HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 27 - Planning Application No. 2022-03 Mission Trail at Lemon
Page 1 of 10
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: November 14, 2023
Subject: Planning Application No. 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon) – A Request for
Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 38378 to Subdivide an approximately
17.21-acre Site into One (1) Lot for Condominium Purposes and Residential
Design Review to Construct 191 Detached Condominium Residences within
the East Lake Specific Plan
Applicant: Brett Crowder, Coastal Commercial Properties
Recommendation
1. Find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c) (Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans);
2. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-03
(TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38378 AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-02)
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP);
3. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38378 TO SUBDIVIDE AN
APPROXIMATELY 17.21-ACRE SITE INTO ONE LOT AND 191 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR
CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES LOCATED IN APNS: 370-050-019, 370-050-020, AND 370-
050-032; and
4. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-02 PROVIDING
BUILDING DESIGNS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR 191 TWO-STORY
DETACHED CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN LOCATED APNS: 370-050-019, 370-
050-020, AND 370-050-032.
PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon)
Page 2 of 10
Planning Commission Action
On October 17, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing and
recommended approval of the project to the City Council with a 5-0 vote. Only the applicant
attended the hearing. No one spoke in opposition to the project.
Project Location
The project site located adjacent to and west of Mission Trail, across from Lemon Street to the
south, and Lewis Street and Victorian Lane to the north within the East Lake Specific Plan. The
project site encompasses Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 370-050-019, 370-050-020, and
370-050-030.
Environmental Setting
EXISTING USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING
Project
Site Vacant East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP)
ELSP - Action Sports, Tourism,
Commercial and Recreation with a
Mixed Use Overlay
North Vacant East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP)
ELSP - Action Sports, Tourism,
Commercial and Recreation with a
Mixed Use Overlay
South Vacant East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP)
ELSP - Action Sports, Tourism,
Commercial and Recreation with a
Mixed Use Overlay
East
Light industrial,
commercial,
and residential
City of Wildomar – Commercial
Retail (CR) and Medium High
Density Residential (MHDR)
City of Wildomar – C-1/C-P and
Rural Residential (R-R)
West
Lake Elsinore
Motor Sport
Park
East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP)
ELSP - Action Sports, Tourism,
Commercial and Recreation with a
Light Industrial Overlay
Project Description
Planning Application No. 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon) consists of applications for Tentative
Tract Map No. 38378 to subdivide an approximately 17.21-acre site into one approximately 16.93-
acre lot for condominium purposes (0.28-acre right-of-way dedication) and Residential Design
Review No. 2022-02 to construct 191 detached condominium residences and associated
improvements within the East Lake Specific Plan. The proposed buildings feature seven (7) two-
story floor plans ranging in size from 1,323 sq. ft. to 2,146 sq. ft. and three (3) architectural styles
(French Country, Santa Barbara and Modern Farmhouse).
Below is a description of the project design aspects and features, including site design, floor plans,
architectural design and conceptual wall and fence plans.
PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon)
Page 3 of 10
Site Design
The buildings will be arranged in a clustered manner with regular spacing along a 26'-0" wide,
two-lane private loop street. Each building will be served by a 24'-0" wide shared drive aisle
serving up to six (6) units or eight (8) units per cluster. The attached design review package shows
the typical clustering layout as well as the parking and circulation plan for the project. The site will
feature two (2) common open space areas with amenities. Private open space areas will be
provided adjacent to the residences between buildings and in required yards along rear and side
property lines.
Floor Plans
Each building will be either rectangular or roughly “L”-shaped in plan. Each unit will contain a two-
car garage, interior laundry facilities, common living areas, and a private patio. Seven floor plans
are proposed as specified below:
6-Plex Cluster
Plan 1: Two-story, 1,631 square-foot unit with 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, 2-car garage
Plan 2: Two-story, 1,779 square-foot unit with 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2-car garage
Plan 3: Two-story, 2,146 square-foot unit with 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, 2-car garage
8-Plex Cluster
Plan 1: Two-story, 1,323 square-foot unit with 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2-car garage
Plan 2: Two-story, 1,599 square-foot unit with 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, 2-car garage
Plan 3: Two-story, 1,756 square-foot unit with 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, 2-car garage
Plan 4: Two-story, 1,918 square-foot unit with 4 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, 2-car garage
A sufficient mix and variation of plans will be provided throughout the development as depicted in
the site plan.
Architectural Design
Three distinct architectural styles are proposed and are generally characterized as follows:
• French Country elevations feature a dark composite tile gabled roof, tan or white stucco
siding, accent wood siding, metallic railing, window shutters, and stone wainscoting.
• Santa Barbara elevations feature a red composite tile varied gable and hipped roof, tan or
white stucco siding, metallic railing, window shutters, accent tiles, and stone wainscoting.
• Modern Farmhouse elevations feature a dark composite tile gabled roof, tan or white
stucco siding, accent siding, metallic railing, window shutters and stone wainscoting.
The architectural styles will be evenly distributed throughout the development as depicted in the
site plan. 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.
PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon)
Page 4 of 10
Recreation and Open Space
The project includes the development of two (2) recreation and open space areas totaling 49,044
sq. ft. on site that would include playground equipment, pool/spa, barbeque area, overhead trellis,
turf areas, seating, sidewalks, restrooms, drinking fountains, showers, bocce ball court, fitness
equipment, shade structures, table, and chairs.
Landscaping
Landscaping proposed as part of the project would consist of ornamental trees, vines, shrubs,
and groundcovers throughout the common areas of the development, such as along roadways,
common walls, site boundary, and the open space/recreation areas. Trees would be installed
along the proposed sidewalks throughout the project site and along Mission Trail. The entrance
to the project site would have a landscaped median and decorative landscaping. The proposed
landscaping plan has been designed to complement the different architectural styles and to
conform to the water efficiency standards under Chapter 19.08 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal
Code (LEMC).
Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan
The project proposes 6-foot-high concrete masonry unit walls along the north, south, and east
sides of the site. An 8-foot-high concrete masonry unit wall will be constructed along the western
boundary of the site that is adjacent to the Motorsports Park. Pedestrian and vehicular entry gates
would be 6-foot-high metal rolling security gates at the project driveway at Mission Trail.
Residences and private exterior spaces would be separated by rear and side yard 6-foot-high
vinyl fences.
Noise
To reduce the noise from the adjacent Motocross Track, the project will construct an 8-foot-high
concrete masonry wall. The project will also be required to implement the following noise
abatement design features to ensure that interior noise levels meet or exceed the 45 dBA CNEL
interior noise level requirements:
• Windows & Glass Doors: Windows and glass doors would be well-fitted, well-weather-
stripped assemblies and shall have minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of
35 for residences located along the western property line, and STC ratings of 29 for
residences along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines.
• Exterior Doors: All exterior doors facing the project site property lines (facing offsite land
uses) would be well-fitted, well-weather stripped, and have minimum STC ratings of 29.
• Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between
the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits would be caulked or filled with mortar to form an
airtight seal. All exterior wall assemblies facing the Motorsports Park shall have a minimum
PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon)
Page 5 of 10
STC rating of 35 and all exterior wall assemblies along the northern, eastern, and southern
property lines facing offsite land uses shall have a minimum STC rating of 29.
• Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or
caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19
shall be used in the attic space.
• Ceilings: Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or constructed of well-sealed
gypsum board of at least one-half inch thick.
Additionally, the applicant is required to provide all prospective home buyers and home owners a
written disclosure statement identifying that the project is located within an active recreation area.
Said written disclosure statements would indicate that such recreation activities will include, but
are not limited to, noise impacts, excessive lighting, and dust (COA No. 14).
Parking
The proposed project would provide garage, driveway, and open guest parking. Each residence
would have a two-car garage resulting in 383 total garage parking spaces. The project would also
provide 196 driveway spaces and 135 open common parking spaces. In total the project would
provide 713 spaces. Driveways in the proposed community are 19 ft. in length.
To ensure that parking occurs on approved and developed parking spaces, the developer is
required to include restrictions in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Such
restriction would include requiring homeowners to park their vehicles in their garages or driveways
(where applicable) and requiring an on-street parking permit for additional vehicles (COA No. 20).
Furthermore, a condition of approval has been added to require the developer to install signage
restricting vehicular parking along Mission Trail (COA No. 88).
Street Improvements
Mission Trail is classified as an Urban Arterial Highway in the General Plan, where full-width is
120 feet and curb-to-curb width is 96 feet. The applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way for
Mission Trail adjacent to the property for a total right-of-way of 60 feet from centerline to the
project property line. Street improvements on Mission Trail include widened section of new AC
pavement and base material, curb and gutter, sidewalks, parkway landscaping, utility relocations,
signage relocations, modifying traffic signals as required on Mission Trail and Lemon Street, and
streetlights.
Analysis
The project site is located within Planning Area 2 of the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and has
an Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation with a Mixed-Use
Overlay. The Mixed-Use overlay offers an option to develop residential and commercial uses in
addition to those uses described in the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial, and Recreation land
use designation. Per Table 2-12 (Mixed Use Overlay – Allowable Land Uses) of the ELSP,
PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon)
Page 6 of 10
Condominiums are listed as permitted uses. Table 2-13 (Mixed Use Overlay Development
Standards) allows Detached Multiple-Family Cluster Residential Only Development with a density
up to 18 Dwelling Units per Net Acre (du/ac). The application proposes to construct 191 two-story
detached condominium residential units on an approximately 16.93 net acre parcel at an
approximate density of 11.3 du/ac. The proposed multi-family residential development is
consistent with the land use goals and policies of the ELSP. The project is also consistent with
the General Plan because the ELSP was found to be consistent with the General Plan at adoption.
Staff has reviewed the submitted development plans for compliance with the Mixed-Use Overlay
development standards and regulations of Table 2-13 for Detached Multiple-Family Cluster
Residential Only Development of the ELSP. The proposed development conforms to applicable
standards as shown in the below table.
