 S.F. 1,968 S.F. 42 D.U. 2 93,984 S.F. 3,520 S.F. 3,520 S.F. 88 D.U. 3 26,488 S.F. 820 S.F. 984 S.F. 22 D.U. TOTAL: 155,794 S.F. 5,852 S.F. 6,472 S.F. 152 D.U. INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS SUMMARY PLAN SQ. FTG. BDRMS BATHS BALCONY QUANTITY 1 841 S.F. 1 1 82 S.F 42 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 2 2 80 S.F 88 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 3 2 82 S.F 22 D.U. TOTAL:152 D.U. UNIT SUMMARY PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING REQUIRED: 1 BDRM: 42 D.U. X 1.66 SPACES = 70 SPACES 2 BDRMS: 88 D.U. X 2.33 SPACES = 206 SPACES 3 BDRMS: 22 D.U. X 2.33 SPACES = 52 SPACES TOTAL: 152 D.U.328 SPACES QUANTITY PROVIDED: 336 SPACES TYPE QUANTITY QUANTITY REQUIRED PROVIDED CARPORTS: 152 SPACES 152 SPACES OPEN SPACES: 176 SPACES 184 SPACES HANDICAP SPACES: CARPORTS: 152 X 2% 4 SPACES 4 SPACES OPEN SPACES: ASSIGNED: 144 X 2% 3 SPACES 3 SPACES GUEST: 40 X 5% 2 SPACES 2 SPACES ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING: FUTURE EVC SPACES REQUIRED: 34 SPACES 1 ACTIVE EVC VAN SPACE PROVIDED 2 ACTIVE EVC SPACES PROVIDED PARKING SPACE SIZES: ALL OPEN NON-HANDICAP PARKING SPACES SHALL BE 9' WIDE BY 18' DEEP WITH WHEEL STOPS WHEN PARKING SPACES ARE ADJACENT TO WALKWAYS. STRIPING SHALL BE 4" WIDE PAINTED ON TOP OF PAVING. ALL CARPORTS SHALL BE 9'-6" WIDE BY 20' DEEP. HANDICAP SPACES SHALL BE 10' WIDE IN CARPORTS. PROJECT SUMMARY ZONE:RMU APN:379-090-022 GROSS SITE AREA:8.2652 ACRES (360,033 S.F.) NET SITE AREA:7.2156 ACRES (314,313 S.F.) NO. OF DWELLING UNITS: 152 D.U. DENSITY:21.1 D.U./ ACRE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V-B, SPRINKLERED OCCUPANCY TYPE:R-2, B, U PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE SUMMARY PARKING LOT AREA: 123,127 S.F. REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA: 123,127 S.F. X 5% 6,156 S.F. (5%) PROVIDED LANDSCAPE AREA: 9,145 S.F. (7.4%) COMMON OPEN SPACE SUMMARY NET SITE AREA:314,313 S.F. PARKING LOT AREA: 123,127 S.F. BUILDINGS' FOOTPRINTS: 76,094 S.F. COMMON OPEN SPACE: 117,158 S.F. (37.3%) VICINITY MAP NORTHRIVERSIDE DRIVELAKESI D E HIG H S C H O OL LINCOLN STREET LEACH CHANNEL CANYON MACHADO STREETGRAND AVE. DRIVE HIGHLAND AVE. LE HARVE SITE 2 STORY 2 STORY3 STORY 2 STORY KNOX BOX RIDGEHIP4:12 HIPHIPHIP 4:124:124:12RIDGE4:124:12HIPHIP4:12HIPHIP4:12RIDGE4:124:12HIPHIP4:12HIPHIP4:125' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAYKNOX BOX INFRARED GATE OPENER RAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMPRAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMPRAMP RAMP 13'17'20'-0" 20' 15'17'15'15'10'10'10'10'15'20'-0" 15' 12' 13'13'13'18'18'20'-0"15'15'17'28'-0"17'11'-6"15'10'20'17'11'11 9 10 9 6 CARPORTSRIDGE4:124:12HIPHIP4:12HIPHIP4:1210' 12'10'10'9'20'26'20'16'28'20'6'20'28'18'21'16'-0"28'-0"32'30'-0"7'6' NO PARKING RAMP RAMP BUILDING TYPE A 1 BLDG 8,544 S.F. TOTAL APT. BUILDINGS SUMMARY BUILDING TYPE B 1 BLDG 15,272 S.F. BUILDING TYPE C 3 BLDGS 51,264 S.F. BUILDING TYPE D 2 BLDGS 32,720 S.F. BUILDING TYPE E 1 BLDG 22,362 S.F. BUILDING TYPE F 1 BLDG 25,632 S.F. TOTAL S.F. 9 BLDGS 155,794 S.F. INDEX PAGE TITLE 1 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN 2 PERIMETER FENCE & WALL PLAN 3 UNIT 1 FLOOR PLANS 4 UNIT 2 FLOOR PLANS 5 UNIT 3 FLOOR PLANS 6 BLDG A FLOOR PLANS 7 BLDG A EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS; ROOF PLAN 8 BLDG B FLOOR PLANS 9 BLDG B EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS; ROOF PLAN 10 BLDG C FLOOR PLANS 11 BLDG C EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS; ROOF PLAN 12 BLDG D FLOOR PLANS 13 BLDG D EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS; ROOF PLAN 14 BLDG E FLOOR PLANS 15 BLDG E FLOOR PLANS 16 BLDG E EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS; ROOF PLAN 17 BLDG F FLOOR PLANS 18 BLDG F FLOOR PLANS 19 BLDG F EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS; ROOF PLAN 20 CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLAN 21 CLUBHOUSE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 22 CLUBHOUSE ROOF PLAN 23 MAINTENANCE BLDG 24 CARPORT 25 CARPORT 26 CARPORT 27 CARPORT 28 CARPORT 29 CARPORT 30 CARPORT 31 CARPORT 32 CARPORT 33 TRASH 34 TRASH N53°06'08"W 953.43' N36°57'32"E 370.41'S53°05'49"E 972.01' RIVERSIDE DRIVECLN36°55'32"E 370.32'POOLTOT LOT 8 CARPORTSMaintenanceBldg10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 10 CARPORTS 8 CARPORTS 8 CARPORTS 8 CARPORTS 8 CARPORTS 7 CARPORTS9 10 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 17 17 5 410 7NOPARKINGVAN EV CHARGEREVEV CHARGEREV 6 CARPORTS6 CARPORTSNOPARKINGPRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE 101010877 99 10 9 7 CARPORTS NOPARKINGACCESS EASEMENT TO 28' DRIVE26' DRIVE26' DRIVE28' DRIVENEW STREET RETENTION28'-6" DRIVETRASHTRASHTRASHTRASHGATE 28' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING) 28' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING) 28' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING) 28' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING)26' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING)26' DRIVE (A.C. PAVING)PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE40'N.W. 5 AC. PROPERTY 10 1154 GATE 6 7 CALL BOX 26'5/8" SQ. WROUGHT IRON PICKETS 16" SQ. SIM. STONE PLASTERS SPLITFACE CONCRETE CAP 6' HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE 16" SQ. SIM. STONE PLASTERS: EL DORADO STONE BOARDWALK CLIFFSTONE 6' HIGH CONCRETE BLOCK WALL 6'SPLITFACE CONCRETE BLOCK SPLITFACE CONCRETE CAP W/ STONE PILASTERS @ 50' O.C. BLDG. TYPE C (4) BLDG. TYPE C (5) BLDG. TYPE D (6) BLDG. TYPE F (7) BLDG. TYPE A (1) BLDG. TYPE B (3) BLDG. TYPE C (2) BLDG. TYPE E (8) BLDG. TYPE D (9) 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY3 STORY 2 STORY CLUBHOUSE LAKE POINTE APARTMENTS LAKE ELSINORE, CA 152 Apartment Homes LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP VICINITY MAP NORTHRIVERSIDE DRIVELAKESI D E HIG H S C H O OL LINCOLN STREET LEACH CHANNEL CANYON MACHADO STREETGRAND AVE. DRIVE HIGHLAND AVE. LE HARVE SITE 2 STORY 2 STORY3 STORY 2 STORY KNOX BOX RIDGEHIP4:12 HIPHIPHIP4:124:124:12RIDGE4:124:12HIPHIP4:12HIPHIP4:12RIDGE4:124:12HIPHIP4:12HIPHIP4:125' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAY5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAYKNOX BOX INFRARED GATE OPENER RAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMPRAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMPRAMP RAMP 15' MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/27/23 SCALE: 1" = 30' - 0" PERIMETER FENCE & WALL PLAN6' HIGH W.I. FENCE W/STONE VENEER COLUMNS6' HIGH SPLITFACE BLOCK WALL 6' HIGH SPLITFACE BLOCK WALL 6' HIGH SPLITFACE BLOCK WALL 6' HIGH W.I. FENCE W/ STONE VENEER COLUMNS 6' HIGH W.I. FENCE W/ STONE VENEER COLUMNS 6' HIGH SPLITFACEBLOCK WALL6' HIGH SPLITFACE BLOCK WALL 6' HIGH W.I. FENCE W/STONE VENEER COLUMNS6' HIGH SPLITFACE BLOCK WALL 6 CARPORTSRIDGE4:124:12HIPHIP4:12HIPHIP4:12MONUMENT SIGNNO PARKING RAMP RAMP 910911 NO PARKING RAMPRAMP13'17'20'-0" 20' 15'17'15'15'13'13'10'10'15'20'-0" 15' 12' 13'13'13'18'18'20'-0"15'15'17'28'-0"17'11'-6"15'10'17'11'10' 12'10'10'9'18'28'20'6'20'28'18'21'16'-0"28'-0"32'30'-0"7'6'6' MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" PLAN 1 FLOOR PLANS 3 1ST FLOOR PLAN 32'-10"32'-10" 32'-10" 32'-10"34'-10"34'-10"2ND FLOOR PLAN KITCHEN BREAKFAST H/C BATH W/D REFR. SINK D/W LINEN W.I.C. LINEN BDRM 1 GREAT ROOM STOR. PANTRY COVERED BALCONY RANGE/MICROKITCHEN BREAKFAST BATH 1 W/D REFR. SINK D/W LINEN W.I.C. LINEN BDRM 1 GREAT ROOM STOR. COVERED PATIO RANGE/MICROLINEN BDRM 1 LINEN BDRM 1 LINEN BDRM 1 LINEN BDRM 1 PLAN 1 841 S.F. 1 BDRM./ 1 BATHUTILITY CLOSET3 Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" PLAN 2 FLOOR PLANS 4 41'-2 1/2"35'-0"41'-2 1/2"35'-0"1ST FLOOR PLAN2ND FLOOR PLAN BREAKFAST RANGE/MICROREFR. SINKD/W PANTRY COAT W/D LINEN BDRM 1 BDRM 2 BATH 1 BATH 2 W.I.C. HALL GREAT ROOM COVERED PATIO STOR. KITCHEN BREAKFAST RANGE/MICROREFR. SINKD/W PANTRY COAT W/D LINEN BDRM 1 BDRM 2 H/C BATHW.I.C. HALL GREAT ROOM COVERED BALCONY STOR. KITCHEN BDRM 1 W.I.C. BDRM 1 W.I.C. BDRM 1 W.I.C. BDRM 1 W.I.C. PLAN 2 1,068 S.F. 2 BDRM./ 2 BATHUTILITY CLOSET4 Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" PLAN 3 FLOOR PLANS 5 43'-7 1/2"35'-0"1ST FLOOR PLAN2ND FLOOR PLAN PLAN 3 1,204 S.F. 3 BDRM./ 2 BATH REFR. SINKD/W PANTRY COAT KITCHEN W/D LINEN H/C BATH BATH 2 GREAT ROOM BDRM 1 BDRM 2 BDRM 3 HALL RANGE/MICROISLAND NOOK STOR.COVERED PATIO REFR. SINKD/W PANTRY COAT KITCHEN W/D LINEN BATH 1 BATH 2 GREAT ROOM BDRM 1 BDRM 2 BDRM 3 HALL RANGE/MICRONOOK STOR.COVERED BALCONY 43'-7 1/2"35'-0"BDRM 1 BDRM 2 UTILITY CLOSET5 Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE A FLOOR PLANS 6 DWELLING UNITS DATA PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 84 S.F. 0 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 8 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. TOTAL: 8,544 S.F. 640 S.F. 640 S.F. 8 D.U. 82'-7" 82'-7"70'-2"70'-2"82'-7" 82'-7"70'-2"70'-2"PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R 1ST FLOOR PLAN2ND FLOOR PLAN UTILITY CLOSETDN UP DN UP A A A A Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE A EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ROOF PLAN SECTION 7 RIGHT SIDE VIEW FRONT & REAR VIEWS BUILDING TYPE A ROOF PLANLEFT SIDE VIEW HIPHI PHI P HIPHIPHIPHIPHI P HI P HIP HIPHIPHIP HIPHIP HIP HIP HIPRIDGE RIDGERIDGERIDGE RIDGERIDGERIDGEV A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E YVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY VALLEYVALLEY4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"1'-6"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"1'-6"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"1'-6"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL. SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X8 SHAPED FOAM TRIM VINYL WINDOWS 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X8SHAPED FOAM TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X8 SHAPED FOAM TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE 30'-3 7/8"12 4 12 4 12 4 Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 GREAT ROOMKITCHEN GREAT ROOMKITCHEN COVERED PATIO COVERED BALCONY KITCHEN GREAT ROOM KITCHEN COVERED PATIO GREAT ROOM COVERED BALCONY 9'-1"8'-0"T.O.PLATE T.O.ARCH T.O.SLAB 9'-1"8'-0"7'-6"7'-6"T.O.S.G.D.42"T.O.PLATE T.O.ARCH T.O.S.G.D. GUARDRAIL T.O.FLR. BUILDING SECTION AA 12 4 12 4 2.12.1R A A 6"X6" FOAM OUTLOOKERS 6"X6" SHAPED CORBEL 12" SQ. X 2" DEEP REVEAL 42" HIGH W.I. GUARDRAIL MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE B FLOOR PLANS 8 DWELLING UNITS DATA PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 84 S.F. 8 