ELSP Development Standards Required Proposed
Density Up to 18 du/ac 11.3 du/ac
Lot Area Minimum (sq. ft.) No Minimum 737,906 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width No Minimum n/a
Setbacks (ft.):
Front – Living Area to Public
Street 10 10’
Front – Living Area to
Private Drive 10 10' min – 19’ max
Front – Porch 10 10' min – 13’ max
Front – Garage, Straight-in
Drive 18 19’ min – 24 max
Front – Garage, Side Entry 10 10’ min – 19’ max
Front – Rear Alley/Street
Loaded Garage 5 n/a
Side – Main Dwelling 5 8’ min -20‘ max
Side – Garage 5 8’ min -20‘ max
Rear 10 20’ min -20‘ max
Rear – Alley/Street Loaded
Garage 18 n/a
Corner Side – Public
Street 10 10’ min – 10’ max
Corner Side – Private
Street 10 10’ min – 10’ max
Separation Between Buildings (ft.)
Garage Face to Garage
Face 28 30’ min – 35’ max
Bldg. Front to Bldg. Front 10 30’ min – 35’ max
Bldg. Front to Bldg. Side 8 43’ min – 74’ max
Bldg. Front to Bldg. Rear
15 for one-story building,
plus 5 additional feet for
each additional story 88’ min – 89.5’ max
PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon)
Page 7 of 10
Bldg. Side to Side 8 8’ min – 20’ max
Bldg. Side to Rear 8 8’ min – 23’ max
Bldg. Rear to Rear 15 for one-story building,
plus 5 additional feet for
each additional story 20’ in – 23’ max
Lot Coverage (%) 70 42%
Building Height 40’ max. 27'-0" max.
Parking
382 Covered, & 382 Private
Driveway and/or 191 On-
Street
Total: 713
Covered Spaces (Garage):
382
Total Open Spaces: 331
(196 Private Drive Way &
135 On-Street)
Shared driveway access into dwelling unit cluster
Building heights up to 25
feet 26 feet minimum width n/a
Building heights greater
than 25 feet
30 feet with no on-
street/alley parking allowed n/a
Driveway in front of garage door 18 feet minimum length 19’ min -24’ max
Private Street Width 40 feet minimum 40’ min – 46’ max
Garage Access Alley/Street Width
Building heights up to 25
feet
24 ft. with no on-street/alley
parking allowed 24’
Building Heights greater
than 25 feet
30 feet with no on-
street/alley parking allowed n/a
Dwelling Unit Size Minimum (sq. ft.)
Studio Dwelling Units 900 n/a
One-Bedroom Dwelling
Units 900 n/a
Two-Bedroom Dwelling
Units or Larger
1,000 plus 100 sq. ft. for
each additional bedroom 1,323 sq. ft. – 2,146 sq. ft.
Open Space (sq. ft.)
Common Open Space 250 per unit, or 35,000 36,666 sq. ft.
Private Open Space 80 per unit 138 sq. ft. min.
Tentative Tract Map Analysis
Tentative Tract Map No. 38378 includes a subdivision of an approximately 17.21-acre site into
one (1) approximately 16.93-acre lot for condominium purposes (0.28-acre right-of-way
dedication). The proposed subdivision meets the minimum lot area requirement and street
frontage width of the East Lake Specific Plan. The tentative map also complies with Chapter 16.24
(Tentative Map) of the LEMC and the Subdivision Map Act. The project will be required to form a
Homeowner’s Association (HOA) for reciprocal access easements, for parking spaces as well as
for the maintenance of common areas.
PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon)
Page 8 of 10
Design Review
The architectural design of the proposed buildings conforms to the design guidelines outlined in
Chapter 8 of the ELSP and the Residential Development Standards (Chapter 17.44) of the LEMC.
The three elevation styles will create a distinctive street scene within the project site and serve to
avoid repetition.
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
The proposed project has been determined to be categorically exempt from California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c) (Residential
Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan). Where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a Specific
Plan, a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity with that specific plan is
exempt from CEQA if the project meets the following requirements:
1. Eligibility. To qualify for this exemption the public agency must have prepared an EIR on
a specific plan after January 1, 1980.
The City adopted the East Lake Specific Plan, Amendment No. 11 (SPA 2016-02) and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2016111029 on November 11, 2017. The
proposed project meets this requirement.
2. Scope. Residential projects covered by this section include but are not limited to land
subdivisions, zoning changes, and residential planned unit development.
The project consists of applications for Tentative Tract Map No. 38378 to subdivide an
approximately 17.21-acre site into one approximately 16.93-acre lot for condominium
purposes (0.28-acre right-of-way dedication) and Residential Design Review No. 2022-02
to construct 191 detached condominium residences with a density of 11.3 du/ac. The
proposed project is consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan, Mixed Use Overlay district
which allows Detached Multiple-Family Cluster Residential Only Development with a
Density up to 18 Dwelling Units per Net Acre (du/ac).
3. Limitation. This section is subject to the limitation that a specific plan undergoes an event,
such as, but not limited to: a substantial change to the proposed project is made that
requires major revisions of the previous EIR; new circumstances under which the project
is undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR; or new information has
been found resulting in new significant effects or increasing the severity of a significant
effect that were not known at the time of the previous EIR. Should one or more of these
events occur, this exemption shall not apply until the city or county which adopted the
specific plan completes a subsequent EIR or supplement to a previous EIR.
PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon)
Page 9 of 10
Pursuant to 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
Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016111029) prepared for the East Lake Specific
Plan. A CEQA Exemption Study has been prepared for the project and is included as
Attachment 5 to this report. All potentially significant effects have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to the EIR and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have
occurred. EIR (SCH No. 2016111029) was adopted by the City Council on November 28,
2017.
MSHCP Consistency
The project has also been reviewed for consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). A portion of the project site (0.30 acres) is located
within the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Criteria Cell # 5131. On August 08, 2023, the Western
Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) completed the Joint Project Review
(JPR# 23-04-11-01) process and concluded that the Project is consistent with both the Criteria
and other plan requirements of the MSHCP.
Public Outreach
In August 2023, the applicant mailed advance notice of the development proposal to neighboring
property owners within 500 feet of the project site. Additionally, the applicant reached out the
Summerly Community’s Home Owner Association as a part of their public outreach efforts.
Public Notice
Notice of the hearing for this application has been published in the Press-Enterprise newspaper
and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. As of the writing of this
report, staff has received one (1) email communication from Leonard Leichnitz dated November
7, 2023. The email correspondence along with staff response is included as Attachment 10.
Fiscal Impact
The time and costs related to processing this application have been covered by application 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.
PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon)
Page 10 of 10
Attachments
Attachment 1 – MSHCP Resolution
Attachment 2 – TTM Resolution
Attachment 3 – RDR Resolution
Attachment 4 – Conditions of Approval
Attachment 5 – Initial Study/Categorical Exemption
Attachment 6 – GIS Package
Attachment 7 – TTM 38378
Attachment 8 – Design Review Package
Attachment 9 – Public Notice Material
Attachment 10 – Public Comment
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-
03 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38378 AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW
NO. 2022-02) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
Whereas, Brett Crowder, Coastal Commercial Properties has filed an application with the
City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2022-03 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 38378 and Residential Design Review No. 2022-02) to subdivide an approximately
17.21-acre site into one (1) approximately 16.93-acre lot for condominium purposes (0.28-acre
right-of-way dedication) and a residential design review to construct 191 detached condominium
residences and associated site improvements. The project site is located within the East Lake
Specific Plan, adjacent to and west of Mission Trail, across from Lemon Street to the south, and
Lewis Street and Victorian Lane to the north (APNs: 370-050-019, 370-050-020, and 370-050-
032);
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 Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.050 (Major
Design Review), Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications), and Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map)
the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making
recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to tentative maps and design review
applications;
Whereas, on October 17, 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, and by a resolution recommended that the Council adopt Findings
of Consistency with the MSCHP; and
Whereas, on November 14, 2023, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Council has
considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested
parties with respect to this item.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The forgoing recitals are true and correct and are herby incorporated into these
findings by this reference.
CC Reso. No. 2023-____
Page 2 of 6
Section 2: The Council has considered the project and the recommendation of the
Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and
other interested parties with respect to this item.
Section 3: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Council makes the following findings
for MSHCP consistency:
1. The Project is a project under the City’s MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an
MSHCP Consistency finding before approval.
Approximately 0.30 acre of the project site is located within an MSHCP criteria cell. Pursuant
to the City’s MSHCP Resolution, the project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency,
including consistency with “Other Plan Requirements.” These include the Protection of
Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, §
6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.3), Additional
Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, § 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines
(MSHCP, § 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, § 6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management
Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee
(MSHCP Ordinance, § 4).
2. The Project is subject to the City’s LEAP and the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority’s (RCA) Joint Project Review processes.
Approximately 0.30 acre of the project site is located in Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP
Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). Therefore, a formal and complete LEAP application,
LEAP 2022-03 was submitted to the City on January 26, 2023.
3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines.
On November 2, 2021 and February 3, 2023, Hernandez Environmental Services conducted
field surveys of the site to determine whether the project site includes riparian/riverine area or
vernal pools.
The project site contains approximately 0.07 acre located below the CDFW jurisdictional
elevation of 1,265 feet AMSL and associated with the back basin of Lake Elsinore that would
be considered riparian/riverine areas as defined in Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP. The riparian/riverine area onsite is located within an existing access
easement comprised of disturbed, ruderal vegetation currently being utilized as a gravel and
dirt access road. No bed, bank, or channel are present. The riparian/riverine area shows no
signs of hydrology; no signs of current or historic flow are visible. The riparian/riverine area is
isolated and no downstream flows are present. In addition, no hydric soils or hydrophytic
vegetation are present. The onsite riparian/riverine area does not provide any of the functions
and values functions typically associated with riparian/riverine resources; even the existing
ruderal habitat is too disturbed to provide nesting and foraging habitat due to the use of the
area as a dirt and gravel access road.
The project has been designed to avoid this area of the project site. Although the project does
include the dedication of the Victorian Lane right-of-way along the northern project site
boundary, no construction, grading, or street improvements related to the Victoria Lane right-
of-way are included as part of the project. Therefore, no permanent or temporary impacts to
onsite riparian/riverine area will result from project implementation. The northern limit of
CC Reso. No. 2023-____
Page 3 of 6
project disturbance is located between five to fifteen feet south of the onsite riparian/riverine
area. No avoidance buffer is proposed. Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines will be
implemented even though the riparian/riverine area is isolated and no downstream flows are
present. However, the project does not propose to place a conservation or deed restriction
over the onsite riparian/riverine area due to the fact that the area is already located within an
existing access easement and no riparian/riverine functions and values would be preserved
by conservation of the area.
While the northwestern portion of the site located below the CDFW jurisdictional elevation of
1,265 feet AMSL meets the definition of a riparian/riverine area according to the MSHCP, it
does not support suitable riparian habitat with the potential to support riparian/riverine bird
species; the onsite riparian/riverine area is comprised of disturbed, ruderal vegetation
currently being utilized as a gravel and dirt access road. No stream bed, bank, channel, or
riparian habitat exists within the project site boundaries. Further, none of the riparian/riverine
bird species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP were found within the project site. Due to
the lack of suitable riparian habitat on the project site, focused surveys for riparian/riverine
bird species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are not warranted.
Vernal pools are seasonal depressional wetlands that occur under Mediterranean climate
conditions of the west coast and in glaciated conditions of northeastern and midwestern
states. They are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring but may
be completely dry most of the summer and fall. Vernal pools are usually associated with hard
clay layers or bedrock, which helps keep water in the pools. Vernal pools and seasonal
depressions usually are dominated by hydrophytic plans, hydric soils, and evidence of
hydrology.
The entire site was evaluated for the presence of habitat capable of supporting branchiopods.
The site was evaluated as described in the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large
Branchiopods (USFWS 2017). The project site consists of vacant, disturbed land with
evidence of weed abatement activities and off-road vehicle use. The site is dominated by
dense non-native ruderal vegetation dominated by brome grass. The project area is primarily
comprised of sandy loams that do not allow for water pooling on the site for any significant
length of time after rain events. No vernal pools, swales, or vernal pool mimics such as ditches,
borrow pits, cattle troughs, or cement culverts with signs of pooling water were found on the
site. In addition, the site does not contain areas that showed signs of ponding water,
hydrophytic vegetation, or soils typical of vernal pools that would be suitable for large
branchiopods.
The Project is therefore consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool
Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section
of the MSHCP is required.
4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines.
The property is not in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for any narrow
endemic species, and no NEPSSA surveys are required. The proposed project is therefore
consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines.
5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.
The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in certain
CC Reso. No. 2023-____
Page 4 of 6
locations. Pursuant to MSHCP Figure 6-2 (Criteria Area Species Survey Area), Figure 6-3
(Amphibian Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey
Areas with Criteria Area), and Figure 6-5 (Mammal Species Survey Areas With Criteria Area),
burrowing owl surveys are required for the subject property prior to approval of a development
proposal.
The property is not located within survey areas for criteria area species (MSHCP Figure 6-2),
amphibian species (MSHCP Figure 6-3), or mammal species (MSHCP Figure 6-5) and
surveys for those species are not required.
The Project site is located within the MSHCP Survey Area for the burrowing owl. A burrowing
owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat assessment following Step 1 of the Burrowing Owl
Instructions for the Western Riverside MSHCP was conducted on the site on February 3, 2023
was conducted by Hernandez Environmental Services. Due to the presence of potentially
suitable habitat, a focused burrow survey was conducted on the site on May 1, 2023 following
Step 2A of the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside MSHCP. The
focused burrow survey found no potentially suitable burrows and manmade structures that
could be utilized as burrows, such as earthen berms; cement, asphalt, rock, or wood debris
piles; or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement onsite; therefore, it was determined
that the site is not currently occupied by the species
As a mitigation measure for the proposed Project, the City will require a pre-construction
presence/absence survey for burrowing owl to be conducted within 30 days of the
commencement of project-related grading or other land disturbance activities to ensure that
the species has not moved onto the site since completion of the surveys. The pre-construction
survey should occur within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity. Owls located as a result
of survey efforts will be relocated. If burrowing owl have colonized the project site or the offsite
improvements area prior to the initiation of construction, the project proponent should
immediately inform the City, RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, and coordinate on the potential
need for preparation, review and approval of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan,
prior to any ground disturbance.
Therefore, the subject project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures
of the MSHCP.
6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP sets forth guidelines that are intended to address indirect effects
associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area, where
applicable.
The guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address indirect effects
associated with development near MSHCP Conserved Areas. Developments in proximity to
MSHCP Conserved Areas may result in “edge effects” that might adversely affect biological
resources within MSHCP Conserved Areas.
According to the MSHCP development may occur adjacent to Conservation Areas. Future
Development in proximity to Conservation Areas may result in Edge Effects that will adversely
affect biological resources within the Conservation Areas. To minimize such Edge Effects, the
Project Applicant will be required to follow the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines in Section
6.1.4 of the MSHCP to minimize urban/wildlands interface issues in the nearby Criteria Area.
CC Reso. No. 2023-____
Page 5 of 6
These include measures related to indirect impacts such as water quality (drainage), use of
toxics, night lighting, indirect noise, invasive plant and wildlife species, protection of habitat
areas (barriers), and grading/land development adjacent to habitat areas.
The Project Site is not located within 3,000 feet of proposed preservation land in the 770-acre
Plan therefore no indirect effects of urban/wildlands interfaces are expected at the Project
Site.
The subject project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines.
7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
The entire 17.21-acre project site consists of disturbed, ruderal habitat. This habitat is
characterized by brome grass and non-native vegetation that grows in previously disturbed
areas, including common barley (hordeum vulgare), cheatgrass (bromus tectorum),
cheeseweed (malva parviflora), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and tall
tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). Other species in this habitat include stinknet
(Oncosiphon piluliferum), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and Western ragweed
(Ambrosia psilostachya).
This mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP and is consistent with the MSHCP vegetation
mapping requirements
8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
Section 6.4 of the MSHCP requires that new developments adjacent to the MSHCP
Conservation Area (in this case the proposed 770-acre Plan preservation areas) or other
undeveloped lands incorporate any fuel/brush management zones and Best Management
Practices. The Project Site is not located in or adjacent to the proposed 770-acre Plan
preservation areas, is proposed as a non-combustible commercial development, and
undeveloped areas adjacent to the Project Site are anticipated to be developed and is
therefore not expected to be subject to fuel modification requirements.
The Project will incorporate the BMPs outlined in Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP as part
of the development pursuant to regulatory and/or County requirements.
Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in
Section 6.4 of the MSHCP.
9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee.
As a condition of approval, the Project will be required to pay the City’s MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits.
10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
Approximately 0.30 acre of the project site is located in Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP
Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The property that will be developed by the Proposed
Project includes that area. Conservation within this Cell will range from 65%-75% of the Cell
focusing in the southern portion of the Cell. The conservation requirements set forth for this
Criteria Cell has been replaced with the preservation of habitat in the Back Basin of Lake
CC Reso. No. 2023-____
Page 6 of 6
Elsinore through the 770-acre Agreement. The Project Site is not located within 3,000 feet of
proposed preservation land in the 770-acre Plan. Even without consideration of the 770-acre
Plan, the Project site falls outside of that portion of Criteria Cell 5131 identified for conservation
and the project site does not meet the conservation requirements set forth for Subunit 3 of the
Elsinore Area Plan. The balance of the project site is not located within either a criteria cell or
Subunit 3. Therefore, conservation of the project site, or any portion thereof, is not required.
The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP.
Section 4: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the
above findings, the Council finds that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into
the book of original Resolutions.
Passed and Adopted on this 14th day of November, 2023.
Natasha Johnson,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Candice Alvarez, MMC,
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2023-__ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
at a regular meeting held on November 14, 2023 and that the same was adopted by the following
vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Candice Alvarez, MMC,
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38378 TO SUBDIVIDE
AN APPROXIMATELY 17.21-ACRE SITE INTO ONE LOT AND 191 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES LOCATED IN APNS: 370-050-019, 370-
050-020, AND 370-050-032
Whereas, Brett Crowder, Coastal Commercial Properties has filed an application with the
City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2022-03 (Tentative
Tract Map (TTM) No. 38378 and Residential Design Review No. 2022-02) to subdivide an
approximately 17.21-acre site into one (1) approximately 16.94-acre lot for condominium
purposes (0.28-acre right-of-way dedication) and a residential design review to construct 191
detached condominium residences and associated site improvements. The project site is located
within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP), adjacent to and west of Mission Trail, across from
Lemon Street to the south, and Lewis Street and Victorian Lane to the north (APNs: 370-050-019,
370-050-020, and 370-050-032);
Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
(LEMC), the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of
making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the review of tentative maps;
Whereas, on October 17, 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 and adopted a resolution recommending that the Council Approve
TTM No. 38378; and
Whereas, on November 14, 2023, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Council has
considered the recommendation of the Commission as we well as evidence presented by the
Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The forgoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into
these findings by this reference.
Section 2: The Council has reviewed and analyzed TTM No. 38378 pursuant to the
appropriate Planning and Zoning Laws, and Chapter 16 (Subdivisions) of the LEMC and the
Subdivision Map Act.
Section 3: The Council finds that the proposed project is categorically exempt from
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c)
(Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan). The City adopted the East Lake Specific Plan,
Amendment No. 11 (SPA 2016-02) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2016111029
on November 11, 2017. The proposed project is consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan,
Mixed Use Overlay district which allows Detached Multiple-Family Cluster Residential Only
Development with a Density up to 18 Dwelling Units per Net Acre (du/ac). Pursuant to 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 Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
CC Reso. No. 2023-____
Page 2 of 4
2016111029) prepared for the East Lake Specific Plan. All potentially significant effects have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to the EIR and none of the conditions described in Section 15162
have occurred. EIR (SCH No. 2016111029) was adopted by the City Council on November 28,
2017.