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 8 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. TOTAL: 15,272 S.F. 1,312 S.F. 1,312 S.F. 16 D.U. 148'-7"70'-2"148'-7"70'-2"148'-7"70'-2"148'-7"70'-2"PLAN 2R PLAN 1 PLAN 1R PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 1R PLAN 1 PLAN 2R PLAN 1 PLAN 1R PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 2RUTILITY CLOSET2ND FLOOR PLAN 1ST FLOOR PLAN DN UP DN UP DN UP DN UP A A A A PLAN 1PLAN 1R Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE B EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ROOF PLAN SECTION 9 BUILDING TYPE B ROOF PLAN FRONT & REAR VIEWSLEFT SIDE VIEW RIGHT SIDE VIEW HI PHI PHIPHI P HIPHIPHIPHI P HIPHIPHIPHIPHI P HIPHIPHIPHIP HIP HIPHIPHIPHIPHIPHIPHIPHIP RIDGERIDGE RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGE RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGEV A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E Y VALLEYVALLEYV A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E YVALLEYVALLEY VALLEYVALLEYVALLEY VALLEYVALLEY VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY 4:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"1'-4"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"1'-4"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"1'-4"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL. SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X8 SHAPED FOAM TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X8 SHAPED FOAM TRIM VINYL WINDOWS 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE 12 4 12 4 12 4 GREAT ROOMKITCHEN GREAT ROOMKITCHEN COVERED PATIO COVERED BALCONY KITCHEN GREAT ROOM KITCHEN COVERED PATIO GREAT ROOM COVERED BALCONY 9'-1"8'-0"T.O.PLATE T.O.ARCH T.O.SLAB 9'-1"8'-0"7'-6"7'-6"T.O.S.G.D.42"T.O.PLATE T.O.ARCH T.O.S.G.D. GUARDRAIL T.O.FLR. BUILDING SECTION AA 12 4 12 4 2.12.1R A A 6"X6" FOAM OUTLOOKERS 12" SQ. X 2" DEEP REVEAL 42" HIGH W.I. GUARDRAIL Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE C FLOOR PLANS 10 DWELLING UNITS DATA PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 84 S.F. 0 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 16 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. TOTAL: 17,088 S.F. 672 S.F. 672 S.F. 16 D.U.70'-2"70'-2"165'-4" 165'-4"UTILITY CLOSET70'-2"70'-2"165'-4" 165'-4" 1ST FLOOR PLAN 2ND FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R DN UP DN UP DN UP DN UP A A A A Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE C EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ROOF PLAN SECTION 11 BUILDING TYPE C ROOF PLAN FRONT & REAR VIEWSRIGHT SIDE VIEW LEFT SIDE VIEW HI PHI PHI PHIP HIPHIPHI P HIPHI P HIPHIPHI P HI P HI P HIPHIPHIPHIP HIPHIPHIP HIP HIPHIP HIPHIP HIPHIP RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGE RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGEHIP HIPV A L L E YVALLEYVALLEYV A L L E Y VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYV A L L E Y VALLEYVALLEYV A L L E Y VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY VALLEY VALLEYVALLEYVALLEY VALLEYVALLEY VALLEY4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"1'-4"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"1'-4"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"1'-4"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL. SIMULATED STONE VENEER SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X8 SHAPED FOAM TRIM VINYL WINDOWS 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE 12 4 12 4 12 4 GREAT ROOMKITCHEN GREAT ROOMKITCHEN COVERED PATIO COVERED BALCONY KITCHEN GREAT ROOM KITCHEN COVERED PATIO GREAT ROOM COVERED BALCONY 9'-1"8'-0"T.O.PLATE T.O.ARCH T.O.SLAB 9'-1"8'-0"7'-6"7'-6"T.O.S.G.D.42"T.O.PLATE T.O.ARCH T.O.S.G.D. GUARDRAIL T.O.FLR. BUILDING SECTION AA 12 4 12 4 2.12.1R A A 12" SQ. X 2" DEEP REVEAL 42" HIGH W.I. GUARDRAIL 6"X6" FOAM OUTLOOKERS Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE D FLOOR PLANS 12 DWELLING UNITS DATA PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 84 S.F. 8 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 0 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 8 D.U. TOTAL: 16,360 S.F. 664 S.F. 664 S.F. 16 D.U. 156'-4"70'-2"156'-4"70'-2"156'-4"70'-2"156'-4"70'-2"1ST FLOOR PLAN 2ND FLOOR PLAN UTILITY CLOSETPLAN 3R PLAN 3 PLAN 3RPLAN 3 PLAN 1R PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1R PLAN 3R PLAN 3 PLAN 3RPLAN 3 PLAN 1R PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1R DN UP DN UP DN UP DN UP A A A A Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE D EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ROOF PLAN SECTION 13 BUILDING TYPE D ROOF PLAN FRONT & REAR VIEWSRIGHT SIDE VIEW LEFT SIDE VIEW HI PHIPHI PHIPHI P HI P HI P H I P HIPHI P HI P HIPHI P HIPHI P HI PHIPHI P HI PHI PHIPHIP HIP HIP HIPHIPHIP HIPHIPHIPHIPHIPHIPHIPHIP HIP HIPHIPHIP HIP RIDGE RIDGE RIDGERIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGEVALLEYV A L L E YVALLEYV A L L E Y V A L L E Y VALLEYV A L L E Y VALLEYVALLEYV A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E Y VALLEYV A L L E YVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY VALLEYVALLEY VALLEY VALLEY VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY V A L L E Y RIDGE