Section 4: That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the LEMC, the
Council makes the following findings for approval of TTM No. 38378:
1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the
objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan
(Government Code Section 66473.5).
The project site is located in the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and has an Action Sports,
Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation with a Mixed Use Overlay.
The Mixed Use overlay offers an option to develop residential and commercial uses in
additions to those uses described in the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial, and
Recreation land use designation. Per Table 2-12 (Mixed Use Overlay – Allowable Land
Uses) of the ELSP, Condominiums are listed as permitted uses. Table 2-13 (Mixed Use
Overlay Development Standards) allows Detached Multiple-Family Cluster Residential
Only Development with a density up to 18 Dwelling Units per Net Acre (du/ac). The
application proposes to construct and subdivide 191 two-story detached residential
condominium units on an approximately 16.93 acre parcel at an approximate density of
11.3 units per net acre. Therefore, the project is consistent with the ELSP. Furthermore,
because the ELSP was found to be consistent with the General Plan prior to its adoption,
the project is also consistent with the General Plan.
2. The site of the proposed subdivision of land is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development in accordance with the General Plan.
The site of the proposed subdivision of land is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development in accordance with the ELSP and General Plan because the physical
conditions of the site, including soils and drainage, can adequately support the proposed
development as designed. No physical hazards, such as a flood areas or fault zones, exist
on site. Connection to the existing sewage and water facilities, as well as other utilities
including telephone, gas and electricity services, is feasible. As a condition of the tentative
tract map, the City will require dedication of land to widen Mission Trail along with street
frontage improvements. The proposed development conforms to the applicable
development standards provided in the ELSP. The site surroundings include residential
and commercial development that is compatible with the proposed residential use of the
project site, and there are no reasonably foreseeable incompatible uses to be located
within the vicinity.
3. That the design of the proposed division of land or the proposed improvements are likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat;
The proposed division of land and proposed improvements are unlikely to cause
substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the
project site is void of significant biological resources according to site surveys conducted
by a qualified biologist. The site is located within an urbanized area and does not contain
CC Reso. No. 2023-____
Page 3 of 4
any features, such as surface waters, riparian habitat or mature trees that could serve
important or critical ecological functions. Furthermore, the site has been routinely disced
for weed control purposes and is in a disturbed, non-natural state.
4. That the design of the proposed division of land or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed division of land. The City Council may approve a division of land if it
finds that alternative easements for access or for use will be provided, and that they will
be subsequently equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This section shall
apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction.
The subdivision will not conflict with public access because the site of the proposed
subdivision does not contain publicly acquired access easements. Furthermore, there is
no planned right-of-way within the site as shown in the circulation element of the General
Plan. As a condition of the tentative tract map, the City will require dedication of land for
Mission Trail along with street frontage improvements to ensure conformity with the
General Plan.
5. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The tentative map has been adequately conditioned by all applicable departments and
agencies and will not result in any significant environmental impacts. The proposed
project, subject to conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because
adequate health and sanitation facilities will be provided throughout the subdivision.
6. The effects that this project are likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the
public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental
resources have been considered and balanced.
The project will provide a net increase of 191 newly constructed housing units within city
limits. The project does not involve the demolition of existing housing units. Adequate
levels of public service and capacity, including fire protection, police protection, schools,
and parks, are available to the proposed subdivision site. The subdivider will also pay
development impact fees to offset the costs associated with providing governmental
services to the population increase resulting from the project. Upon implementation of
adopted mitigation measures in the EIR prepared for the East Lake Specific Plan, the
project will not have significant effects on the environment.
7. The design of the subdivision provides future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities within the subdivision.
The proposed subdivision will divide an approximately 17.21-acre flat site into one lot for
condominium purposes and will construct 191 two-story detached condominium
residences which will feature operable windows on all elevations to provide natural cooling
opportunities. All buildings will be provided southern exposure to provide natural heating
opportunities. No changes to the shape or configuration of the existing parcels are
proposed. The residential units being proposed in conjunction with the subdivision will be
CC Reso. No. 2023-____
Page 4 of 4
designed to meet California building energy efficiency standards and to provide rooftop
solar panels on each building to offset energy demand. Other design features, such as
shade trees, will be planted onsite to provide natural cooling.
Section 5: Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the
conditions of approval imposed upon the project, the Council hereby approves Tentative Tract
Map No. 38378.
Section 6: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Section 7: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into
the book of original Resolutions.
Passed and Adopted on this 14th day of November, 2023.
Natasha Johnson,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Candice Alvarez, MMC,
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2023-__ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
at a regular meeting held on November 14, 2023 and that the same was adopted by the following
vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Candice Alvarez, MMC,
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-02
PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGNS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR 191
TWO-STORY DETACHED CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN LOCATED
APNS: 370-050-019, 370-050-020, AND 370-050-032.
Whereas, Brett Crowder, Coastal Commercial Properties has filed an application with the
City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2022-03 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 38378 and Residential Design Review No. 2022-02) to subdivide an approximately
17.21-acre site into one (1) approximately 16.94-acre lot for condominium purposes (0.28-acre
right-of-way dedication) and a residential design review to construct 191 detached condominium
residences and associated site improvements. The project site is located within the East Lake
Specific Plan, adjacent to and west of Mission Trail, across from Lemon Street to the south, and
Lewis Street and Victorian Lane to the north (APNs: 370-050-019, 370-050-020, and 370-050-
032);
Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review), Section 17.410.070
(Approving Authority), and Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications) of the Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code (LEMC) the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the
responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the review
of design review applications;
Whereas, on October 17, 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, and adopted a resolution recommending that the Council Approve
Residential Design Review No. 2022-02; and
Whereas, on November 14, 2023, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Council has
considered the recommendation of the Commission as we well as evidence presented by the
Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into
these findings by this reference.
Section 2: The Council 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), the East Lake Specific Plan Specific Plan (ELSP), 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, ELSP and the LEMC.
Section 3: The Council finds that the proposed project is categorically exempt from
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c)
(Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan). The City adopted the East Lake Specific Plan,
Amendment No. 11 (SPA 2016-02) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2016111029
on November 11, 2017. The proposed project is consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan,
Mixed Use Overlay district which allows Detached Multiple-Family Cluster Residential Only
CC Reso. No. 2023-____
Page 2 of 3
3
6
6
7
5
Development with a Density up to 18 Dwelling Units per Net Acre (du/ac). Pursuant to 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 Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
2016111029) prepared for the East Lake Specific Plan. All potentially significant effects have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to the EIR and none of the conditions described in Section 15162
have occurred. EIR (SCH No. 2016111029) was adopted by the City Council on November 28,
2017.
Section 4: That in accordance with Section 17.415.050.G of the LEMC, the Council
makes the following findings regarding Residential Design Review No. 2022-02:
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 located in the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and has an Actions Sports,
Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Land Use Designation with a Mixed Use Overlay. The
Mixed Use overlay offers an option to develop residential and commercial uses in additions
to those uses described in the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial, and Recreation land
use designation. Per Table 2-12 (Mixed Use Overlay – Allowable Land Uses) of the ELSP,
Condominiums are listed as permitted uses. Table 2-13 (Mixed Use Overlay Development
Standards) allows Detached Multiple-Family Cluster Residential Only Development with a
density up to 18 Dwelling Units per Net Acre (du/ac). The application proposes to construct
and subdivide 191 two-story detached residential condominium units on an approximately
16.94 acre parcel at an approximate density of 11.3 units per net acre. Therefore, the project
is consistent with the ELSP. Furthermore, because the ELSP was found to be consistent
with the General Plan prior to its adoption, the project is also consistent with the General
Plan.
2. The project complies with the design directives contained in the East Lake Specific Plan
Specific Plan and all applicable provisions of the LEMC.
The project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments. The three architectural
styles 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 October 17, 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 5: Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of
approval imposed upon the Project, the Council hereby approves Residential Design Review No.
2022-0).
CC Reso. No. 2023-____
Page 3 of 3
3
6
6
7
5
Section 6: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Section 7: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter in into the
book of original Resolutions.
Passed and Adopted on this 14th day of November, 2023.
Natasha Johnson,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Candice Alvarez, MMC,
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2023-__ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
at a regular meeting held on November 14, 2023 and that the same was adopted by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Candice Alvarez, MMC,
City Clerk
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 1 of 20
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: PA 2022-03/TTM 2022-01 (TTM 38378)/RDR 2022-02
PROJECT NAME:Mission Trail at Lemon
PROJECT LOCATION:APNs: 370-050-019, 370-050-020, 370-050-030
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
EXPIRATION DATE:
GENERAL
1. Planning Application No. 2022-03 consists of requests for Tentative Tract Map No. 38378
to subdivide an approximately 17.21-acre site into one (1) approximately 16.94-acre lot
for condominium purposes (0.28-acre right-of-way dedication) and Residential Design
Review No. 2022-02 to construct 191 detached condominium residences and associated
improvements within the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial, and Recreation Land Use
Designation with a Mixed Use Overlay within the East Lake Specific Plan. The proposed
buildings feature seven floor plans ranging in size from 1,323 sq. ft. to 2,146 sq. ft. and
three architectural styles (French Country, Santa Barbara and Modern Farmhouse). The
site will feature common open space areas with amenities including a playground structure
(“tot lot”), a swimming pool, a recreation building, and seating areas. The project site is
located adjacent to and west of Mission Trail, across from Lemon Street to the south, and
Lewis Street and Victorian Lane to the north (APNs: 370-050-019, 370-050-020, and 370-
050-032).