VALLEYVALLEY4:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"1'-6"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-0"7'-6"9'-1"7'-6"9'-1"1'-6"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-0"7'-6"9'-1"7'-6"9'-1"1'-6"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.PL. T.O.PL. SIMULATED STONE VENEER SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X8 SHAPED FOAM TRIM VINYL WINDOWS 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE 12 412 4 12 4 BDRM 3 HALL BATH 1 BDRM 3 HALL BATH 1 BDRM 3HALLBATH 1 BDRM 3HALLBATH 1 SPRINKLERED ATTIC SPRINKLERED ATTIC 9'-1"7'-6"T.O.PLATE T.O.WDO. T.O.SLAB 9'-1"7'-6"T.O.PLATE T.O.WDO. T.O.FLR.8'-0"7'-8"BUILDING SECTION AA 12 4 33R A A 12" SQ. X 2" DEEP REVEAL 42" HIGH W.I. GUARDRAIL 6"X6" FOAM OUTLOOKERS Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE E FLOOR PLANS 14 DWELLING UNITS DATA PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 84 S.F. 18 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 0 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 6 D.U. TOTAL: 22,362 S.F. 668 S.F. 1,336 S.F. D.U.70'-2"69'-10"144'-1" 144'-1"UTILITY CLOSETPLAN 3R PLAN 3 PLAN 3R PLAN 3 PLAN 1 PLAN 1R PLAN 1 PLAN 1RPLAN 1 PLAN 1R PLAN 1 PLAN 1RPLAN 1 PLAN 1R70'-2"69'-10"144'-1" 142'-7 1/2" 2ND FLOOR PLAN 1ST FLOOR PLAN UP DN UPUP UP UP UP DNUP UP DN UP UP DN UP UP A A A A Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 24 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE E FLOOR PLANS 15 3RD FLOOR PLAN70'-2"69'-10"142'-7 1/2" 142'-7 1/2" PLAN 3R PLAN 3 PLAN 1 PLAN 1RPLAN 1 PLAN 1RPLAN 1 PLAN 1R DWELLING UNITS DATA PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 84 S.F. 18 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 0 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 6 D.U. TOTAL: 22,362 S.F. 668 S.F. 1,336 S.F. 24 D.U. DNDN DNDN A A Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE E EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ROOF PLAN SECTION 16 BUILDING TYPE E ROOF PLAN FRONT VIEW (REAR VIEW OPPOSITE HAND)LEFT SIDE VIEW RIGHT SIDE VIEW6'-8"T.O.DR.9'-1"T.O.PL. 12 4 12 4 2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL.7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"2'-0"FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL. 12 4 2'-0"7'-6"9'-1"7'-6"9'-1"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.PL.7'-6"9'-1"2'-0"FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.PL. T.O.PL. SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 12 4 2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL.7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"2'-0"FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.3'-6"GUARDRAIL FIN.FLR.3'-6"GUARDRAIL 2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR.3'-6"GUARDRAIL T.O.PL.7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR.3'-6"GUARDRAIL1'-6"T.O.PL.RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGEVALLEYV A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E YVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S.D.S.D.S. D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S. D.S. 2'-0"2'-0"RIDGERIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGEHIPHIPHIPHIPHIPHIP HIP HIPHIP HIP HIP HIP HIPHIP HIPHI P HIPHI PHI PHI P HIPHIPHIPHI P HIPHI P HIPHIPHIPHIPHI P VALLEY VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY VALLEYVALLEY HIP V A L L E Y VALLEYVALLEYV A L L E Y V A L L E Y VALLEYV A L L E Y VALLEY4:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:124:12 D.S. GREAT ROOMKITCHEN GREAT ROOMKITCHEN GREAT ROOM KITCHEN GREAT ROOM KITCHEN GREAT ROOMKITCHENGREAT ROOM KITCHEN 9'-1"7'-6"T.O.PLATE T.O.WDO. T.O.SLAB 9'-1"7'-6"T.O.PLATE T.O.WDO. T.O.FLR.9'-1"7'-6"T.O.PLATE T.O.WDO. T.O.FLR. BUILDING SECTION AA 12 4 11R A A 12" SQ. X 2" DEEP REVEAL 42" HIGH W.I. GUARDRAIL 6"X6" FOAM OUTLOOKERS SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X8 SHAPED FOAM TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE F FLOOR PLANS 17 DWELLING UNITS DATA PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 84 S.F. 0 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 24 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. TOTAL: 25,632 S.F. 640 S.F. 1,280 S.F. 24 D.U.70'-2"70'-2"165'-4" 165'-4"UTILITY CLOSET70'-2"70'-2"165'-4" 165'-4" 1ST FLOOR PLAN 2ND FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R UP UP UP UP DNUP UP DN UP UP DNUP UP DN UP UP A A A A Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE F FLOOR PLANS 18 DWELLING UNITS DATA PLAN NO.: D.U. S.F. COVERED BALCONY S.F. QUANTITY PATIO S.F. 1 841 S.F. 84 S.F. 84 S.F. 0 D.U. 2 1,068 S.F. 80 S.F. 80 S.F. 24 D.U. 3 1,204 S.F. 82 S.F. 82 S.F. 0 D.U. TOTAL: 25,632 S.F. 640 S.F. 1,280 S.F. 24 D.U.70'-2"70'-2"165'-4" 165'-4" 3RD FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 2R PLAN 2 PLAN 2R DNDN DNDN A A Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 8' - 0" BUILDING TYPE F EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ROOF PLAN SECTION 19 ROOF PLAN FRONT VIEW (REAR VIEW OPPOSITE HAND)LEFT SIDE VIEW RIGHT SIDE VIEW HI PHI PHIPHIP HIPHI P HI P HI P HIPHIPHIPHIPHIPHI PHIPHIPHIPHIPHIPHIP HIP HIPHIPHIP HIPHIPHIPHIPRIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGE RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGEHIP HIPVALLEYV A L L E Y V A L L E Y V A L L E Y VALLEYV A L L E Y V A L L E Y VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYV A L L E Y VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 2'-0"2'-0"D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S. D.S.2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. 