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 TTM 2022-01
and RDR 2022-02, 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 TTM 2022-01 and RDR 2022-
02 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.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 2 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
PLANNING DIVISION
4. Tentative Tract Map No. 38378 will expire two years from the date of approval unless
within that period of time a Final Map has been filed with the County Recorder, or an
extension of time is granted by the City Council in accordance with the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
(LEMC).
5. Tentative Tract Map No. 38378 shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map
Act, and applicable requirements contained in the LEMC, unless modified by these
Conditions of Approval.
6. Residential Design Review No. 2022-02 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.
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 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.
10. Any proposed minor revisions to approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director or designee. Any proposed substantial revisions to the
approved plans shall be reviewed according to the provisions of the Municipal Code in a
similar manner as a new application.
11. A 6-foot-high decorative CMU wall shall be constructed along the north, south, and east
sides of the project boundary, and an 8-foot-high CMU wall shall be constructed along the
western boundary of the site that is adjacent to the Motorsports Park. If a double wall
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous
property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along
the project perimeter.
12. For multiple-family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 3 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
13. For multiple-family development, provide exterior lockable storage space as required by
the California Green Building Code.
14. The applicant shall provide all prospective home buyers and home owners a written
disclosure statement identifying that the project is located within an active recreation area.
Such activities will include, but are not limited to, sporting activities, water sport and
recreation activities, off road racing, sky diving, hang gliding, a potential 1.2 million sq. ft.
fulfillment center. Said written disclosure statements shall indicate that such recreation
activities will include, but are not limited to, noise impacts, excessive lighting, and dust.
(Added after PC 10/17/2023)
15. 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.
Prior to Recordation of Final Map(s)
16. All lots shall comply with minimum standards set forth in the Mixed Use overlay land use
designation - Detached Multiple-Family Cluster Residential Only Development Standards
(Table 2-13) of the East Lake Specific Plan.
17. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided per the LEMC.
18. Street names within the subdivision shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director or designee.
19. All of the project improvements shall be designed by the applicant's Civil Engineer to the
specifications of the City of Lake Elsinore.
20. The applicant shall initiate and complete the formation of a Homeowner’s Association
(HOA) which shall be approved by the City. All Association documents shall be submitted
for review and approval by City Planning, Engineering and the City Attorney and upon City
approval shall be recorded. Such documents shall include the Articles of Incorporation for
the Association and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
a. At a minimum, all recreation and park areas (except public parks), all natural
slopes and open space, all graded slopes abutting public street rights-of-way which
are not part of residential lots, up slopes from public rights-of-way within private
lots and all private streets, and all drainage basins shall be maintained by the
Homeowner’s Association (HOA).
b. Provisions to restrict parking upon other than approved and developed parking
spaces shall be written into the CC&Rs for the project. Such restriction shall
include requiring homeowners to park their vehicles in their garage and/or
driveway (where applicable) and requiring an on-street parking permit for
additional vehicles. (Added after PC 10/17/2023)
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 4 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits/Building Permits
21. The following architectural details shall be provided:
All front fence returns shall be decorative masonry walls. Wood fences will not be
allowed along the front elevation. Wood, vinyl or steel (wrought iron or aluminum)
gates are allowed in order to allow access to rear yards.
The applicant shall provide four-sided articulation. Architectural enhancements
and treatments shall be provided on all residential elevations (front, rear and side)
visible from streets and other public views.
All fireplaces shall be natural gas fireplaces only. No wood burning fireplaces shall
be allowed.
22. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall obtain all necessary
State and Federal permits, approvals, or other entitlements, including obtaining the
necessary authorizations from the regulatory agencies for proposed impacts to
jurisdictional waters. Authorizations may include a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waste
Discharge Requirement from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
23. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall prepare a Final Wall and Fence
Plan addressing the following:
Show that a masonry or decorative block wall will be constructed along the entire
tract boundary.
Show materials, colors, and heights of rear, side and front walls/fences for
proposed lots.
Show the location of all wood, vinyl or steel (wrought iron or aluminum) gates
placed within the front return walls.
Show that side walls for corner lots shall be decorative masonry block walls.
Show that those materials provided along the front elevations (i.e. brick, stone,
etc.) will wrap around the side elevation and be flush with the front return walls.
24. Signs are not part of this project approval. All signage shall be subject to Planning Division
or Planning Commission review and approval prior to installation.
25. Provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance (LEMC Chapter 17.176) shall be satisfied during
all site preparation and construction activity. The applicant shall place a weatherproof 3'x3'
sign at the entrance to the project site identifying the approved days and hours of
construction activity. Site preparation activity and construction shall not commence before
7:00 AM and shall cease no later than 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Only finish work
and similar interior construction may be conducted on Saturdays and may commence no
earlier than 8:00 am and shall cease no later than 4:00 p.m. Construction activity shall not
take place on Sunday, or any Legal Holidays. The sign shall identify the name and phone
number of the development manager to address any complaints.
26. Prior to issuance of a model home permit, building plans for the Model Home Complex
shall comply with all American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, including provision of
a handicapped-accessible bathroom.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 5 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
27. Construction phasing shall be implemented in accordance a Phasing Plan, subject to a
review and approval by the Engineering and Building Departments, which avoids
construction traffic from entering occupied neighborhoods within the tract.
28. A cash bond in the amount of $1,000 shall be required for the Model Home Complex. This
bond is to guarantee removal of the temporary fencing material, parking lot, etc. that have
been placed onsite for the Model Home Complex. The bond will be released after removal
of the materials and the site is adequately restored, subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director or designee.
29. A cash bond in the amount of $1,000 shall be required for any garage conversion of the
model(s). Bonds will be released after removal of all temporary materials and the site is
adequately restored, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or
designee.
30. A cash bond in the amount of $1,000 shall be required for any construction trailers used
during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers, subject to the approval
of the Community Development Director or designee.
31. The applicant shall pay school fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District prior to
issuance of each building permit.
32. The project shall connect to water and sewer and meet all requirements of the Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). The applicant shall submit water and sewer
plans to the EVMWD and shall incorporate all district conditions and standards.
33. All mechanical and electrical equipment associated with the residences shall be ground
mounted. All outdoor ground or wall mounted utility equipment shall be consolidated in a
central location and architecturally screened behind fence returns, subject to the approval
of the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permit.
34. All front yards and side yards on corner lots shall be properly landscaped with automatic
(manual or electric) irrigation systems to provide 100 percent planting coverage using a
combination of drip and conventional irrigation methods. Construction Landscape &
Irrigation drawings shall be submitted to the Community Development Department with
appropriate fees, for review and approval by the Community Development Director or
designee.
The applicant shall replace any street trees harmed during construction, in
conformance with the City's Street Tree List, at a maximum of 30 feet apart and at
least 24-inch box in size.
Perimeter walls shall be protected by shrubs and other plantings that discourage
graffiti.
The applicant shall ensure a clear line of sight at ingress/egress points by providing
plantings within 15 feet of ingress/egress points whose height does not exceed two
(2) feet and whose canopy does not fall below six feet.
The landscape plan shall provide for California native drought-tolerant ground
cover, shrubs, and trees. Special attention shall be given to use of Xeriscape or
drought resistant plantings with combination drip irrigation system to prevent
excessive watering.
No front-yard shall be landscaped with grass turf.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 6 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
All landscape improvements shall be bonded with a ten percent (10%) Faithful
Performance Bond of the approved estimated labor and materials cost for all
planting. The bond shall remain in effect for one year from Certificate of
Occupancy.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within an affected portion of any
phase at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested for any building.
All Model Homes shall be Xeriscaped and signage provided identifying Xeriscape
landscaping. Xeriscape is a method of landscape design that minimizes water use
by:
i. Eliminating high and medium water-use plant material as identified by
Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) (such as turf)
and incorporates low to very low water-efficient (“drought-tolerant” /
climate-appropriate) plants;
ii.Requires an efficient irrigation system that includes:
1. ET-Based (“Smart irrigation”) controller(s) with weather-sensing,
automatic shut-off and seasonal adjustment capabilities;
2. Efficient irrigation water application through use of:
a. Low-volume point-source irrigation (such as drip irrigation
and bubblers) for all shrub planter areas (maximum of 3:1
slope) with a minimum irrigation efficiency of 0.90 ; and/or
b. Rotor-type nozzles for areas greater than ten (10) feet wide,
for slopes 3:1 and greater, AND with a minimum irrigation
efficiency of 0.71.
3. Improvement of soil structure for better water retention; and
4. Application of mulch to hinder evaporation.
The Final landscape plan shall be consistent with any approved site and/or plot
plan.
The Final landscape plan shall include planting and irrigation details.
All exposed slopes in excess of three feet in height within the subject tract and
within private lots shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control
vegetation installed, as approved by the Planning Division, prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy.
All landscaping and irrigation shall comply with the water-efficient landscaping
requirements set forth in LEMC Chapter 19.08 (Water Efficient Landscape
Requirements), as adopted and any amendments thereto.
BUILDING DIVISION
General Conditions
35. 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.
36. 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.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 7 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit
approvals prior to commencement of any construction work.
41. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits.Trash enclosures, patio covers, light
standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits.
42. 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.
43. 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
44. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4)
complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval
including:
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 2022 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
building and the truss manufacturer engineer.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 8 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s)
45. 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.
46. 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.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s)
47. 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
48. Pre-Construction Meeting. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building
inspector prior to the start of the building construction.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL
48. All new submittals for plan check or permit shall be made using the City’s online Citizen
Service Portal (CSSP).
49. All plans (Street, Storm Drain, Grading) shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer
using the City’s standard title block.
50. All required soils, geology, seismic, and hydrology and hydraulic reports shall be prepared
by a registered Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer, as applicable.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 9 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
55. 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.
56. Minimum good housekeeping and erosion and sediment control Best Management
Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented.
57. Applicant shall install permanent benchmarks to Riverside County Standards and at
locations to be determined by the City Engineer.
FEES
58. 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.
59. 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:
Master Drainage Plan Fee – Due prior to Final Map approval or grading permit
issuance, whichever is first.