12 4 12 4 7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"2'-0"FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL.7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"2'-0"T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-0"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL.7'-6"8'-0"9'-1"2'-0"FIN.FLR. T.O.WDO. T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL. 12 4 12 4 SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X8 SHAPED FOAM TRIM VINYL WINDOWS 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X6 SHAPED FOAM TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM EXTERIOR PLASTER 2X6 SHAPED FOAM TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE GREAT ROOMKITCHEN GREAT ROOMKITCHEN COVERED PATIO COVERED BALCONY KITCHEN GREAT ROOM KITCHEN COVERED PATIO GREAT ROOM COVERED BALCONY 9'-1"8'-0"T.O.PLATE T.O.ARCH T.O.SLAB 9'-1"8'-0"7'-6"7'-6"T.O.S.G.D.42"T.O.PLATE T.O.ARCH T.O.S.G.D. GUARDRAIL T.O.FLR. SPRINKLERED ATTIC SPRINKLERED ATTIC GREAT ROOMKITCHEN COVERED BALCONYGREAT ROOM KITCHENCOVERED BALCONY 9'-1"8'-0"7'-6"42"T.O.PLATE T.O.ARCH T.O.S.G.D. GUARDRAIL T.O.FLR. BUILDING SECTION AA 2.12.1R 12 4 A A 12" SQ. X 2" DEEP REVEAL 42" HIGH W.I. GUARDRAIL 6"X6" FOAM OUTLOOKERS Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLAN 20 UNISEX/ADA CORRIDOR UNISEX/ADA KITCHEN MANAGER'S OFFICE W.H. CLOSET LOBBY EXERCISE ROOM LOUNGE COVERED PORCH MAIL ROOM 57'-9 1/2"56'-0"57'-9 1/2"56'-0" ELEC. CLOSET SHOWERH/C SHWR. CLUBHOUSE S.F. PORCH S.F. MAIL ROOM S.F. 2,212 S.F. 60 S.F. 176 S.F. STOR. 20 USPS 20 UPS 6 BOXES UPS 6 BOXES USPS 20 USPS 20 USPS 20 USPS 20 USPS 20 USPS 20 USPS 20 Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" CLUBHOUSE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21 FIX TEMP FIX TEMP TEMP TEMP 2'-6"8'-0"10'-0"2'-0"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-6"8'-0"10'-0"2'-0"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.ARCH T.O.PL. T.O.PL.2'-6"8'-0"10'-0"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.ARCH T.O.PL.2'-6"8'-0"10'-0"T.O.SLAB T.O.VENEER T.O.WDO. T.O.PL.1'-0"T.O.VENEER 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/ BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE FRONT VIEW RIGHT SIDE VIEWREAR VIEW LEFT SIDE VIEW EXTERIOR PLASTER SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6 SHAPED FOAM TRIM RECESSED REVEAL W/ G.I. TRIM 10'-6"T.O.ARCH 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/ BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER EXTERIOR PLASTER SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/ BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER EXTERIOR PLASTER SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6" SHAPED FOAM TRIM CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE21 6"X6" SHAPED FOAM OUTLOOKERS CERAMIC TILE SHOWERS W/ WALLS TO 7' CONCRETE "S" ROOF TILE 6"X6" SHAPED FOAM OUTLOOKERS Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 RIDGE RIDGERIDGE RIDGEHIPHIPHIPHI PVALLEY VALLEYVALLEYVALLEY 4:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S. 1'-6"1'-6"MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" CLUBHOUSE ROOF PLAN 22 Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" MAINTENANCE BLDG. 720 S.F. 23 UNISEX/ADA 36'-0"20'-0" 20'-0"RIDGEHI P 4:12 HIPHIPHIP4:124:124:12STORAGE D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S. D.F. F.D. T.S.C.T.P. P.T.D. FLOOR PLANROOF PLAN10'-0"7'-4"7'-0"2'-6"12 4 12 4 12 4 T.O.PLATE T.O.GAR.DR. T.O.VENEER T.O.CURB T.O.DOOR REAR VIEWFRONT VIEW SIDE VIEWS 2X6 RE/S FASCIA/ BARGE W/ G.I. GUTTER EXTERIOR PLASTER SIMULATED STONE VENEER 6 SHAPED FOAM TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 14'-7 7/16"RIDGE 1'-6"1'-6"Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 8/3/22 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" 4-SPACE CARPORT 24 FLOOR PLAN FRONT & REAR VIEWSSIDE VIEWS 38'-0" 19'-0"19'-0" RIDGE 4:12 4:12 D.S. D.S.HI PHIPHIPHIP4:124:126" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER ROOF OUTLINE 17'-6"SHAPED FOAM CORBEL BUILDING OUTLINE ROOF OUTLINE GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 12 4 12 4 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 1'-0"1'-0"ROOF PLAN 9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20' Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 8/3/22 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" 6-SPACE CARPORT 25 FLOOR PLAN FRONT & REAR VIEWSSIDE VIEWS 12 4 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 12 4 RIDGE 4:12 4:12 HIPHI P 4:12HI PHIP4:12SHAPED FOAM CORBEL BUILDING OUTLINE ROOF OUTLINE GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 1'-0"1'-0"D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S. ROOF PLAN 57'-0" 19'-0"19'-0"19'-0" 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER ROOF OUTLINE 17'-6"9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20' Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 NO PARKING MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 8/3/22 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" 6-SPACE CARPORT 26 FLOOR PLAN FRONT & REAR VIEWSSIDE VIEWS 12 4 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 12 4 RIDGE 4:12 4:12 HIPHI P 4:12HI PHIP4:12SHAPED FOAM CORBEL BUILDING OUTLINE ROOF OUTLINE GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 1'-0"1'-0"D.S. D.S. ROOF PLAN D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. 