Traffic Infrastructure Fee (TIF) – Due prior to building permit issuance.
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) – Due prior to occupancy.
Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Fee (K-Rat) – Due prior to grading permit issuance.
60. Applicant is responsible for the following fair share contributions as identified in the Traffic
Impact Analysis by EPD Solutions, Inc. dated April 5, 2023:
Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road Improvements -17.65% contribution
i. Improvements include restriping the southbound approach on Orange
Street to provide an exclusive left turn-lane and a shared through right-turn
lane.
I-15 Southbound Ramps and Bundy Canyon Road Improvements – 8.12%
contribution
i. Improvements include widening and restring the southbound approach on
I-15 SB Ramp to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes and a shared through
right turn-lane.
Fair share contributions are due prior to issuance of occupancy.
FINAL TRACT MAP
61. Applicant shall submit for plan check review and approval for final Tract Map.
62. Street names within the subdivision shall be established and approved by the Community
Development Director or Designee prior to Final Map approval.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 10 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
63. Applicant shall make an offer of dedication for all public streets and easements required
by these conditions or shown on the Tentative Map. All land so offered shall be granted to
the City, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City.
64. Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way for Mission Trail adjacent to the property for a total
right-of-way of 60 feet from centerline to the project property line. Mission Trail 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.
65. Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way for Victorian Lane adjacent to the property for a total
right-of-way of 34 feet from centerline to the project property line. Victorian Lane is
classified as a Collector Roadway in the City’s General Plan, where full-width is 68 feet
and curb-to-curb width is 48 feet.
66. 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.
67. Prior to scheduling City Council approval of the final Tract Map, the applicant shall, in
accordance with Government Code, have constructed all improvements or have
improvement plans submitted and approved, agreements executed, and securities
posted. Securities posted include but are not limited to the off-site improvements.
68. Monumentation shall be in accordance with LEMC Section 16.32 and Subdivision Map
Act.
69. Security and inspection fee for monumentation shall be paid and two contiguous
monuments shall be inspected prior to scheduling City Council approval of final map.
70. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to the City for review
approval. Recordation shall be with final Tract Map.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT / POLLUTION PREVENTION / NPDES
Design
71. 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.
72. A Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required and 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
scheduling City Council for final map approval, grading plan approval and issuance of any
permit for construction, whichever is first.
73. The Final WQMP shall document the following:
Detailed site and project description.
Potential stormwater pollutants.
Post-development drainage characteristics.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 11 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
Low Impact Development (LID) BMP selection and analysis.
Structural and non-structural source control BMPs.
Treatment Control BMPs.
Site design and drainage plan (BMP Exhibit).
Documentation of how vector issues are addressed in the BMP design, operation
and maintenance.
GIS Decimal Minute Longitude and Latitude coordinates for all LID and Treatment
Control BMP locations.
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).
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement (using City approved
form and/or CC&Rs) as well as documentation of formation of funding district for
long term maintenance costs.
74. Parking lot landscaping areas shall be designed to provide for treatment, retention or
infiltration of runoff.
75. Project hardscape areas shall be designed and constructed to provide for drainage into
adjacent landscape.
76. Project trash enclosure shall be covered, bermed, and designed to divert drainage from
adjoining paved areas and regularly maintained.
77. 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.
78. All storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked “Only Rain in the Storm Drain”
using the City authorized marker.
79. 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
80. 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.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 12 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
81. 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
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) Number or
other proof of filing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A copy of the SWPPP shall be
kept at the project site, updated, and be available for review upon request.
82. 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 by the City
Engineer, 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
83. 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:
Demonstrate that the project has compiled with all non-structural BMPs described
in the project’s WQMP.
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.
Submit a copy of the fully executed, recorded City approved Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement for all structural BMPs or a copy of the
recorded City approved CC&R.
The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement and/or CC&R’s 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.
Provide documentation of annexation into a CFD for funding facilities to be
maintained by the City.
Demonstrate that copies of the project’s approved WQMP (with recorded O&M
Plan or CC&R’s attached) are available for each of the initial occupants.
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.
Provide the City with a digital .pdf copy of the Final WQMP.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 13 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
UTILITIES
84. 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).
85. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of
LEMC Section 16.52.030, and consistent with the City’s agreement with the Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District. Dedication shall be made on final Tract Map.
86. 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.
87. 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
88. Project will be responsible for the following improvements:
Construction of ultimate half-width street improvements adjacent to the project
frontage on Mission Trail (120-foot right-of-way). Improvements shall include
widened section of new AC pavement and base material, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, parkway landscaping, utility relocations, signage relocations, modify
traffic signal as required on Mission Trail and Lemon Street, and streetlights.
Mission Trail shall be restriped and widening shall include transition paving and
striping.
Project is required to relocate the existing Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) bus
stop.
i. Coordination with RTA is required for the project.
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 causing by the striping plan.
Project shall install ADA curb ramps along property frontage at the intersections of
Lemon Street, Victorian Street, and the main entry way to provide connectivity for
pedestrians.
Project shall be required to install signage restricting vehicular parking along
Mission Trail in such form and substance as determined by the City Engineer.
(Added after PC 10/17/2023)
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 14 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
89. Sight distance into and out and throughout the project location shall comply with City
Standard 125/126 or Caltrans standards. Project shall ensure facilities are installed
outside the line of sight of drivers.
90. If existing improvements are to be modified, existing improvement plans on file shall be
revised accordingly and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building
permit.
91. Project will be responsible to design and install streetlights on Mission Trail along project
frontage. 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.
92. 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.
93. All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control
District Standards.
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs
should drain to a landscaped area to maximum extent possible.
97. The site shall be planned and developed to keep surface water from entering buildings
(California Green Building Standards Code 4.106.3).
98. 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.
99. A registered Civil Engineer shall prepare the improvement (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). Signing,
Striping and Traffic signal plans shall be submitted separately from improvement plans.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 15 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
Permitting/Construction
100. 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.
101. An Encroachment Permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC) shall be obtained prior to any work connecting to RCFC facilities. Permit
shall be obtained prior to issuance of City permits.
102. Any work beyond street centerline of Mission Trail may require an encroachment permit
from City of Wildomar.
103. 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
104. 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.
105. All grading plan contours shall extend to minimum of 50 feet beyond property lines to
indicate existing drainage pattern.
106. The grading plan shall show that no structures, landscaping, or equipment are located
near the project entrances that could reduce sight distance.
107. If the grading plan identifies alterations in the existing drainage patterns as they exit the
site, a Hydrology and Hydraulic Report for review and approval by City Engineer shall be
required prior to issuance of grading permits. All grading that modifies the existing flow
patterns and/or topography shall be in compliance with Federal, State and Local law and
be approved by the City Engineer.
108. A geotechnical investigation shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden
earthquake faults, liquefaction and/or subsidence zones present on-site. A certified letter
from a registered geologist or geotechnical engineer shall be submitted confirming the
absence of this hazard prior to grading permit. The location of faults, active or inactive
shall be shown on the plan sets. A certified geotechnical engineer and/or licensed
geologist shall verify compliance with geotechnical recommendations and confirm that
geotechnical conditions are consistent with finds in the geotechnical investigation.
109. 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.
110. Applicant shall mitigate to prevent any flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by
development of the site and/or diversion of drainage.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 16 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
111. 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 a drainage easement as approved by the City Engineer.
Permitting/Construction
112. Applicant shall execute and submit grading and erosion control agreement, post grading
security and pay permit fees as a condition of grading permit issuance.
113. 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.
114. 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.
115. A preconstruction meeting with the City Engineering Inspector (Engineering Department)
is required prior to commencement of any grading activity.
116. 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 of the City Engineer. Haul route
shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit.
117. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a licensed geotechnical engineer.
Slopes steeper than 2 to 1 shall be evaluated for stability and proper erosion control and
approved by the City.
118. 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.
119. Approval of the project Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post
construction shall be received prior to issuance of a grading permit.
120. 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.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT
121. Provide soils, geology and seismic report, including recommendations for parameters for
seismic design of buildings, and walls prior to building permit.
122. All public improvement, traffic signal, signing and striping plans shall be completed and
approved by the City Engineer.
123. The Final Tract Map shall be recorded.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 17 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY / FINAL APPROVAL / PROJECT CLOSEOUT
124. All public improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans or as
condition of this development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of
occupancy.
125. Project bus stop shall be relocated in accordance with Riverside Transit Authority (RTA)
requirements and City of Lake Elsinore concurrence.
126. Proof of acceptance of maintenance responsibility of slopes, open spaces, landscape
areas, and drainage facilities shall be provided.
127. Applicant shall provide a digital copy of the recorded Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Engineering Department prior to first occupancy.
128. 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.
129. Applicant shall pay all outstanding applicable processing and development fees prior to
occupancy and/or final approval.
130. Applicant shall submit documentation pursuant to City’s Security Release handout.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FIRE MARSHAL
131. The applicant/operator shall comply with all requirements of the Riverside County Fire
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.
132. The applicant or developer shall provide square footage information for the community
building as part of their formal submittal at building plan check.
133. The applicant or 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. Fire flow shall be determined by the building of the single largest square footage.
The minimum required fire flow shall be 1500 GPM at 20 PSI for a 2-hour
duration, per the 2022 California Fire Code for a building with Type V-B
construction.
134. Prior to building permit issuance, install the approved water system and contact the Fire
Department for a verification inspection.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 18 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
135. Fire Sprinkler System: all residential occupancies shall have fire sprinkler systems in
accordance with the California Residential Code, California Fire Code, and local
ordinances.
136. Fire apparatus access: the California Fire Code requires fire apparatus access to within
150 feet of all portions of all buildings. Where apparatus access roads exceed 150 feet in
length, an approved turnaround is required. This distance may be extended to 300’ if all
buildings are equipped with automatic sprinklers. Minimum requirements are referenced
in Riverside County Fire Technical Policy TP16-001.