63'-0" 19'-0"19'-0"25'-0" 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER ROOF OUTLINE 17'-6"9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'10' X 20'10' X 20' Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 8/3/22 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" 8-SPACE CARPORT 27 FLOOR PLAN FRONT & REAR VIEWSSIDE VIEWS 12 4 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 12 4 RIDGE 4:12 4:12 HIPHIP4:12HI PHIP4:12SHAPED FOAM CORBEL BUILDING OUTLINE ROOF OUTLINE GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 1'-0"1'-0"D.S. D.S. ROOF PLAN D.S.D.S. D.S. 76'-0" 19'-0"19'-0"19'-0"19'-0" 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER ROOF OUTLINE 17'-6"9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20' Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 NO PARKING MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 8/3/22 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" 7-SPACE CARPORT 28 FLOOR PLAN FRONT & REAR VIEWSSIDE VIEWS 12 4 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 12 4 RIDGE 4:12 4:12 HIPHI P 4:12HI PHIP4:12SHAPED FOAM CORBEL BUILDING OUTLINE ROOF OUTLINE GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 1'-0"1'-0"D.S. D.S. ROOF PLAN D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. 75'-6" 19'-0"19'-0"19'-6"18'-0" 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER ROOF OUTLINE 17'-6"9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'10' X 20'10' X 20' Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 8/3/22 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" 16-SPACE CARPORT 29 FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN RIDGE 4:12 4:12 HIPHIP4:12HIPHIP 4:12D.S.D.S. 1'-0"1'-0"D.S.D.S.D.S. D.S. SHAPED FOAM CORBEL BUILDING OUTLINE ROOF OUTLINE GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 76'-0" 19'-0"19'-0"19'-0"19'-0"18'-9"10'18'-9"6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER ROOF OUTLINE 9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20' 9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20' Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 8/3/22 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" 16-SPACE CARPORT 30 FRONT & REAR VIEWS SIDE VIEWS 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 12 4 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 12 4 Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 8/3/22 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" 20-SPACE CARPORT 31 FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN RIDGE 4:12 4:12 HIPHIP 4:12HIPHI P 4:12D.S. 1'-0"1'-0"D.S. D.S. D.S.D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S.D.S. SHAPED FOAM CORBEL BUILDING OUTLINE ROOF OUTLINE GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 95'-0" 19'-0"19'-0"19'-0"19'-0"19'-0"18'-9"10'18'-9"6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER ROOF OUTLINE 9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20' 9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20'9'-6" X 20' 9'-6" X 20' 9'-6" X 20' 9'-6" X 20' 9'-6" X 20' Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 8/3/22 SCALE: 1" = 4' - 0" 20-SPACE CARPORT 32 FRONT & REAR VIEWS SIDE VIEWS 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 12 4 8'-6"BOTT. OF HEADER TOP OF PAVING 10'TOP OF PLATE 6" DIA. STEEL POST 6X BULKHEAD WRAPPED WITH EXTERIOR PLASTER SHAPED FOAM TIGHT TRIM CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOF 2X6 RE/S WOOD FASCIA/BARGE W/ GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 6X6 SHAPED FOAM CORBEL 12 4 Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL GROUP, LP 1(951) 894-7177 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 2' - 0" TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE1 33 32'-0" TRASH BIN 14'-6"2"1"10"7'-2"6"4'-11"2'-4"11'-0"2'-4"11'-0"6"6" 4 1/2"4 1/2" RIBBED METAL GATES CONCRETE LOADING PAD 6' HIGH SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL CONCRETE CURB 36" WIDE X 5'-6" HIGH RIBBED METAL GATE TRASH BINTRASH BINTRASH BINTRASH BIN 5'-4"FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN 6X6 T.S. 36" WIDE X 5'-6" HIGH RIBBED METAL GATE 36" WIDE X 5'-6" HIGH RIBBED METAL GATE 1'-0"1'-0"8 1/2"Ø5'-0" Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL, LLC C/O GEORGE MEARS / KIRK BOWLUS, 41663 DATE ST. STE. 200, MURRIETA,CA 92562 (951) 894-7177; (851) 538-1974 MICHAEL McHALE, ARCHITECT (949) 566-4951 3/9/21 SCALE: 1" = 2' - 0" TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 1 34 RIBBED METAL GATES RIBBED METAL ROOFING 6X8 RE/S BEAM 6X6 T.S. POST 6'-0"FRONT VIEW RIBBED METAL ROOFING 6X8 RE/S BEAM 6X6 T.S. POST 8'-2"36" WIDE X 5'-6" HIGH RIBBED METAL GATE REAR VIEWRIGHT SIDE VIEW LEFT SIDE VIEW 6X6 RE/S BEAM Lake Pointe Apartments 152 Apartments RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKE ELSINORE, CA LEGACY FINANCIAL, LLC C/O GEORGE MEARS / KIRK BOWLUS, 41663 DATE ST. STE. 200, MURRIETA,CA 92562 (951) 894-7177; (851) 538-1974 6' HIGH SPLIT FACE BLOCK 6' HIGH SPLIT FACE BLOCK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, will hold a Public Hearing