137. The dimensions of this access shall be a minimum of 24’ wide and have no less than a
38’ outside turning radius. Minimum requirements are referenced in riverside County Fire
Technical Policy TP22-002.
138. Gates must meet Fire Department standards at all times of building permit application.
139. All electronically operated gates shall be provided with Knox key switches and automatic
sensors for access by emergency personnel. (CFC 506.1).
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Annex into CFD 2015-1 (Safety) Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services CFD
140. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit (whichever comes first),
the applicant shall submit an application to the Department of Administrative Services to
initiate the annexation process into Community Facilities District No. 2015-1 (Safety) the
Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project on public safety operations and
maintenance issues in the City. 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 Public Safety 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)
141. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit (whichever comes first),
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.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 19 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
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
142. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation
Monitoring & Reporting Program for the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
2016111029) prepared for the East Lake Specific Plan.
Conditions of Approval PC: October 17, 2023
PA 2022-03/TTM 38378/RDR 2022-02 CC: November 14, 2023
Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 20 of 20
3
6
6
7
6
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:
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 1 of 184
MISSION TRAIL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2022-03
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2022-01 (TTM 38378)
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-02
ADMIN DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2022-03
CEQA EXEMPTION STUDY
Prepared By: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Applicant:
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
1020 2nd Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Environmental Consultant:
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
September 2023
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 2 of 184
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
This document is a CEQA Exemption Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the Mission Trail Residential Project. For purposes of this document, this
application will be called the “proposed project”. The Lead Agency will utilize this document as
evidence that the proposed project qualifies for an exemption to further California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, Projects Pursuant to a
Specific Plan, and Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, as detailed below.
B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
As described by Section 15062 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a
CEQA Exemption Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, development projects that are undertaken pursuant to
a specific plan for which an EIR was previously prepared are exempt from further CEQA review if the
projects are in conformity with that specific plan and the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines
section 15162 (relating to the preparation of a supplemental EIR) are not present. (Gov. Code, § 65457,
subd. (a); Guidelines, § 15182, subd. (c), § 15162, subd. (a)) CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c)
Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans states that this includes, but not limited to, land
subdivisions, zoning changes, and residential planned unit developments.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified or a negative
declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead
agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions
are met:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR 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 previous EIR due to the involvement of 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 previous EIR was certified as
complete, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration.
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified 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 proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment,
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 3 of 184
but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
Under Section 15182, where if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR or
negative declaration would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope
of the project covered by the previous CEQA documentation for the Specific Plan, and no additional
CEQA document is required.
This CEQA Exemption Study has determined that the potential impacts are consistent with those
previously identified that can be reduced through implementation of conditions of approval and
the previously adopted mitigation measures for the approved Specific Plan; and therefore, a
CEQA Exemption is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary environmental
clearance.
This CEQA Exemption Study and CEQA Exemption are prepared in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 , as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.); the
State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA
Guidelines”), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section
15000, et seq.); applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements,
and procedures of any other responsible public agency or agency with jurisdiction by law.
The City of Lake Elsinore is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the
CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment.
C. INTENDED USES OF THIS CEQA EXEMPTION STUDY
This CEQA Exemption Study analyzes the proposed Mission Trail Residential Project to determine its
eligibility to be exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to its consistency with the adopted Specific
Plan and related CEQA documentation. Development projects that are undertaken pursuant to a specific
plan for which CEQA documentation was previously prepared are exempt from further CEQA review
if the projects are in conformity with that specific plan and the conditions described in CEQA
Guidelines section 15162.
The City of Lake Elsinore adopted the East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 11 Project (SPA 2016-
02) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2016111029 on November 11, 2017. Individual
development projects that implement the East Lake Specific Plan are eligible for the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15182 exemption if none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
The proposed project would develop an approximately 16.98-acre vacant and undeveloped site along
Mission Trail within the East Lake Specific Plan area. The project would construct 191 two-story
residences that would be consistent with the Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation and
Mixed Use Overlay Specific Plan designation of the project site. As detailed in Section 3.1.3, the
proposed project is consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan; and is therefore qualifies for a CEQA
exemption; pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182.
Based on the proposed project description and knowledge of the project site, and findings of the East
Lake Specific Plan Final EIR, the City has concluded that the proposed project would not result in any
new or increased impacts not previously disclosed in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR. For these
reasons, the City has concluded that the project qualifies for the exemption to CEQA review set forth
in Government Code Section 65457 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15182 and 15162.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 4 of 184
D. CONTENTS OF THIS CEQA EXEMPTION STUDY
This CEQA Exemption Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and
environmental implications of the proposed project.
I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of Lake
Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental
procedures, and incorporation by reference documents.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of discretionary
approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City’s Environmental Checklist Form.
The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those
areas that would have either a potentially significant impact, a less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated, a less than significant impact, or no impact.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS provides the background analysis supporting each response
provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed
and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and
identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures
are also set forth, as appropriate, that would reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to levels of
less than significance.
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents the background analysis supporting each response provided
in the environmental checklist form for the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section
21083(b) of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those individuals consulted and
involved in the preparation of this CEQA Exemption Study.
VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document.
E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is
stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of this CEQA Exemption
Study. All responses will take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each
question, there are four possible responses, including:
1. No New Impact/No Impact: A designation of no impact is given when the proposed project
would not result in changes to potential impacts to the environment as compared to the original
project.
2. Minor Technical Changes or Additions/Less Than Significant Impact: An Addendum to
previous CEQA documentation is required if only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary and none of the criteria for a subsequent EIR or MND is met.
3. New Information Identifying New Mitigation: This applies where incorporation of
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 5 of 184
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less
Than Significant Impact”. The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
4. New Information Showing Greater or New Impacts: There is substantial evidence that 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 MND was certified, shows 1) the
project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Final EIR; or 2) significant
effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Final EIR.
F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES
Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on the incorporation by
reference of tiered documentation and technical studies that have been prepared for the proposed project
which are discussed in the following section.
1. Tiered Documents
As permitted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a), the analysis of general matters contained in a
Program EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) are used to tier from for later
Project EIRs and negative declarations for specific development projects. The Program EIR is
incorporated by reference and used to identify potential impacts of the proposed later development
project.
Tiering is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15385 as follows:
“Tiering” refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general plans or
policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site-specific EIRs incorporating
by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the EIR
subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of EIRs is:
(a) From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIR of lesser scope
or to a site-specific EIR;
(b) From an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an
EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the Lead Agency to focus
on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided
or not yet ripe.
Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which
discourages repetitive analyses, as follows:
“Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but
related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach
can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative
declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is
appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or
program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or
to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration.”
Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
“Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 6 of 184
with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent
with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the
later project to effects which:
(1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or
(2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the
project, by the imposition of conditions or other means.”
For this document, the City of Lake Elsinore East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 11 Project (SPA
2016-02) Final EIR (SCH No. 2016111029) is being tiered from. The Final EIR incudes evaluation of
each of the CEQA topic areas, identifies conditions of approval that are required for development of
the Specific Plan area, and includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that
identifies required mitigation for development of the project site.
Also, the “City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental
Impact Report” certified December 13, 2011 (SCH #2005121019) serves as the broader document,
since it analyzes the entire City area, which includes the proposed project site. However, as discussed,
site-specific impacts, which the broader document (City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final
Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report) cannot adequately address, may occur for certain
issue areas. This document, therefore, evaluates each environmental issue alone and will rely upon the
analysis contained within the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR and the Lake Elsinore General Plan
Final EIR.
2. Incorporation by Reference
A CEQA document may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter
of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is
incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part
of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a])
Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of CEQA document and is most
appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background
information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure
is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly-drafted EIR for its
evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County
of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a
supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed
unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San
Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document
by reference, the incorporation must comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as follows:
• Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, such other document shall be made
available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building. The EIR or Negative
Declaration shall state where the incorporated documents will be available for inspection. At a
minimum, the incorporated document shall be made available to the public in an office of the Lead
Agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b])
• The incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or
briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The relationship between the
incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described. (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15150[c])
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 7 of 184
• This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15150[d]).
3. Documents Incorporated by Reference/Technical Studies
a. The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference:
• City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact
Report (“General Plan EIR”) (SCH #2005121019), certified December 13, 2011. The General
Plan EIR, from which this document is tiered, addresses the entire City of Lake Elsinore and
provides background and inventory information and data which apply to the project site.
Incorporated information and/or data will be cited in the appropriate sections.
• City of Lake Elsinore East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No, 11 Project that was adopted by
the City on November 11, 2017. The Specific Plan is intended to provide for the orderly and
efficient development of the area. It provides the type, location, intensity and character of
development, along with the infrastructure to support the planned land uses. The project’s
compliance with the incorporated Specific Plan will be cited in the appropriate sections.
• City of Lake Elsinore East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 11 Project Final EIR (Final
EIR) (SCH No. 2016111029), was adopted by the City on November 11, 2017. The Final EIR
identifies conditions of approval that are required for development of the Specific Plan area
and includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that identifies required
mitigation for development of the Specific Plan area.
b. Various technical reports have been prepared to assess specific issues that may result from the
construction and operation of the proposed project. As relevant, information from these technical
reports has been incorporated into this CEQA Exemption Study. The following technical reports are
included as appendices to this CEQA Exemption Study:
(List of Technical Studies used in the preparation of this CEQA Exemption Study.)
Appendix A: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, prepared by EPD Solutions,
Inc.
Appendix B: General Biological Assessment, prepared by Hernandez Environmental Services.
Appendix C: Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project Review Findings
Appendix D: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
Appendix E: Geotechnical Investigation, 2017 and Geotechnical Update, 2022, prepared by Sladden
Engineering, Inc.
Appendix F: Paleontological Assessment, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
Appendix G: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Sladden Engineering, Inc.
Appendix H: Preliminary Hydrology Study, prepared by Wilson Mikami Corporation
Appendix I: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Wilson Mikami
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 8 of 184
Corporation
Appendix J: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc.