on September 19, 2023, at the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California, 92530, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider the following: Planning Application No. 2022-15 (Lakepointe Apartments): A request by George Mears, Legacy Financial Group, LP requesting approval of Residential Design Review No. 2022-04 proposing to construct 152 apartment units within nine (9) residential buildings including two (2) three-story buildings and seven (7) two-story buildings. The project also proposes a 2,212 sq. ft. clubhouse and a 780 sq. ft. maintenance building and other related site improvements on an 8.27- acre site located in the Residential Mixed Use Zoning District. The proposed project is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, adjacent to Lakeside High School, and more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and no new environmental documentation is necessary because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed and mitigated in an earlier Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND No. 2016-01; SCH No. 2016071001 and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 exist. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, 15164, Addendum No. 1 to MND 2016-01 SCH # 2016071001 was prepared providing minor additions and changes has been prepared for the project. All potentially significant effects have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to MND 2016-01 SCH # 2016071001 and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to submit written information, express opinions or otherwise submit written evidence by email to dlongoria@Lake-Elsinore.org. If you wish to legally challenge any action taken by the City on the above matter, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City prior to or at the Public Hearing. If you require accommodation to participate in a Public Hearing, please contact the Administrative Secretary at (951) 674-3124 ext. 297. All Agenda materials are available for review on the City’s website at www.lake-elsinore.org the Friday before the Public Hearing. FURTHER INFORMATION on this item may be obtained by contacting Carlos Serna, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at cserna@lake-elsinore.org or (951) 674-3124, ext. 916. Damaris Abraham, Assistant Community Development Director PC NOPH PA 2022-15 (Lakepointe Apartments) - Page 1 of 1 3512 14 Street Riverside, California 92501 (951) 368-9229 neller@scng.com City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Account Number:5209153 Ad Order Number:0011622804 Customer's Reference/PO Number: Publication:The Press-Enterprise Publication Dates:09/09/2023 Total Amount:$383.82 Payment Amount:$0.00 Amount Due:$383.82 Notice ID:mGJQkTZREqrI6X6UjDHF Invoice Text:[https://res.cloudinary.com/dgqq2xsfd/image/upload/enotice- production/exports/1694027284545/image001.jpg?invalidate=true] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, will hold a Public Hearing on September 19, 2023, at the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California, 92530, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider the following: Planning Application No. 2022-15 (Lakepointe Apartments): A request by George Mears, Legacy Financial Group, LP requesting approval of Residential Design Review No. 2022-04 proposing to construct 152 apartment units within nine (9) residential buildings including two (2) three-story buildings and seven (7) two-story buildings. The project also proposes a 2,212 sq. ft. clubhouse and a 780 sq. ft. maintenance building and other related site improvements on an 8.27-acre site located in the Residential Mixed Use Zoning District. The proposed project is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, adjacent to Lakeside High School, and more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and no new environmental documentation is necessary because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed and mitigated in an earlier Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND No. 2016-01; SCH No. 2016071001 and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 exist. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, 15164, Addendum No. 1 to MND 2016-01 SCH # 2016071001 was PC NOPH PA 2022-15 (Lakepointe Apartments) - Page 1 of 1 The Press-Enterprise 3512 14 Street Riverside, California 92501 (951) 368-9229 City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Publication: The Press-Enterprise PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF Ad Desc: 0011622804 FILE NO. 0011622804 PROOF OF PUBLICATION I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am an authorized representative of THE PRESS- ENTERPRISE, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Riverside, and which newspaper has been adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, under date of April 25, 1952, Case Number 54446, under date of March 29, 1957, Case Number 65673, under date of August 25, 1995, Case Number 267864, and under date of September 16, 2013, Case Number RIC 1309013; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said newspaper in accordance with the instructions of the person(s) requesting publication, and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: 09/09/2023 I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: September 9, 2023. At: Riverside, California ______________________________ Signature r/pRi/MAPPING NOTIFICATION PACKAGE Riverside Dr,Lake Elsinore APNs 379-090-024 INCLUDES: 300'OWNER LIST (min of 30 unique owners included) 300'RADIUS MAP (2)SETS OF GUMMED LABELS EXCEL FILE CERTIFICATION COUNT:38 (duplicates consolidated) PREPARED 08/16/2023 FILE #3286 orders@expressmapplng.com www.expressmapping.com 4000 Barranca Pkwy #250,Irvine CA 92604 Local (949)771-0051 Toll Free (888)990-MAPS — CITY OF AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION LISTLAKEFfLSmORE dream E/FREMH^ Application No. Legacy Financial Group,LPApplicantName Riverside Dr,Lake ElsinoreProjectName/Location day of August16th 20_2.3,,we prepared a notification list and feet of the most exterior Icertify that on a radius map,including properties entirely and partially within boundaries of the property being considered in the above referenced project known as (Property Address)Riverside Dr,Lake Elsinore names and addresses listed on the notification list,provided in an excel spreadsheet on a CD or external hard drive,were taken from the latest records of the Riverside County Assessor.Such names are recorded in the records of the Riverside County Assessor as being the present owner or owners of both the subject property and the property/properties within the required mailing radius of the subject 300 ..The property owner property. 08/16/2023 DateApplicant/Representative Signature 2316thdayofAugust <by,20Thisinstrumentwas acknowledged before me on this in witness whereof I hereunto set my hand and official seal. 1 I \LAURA Emerson Notary Public -California *^Orange County *Commission #2408793 My Comm.Expires Jui 18,2026 5^Notary Public Ii 07/18/2026 ipMyCommissionexpireson: Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090-65096 notification lists shall be from the most recent Accessor Tax rolls.In order for the application to be deemed complete please return the completed,notarized affidavit to the assigned case planner at your earliest convenience. 379-050-017 Southern California Edison Co 2 Innovation Way Pomona CA 91768 379-050-038 Lake Eisinore Unified Schooi Dist 420 E Lakeshore Dr Lake Eisinore CA 92530 379-050-037 Hines Nurseries inc 22941 Miii Creek Dr Laguna Hilis CA 92653 379-090-012,13,23 Wiiiiam Craig Seers 12100 Copper Ct Tyier TX 75706 379-070-008 Lake Shore Eisinore P O Box 118 San Juan Capo CA 92693 379-070-009 Rv Park Roadrunner P O Box 86 Lake Eisinore CA 92531 379-100-009 Jennifer Chieng Fen Chen 606 N 1st St San Jose CA 95112 379-090-021 Piaza Lakeshore 8558 Chaimin Dr #401 Los Angeies CA 90035 379-090-024 Legacy Financial Group 41663 Date St #200 Murrieta CA 92562 379-313-017 Diana Meza 1134 Cleveiand Ct Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-313-016 Roberto Escoto 1132 Cieveiand Ct Lake Eisinore CA 92530 379-100-010 Sui Ho Tsai 3658 Capitol Ave #313a Fremont CA 94538 379-313-020 Chad Hernaez 160 W Foothiii Pkwy#194 Corona CA 92882 379-313-019,314-003 Norine E May 29880 Longhorn Dr Canyon Lake CA 92587 379-313-018 Swh 2017-1 Borrower 8665 Hartford Dr #200 Scottsdaie AZ 85255 379-314-004 Juan Ramos Moraies 3507 Eisenhower Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-314-001 Francisco Farias Flores 3501 Eisenhower Dr Lake Eisinore CA 92530 379-314-002 Rsc Marketing &Sales Inc PO Box 310856 Fontana CA 92331 379-314-007 Gilbert S Carmona 5286 Norcris Ln Yorba Linda CA 92886 379-314-006 Judith G Madrigal 35885 Trabuco Rd #52 Lake Forest CA 92630 379-314-005 Eleazar Ramirez 3509 Eisenhower Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-314-010 Abel Varela 3609 Eisenhower Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-314-009 Matthew James Harrison 3607 Eisenhower Dr Lake Eisinore CA 92530 379-314-008 Imelda Gonzalez 2755 W Fairview Dr Rialto CA 92377 379-314-013 Oak Tree Apartments 110 N Lincoln Ave #100 Corona CA 92882 379-314-012 Fidencio Delgado 3703 Eisenhower Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-314-011 Liliana Moreno 3701 Eisenhower Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-314-016 Andre Davis 3801 Eisenhower Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-314-015 Roman Mendoza 3709 Eisenhower Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-314-014 John Charles Earhart Po Box 77851 Corona CA 92877 379-314-019 Tomas Perez 3807 Eisenhower Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-314-017 Arampath Gunawardhana 4521 Campus Dr #377 Irvine CA 92612 379-314-018 Norberto F Disummo 31553 Canyon View Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92532 379-314-022 Arthur S Alarcon 2229 1/2 W Ball Rd Anaheim CA 92804 379-314-021 Canis Trust Dtd 08/05/21 27042 Marbella Mission Viejo CA 92691 379-314-020 Cynthia L Solis 3809 Eisenhower Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-314-023 Nicodemus K Mathews 3905 Eisenhower Dr Lake Elsinore CA 92530 379-314-024 Isidro L Preciado 26006 Westridge Ave Menifee CA 92586 Owner/Representative Legacy Financial Group/George Mears 41663 Date St #200 Murrieta CA 92562 Owner/Representative Legacy Financial Group/George Mears 41663 Date St #200 Murrieta CA 92562 Owner/Representative Legacy Financial Group/George Mears 41663 Date St #200 Murrieta CA 92562 Owner/Representative Legacy Financial Group/George Mears 41663 Date St #200 Murrieta CA 92562