Appendix K: Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc.
Appendix L: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc.
c. The above-listed documents and technical studies are available for review at:
City of Lake Elsinore
Planning Division
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Hours: Mon-Thurs: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Friday: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Closed Holidays
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 9 of 184
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
Project Location
The 17.21-acre project site is located adjacent to and west of Mission Trail, across from Lemon Street,
Lewis Street, and Victorian Lane in the southeastern portion of the City of Lake Elsinore. The project site
is located to the west of Interstate 15 (I-15), as shown in Figure 1, Regional Location. Local access to the
site is provided by I-15 and the Bundy Canyon Road interchange, and then Bundy Canyon Road east to
Mission Trail. Within the City, Mission Trail is the arterial roadway that provides access to the project site.
The project site consists of three parcels with the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 370-050-
019, -020, and -032. The site is located in Section 21 and 22, Township 6 South, Range 4 West as shown
on the Lake Elsinore, California 7.5-minute U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic map.
The site is bound by Mission Trail to the east, vacant land to the north and south of the site, and a motorsport
park to the west, as shown in Figure 2, Local Vicinity.
Existing Project Site
The elevation of the site is approximately 1,259 to 1,286 feet above mean sea-level and the topography of
the site is relatively flat. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The site is dominated by non-
native ruderal vegetation as shown in Figure 3, Aerial View of the Site and Vicinity.
Existing General Plan and Specific Plan Designations
The project site is located within Planning Area 2 of the East Lake Specific Plan. The project site has a
General Plan Land Use designation of East Lake Specific Plan and an East Lake Specific Plan designation
of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation with a Mixed Use Overlay. The Action Sports,
Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Specific Plan designation provides for a wide range of extreme action
sports and accessory manufacturing, service and retail uses. The East Lake Specific Plan Mixed Use
Overlay allows for development residential and commercial uses.
Surrounding Land Uses, General Plan and Zoning Designations
The project site is located within a developed and urbanizing area. The project site is bound by Mission
Trail, which is an arterial roadway, a motorsports park, light industrial, commercial, and residential
development:
North: Area to the north of the project site includes vacant parcels.
West: Area to the west of the project site includes the Lake Elsinore Motorsports Park.
South: Area to the south of the project site includes vacant parcels followed by light industrial uses.
East: Mission Trail is adjacent to the east of the site followed by light industrial/commercial and
residential uses. Lands on the east side of Mission Trail, across from the project site are within the City
of Wildomar.
The land uses surrounding the project site are described in Table 1 along with the General Plan Land Use
and zoning designations.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 10 of 184
Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation
North Vacant land East Lake Specific Plan
(ELSP)
ELSP - Action Sports, Tourism,
Commercial and Recreation with
a Mixed Use Overlay
West Lake Elsinore Motorsports
Park
East Lake Specific Plan
(ELSP)
ELSP - Action Sports, Tourism,
Commercial and Recreation with
a Light Industrial Overlay
South Vacant Land East Lake Specific Plan
(ELSP)
ELSP - Action Sports, Tourism,
Commercial and Recreation with
a Mixed Use Overlay
East
Mission Trail followed by
light industrial,
commercial, and
residential
City of Wildomar
General Commercial and
Single-Family
Residential
City of Wildomar General
Commercial and Single-Family
Residential
Figure 1Mission Trail Residential
City of Lake Elsinore
Regional Location
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 12 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Local Vicinity
Figure 2Mission Trail Residential
City of Lake Elsinore
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 14 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Aerial View
Figure 3Mission Trail Residential
City of Lake Elsinore
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 16 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 17 of 184
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development Summary
The project includes a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to subdivide an approximately 17.21-acre site into one
approximately 16.98-acre lot for condominium purposes. The proposed project would develop the project
site with 191 two-story residential units, onsite roadways, parking, recreation areas, and infrastructure. The
proposed site plan provided as Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan.
The residences would range in size from approximately 1.323 square feet to approximately 2,146 square
feet and include 7 different two-story floor plan options that would be arranged in clusters of 6 and 8,
identified as the 6-pack and 8-pack plans below in Tables 2 and 3. Minor adjustments may occur as the
project is processed through the City.
Table 2: Proposed 6-Pack Residence Plan Options
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3
1,631 square feet
3 Bedrooms
2.5 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage
1,779 square feet
3 Bedrooms
2 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage
2,146 square feet
5 Bedrooms
4 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage
Table 3: Proposed 8-Pack Residence Plan Options
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4
1,323 square feet
3 Bedrooms
2 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage
1,599 square feet
3 Bedrooms
2.5 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage
1,756 square feet
3 Bedrooms
2.5 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage
1,918 square feet
4 Bedrooms
4 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage
Architectural Design
The proposed two-story residential structures would be designed with Modern Farmhouse, Santa Barbara,
and French Country architectural elements, multi-level rooflines, and an earth tone color scheme. The
residences would incorporate stucco finishes, tiled roofs, front porches, and decorative windows and doors
in the exterior design. The tallest roofline of the two-story residences would be approximately 27-feet 9-
inches in height. Figures 5 through 11, illustrate the proposed exterior elevations.
Solar Panels
Consistent with the CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6), the project would include
photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the rooftop of each residence to offset its energy demand.
Walls, Fences, and Gates
The project proposes 6-foot-high concrete masonry unit walls along the north, south, and east sides of the
site, and an 8-foot-high concrete masonry unit wall to be constructed along the western boundary of the site
that is adjacent to the Motorsports Park. Pedestrian and vehicular entry gates would be 6-foot-high metal
rolling security gates at the project driveway at Mission Trail. Residences and private exterior spaces would
be separated by rear and side yard 6-foot-high vinyl fences. Figure 12, Fence and Wall Plan, provides the
proposed fence and wall plan.
Back Basin Setback
The northwestern corner of the project site contains 0.15 acre located below the CDFW jurisdictional
elevation of 1,265 feet AMSL and is associated with the back basin of Lake Elsinore. The project has been
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 18 of 184
designed to be setback from this area.
Circulation
As depicted in Figure 6, Conceptual Site Plan, the project would develop two (2) gated driveways to the
project site; one (1) on Mission Trail with a right-in right-out access, and one (1) on Lemon Street with full
access. An approximately 46-foot-wide main driveway with a landscaped median would be located along
Mission Trail, at the center of the site frontage; and the secondary driveway along Lemon Street would be
approximately 40-feet-wide. The proposed 40-footwide onsite roadway would circle the site and 24 and
26-foot-wide driveways would provide access to each garage and parking space. The project would include
sidewalks throughout the project site. The project includes half-width roadway improvements to Mission
Trail to improve the roadway to meet the City’s urban arterial standard along the project frontage, which
includes sidewalks and a Class II bicycle lane.
Parking
The proposed project would provide garage, driveway, and open guest parking. Each residence would have
a two-car garage. The project would also provide 204 driveway spaces and 127 open common parking
spaces. In total the project would provide 713 spaces, which equates to 3.73 parking spaces per unit.
Recreation and Open Space
The project includes the development of 48,301 square foot recreation area on site that would include
playground equipment, pool/spa, barbeque area, overhead trellis, turf areas, seating, sidewalks, restrooms,
drinking fountains, showers, bocce ball court, fitness equipment, shade structures, table and chairs. Figure
13, Recreation and Open Space Plan.
Landscaping
Landscaping proposed as part of the project would consist of ornamental trees, vines, shrubs, and
groundcovers throughout the common areas of the development, such as along roadways, common walls,
site boundary, and the open space/recreation areas. Trees would be installed along the proposed sidewalks
throughout the project site and along Mission Trail. The entrance to the project site would have a landscaped
median and decorative landscaping. Figure 14, Conceptual Landscape Plan, illustrates the proposed
landscaping. The landscape plan would be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements
(Municipal Code Chapter 19.08).
Lighting
Outdoor lighting included as part of project would be typical of residential uses and would consist of wall-
mounted lighting as well as pole-mounted lights along the proposed internal roadways. Nighttime lighting
would be used as accent/security lighting in the open space/recreation areas. All of the project’s outdoor
lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize off-site spill. The location of all exterior
lighting would comply with lighting standards established in the City’s Municipal Code.
Infrastructure Improvements
Water and Sewer
The proposed project would install onsite water lines that would provide water supplies to each residence
and all of the landscaping areas and would connect to existing infrastructure within Mission Trail. The
project would also install onsite sewer lines that would connect to each residence and to the existing sewer
line in Mission Trail.
Drainage
The drainage from the proposed project would surface drain to several catch basins and bio-treatment units
and be routed to an underground detention basin that would be installed under the proposed recreation area.
From the detention basin runoff would be conveyed to a proposed storm drain within Mission Trail that
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 19 of 184
would connect the project site to the existing Riverside County Flood Control District 84-inch storm drain
located in Vine Avenue.
CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities include excavation, grading, and re-compaction of soils; utility and infrastructure
installation; building construction; roadway pavement; and architectural coatings. Excavation and grading
would occur to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade and is expected to require a cut of 24,000
cubic yards (cy), a fill of 21,690 cy, and a 10 percent shrinkage of 2,410 cy, which would result in a balance
of onsite soils. No import or export of soils would be required for the project. Construction activities are
anticipated to last 11 months and would occur within the hours allowable by the City of Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code Section 17.176.080, which prohibits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on weekends or on holidays.
Table 4: Construction Schedule
Construction Phase
Working
Days
Site Preparation 10
Grading 30
Building Construction 300
Paving 20
Architectural Coating 30
DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS
The following discretionary approvals and permits are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of
the proposed project:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
• Tentative Tract Map
• Design Review Approval
• Grading Permits
• Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Storm Water Storm Water Pollutant and
Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 20 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 4Conceptual Site Plan
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 22 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 56-Pack Plan 1 3D Perspectives
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 24 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 66-Pack Plan 2 3D Perspectives
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 26 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 76-Pack Plan 3 3D Perspectives
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 28 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 88-Pack Plan 1 3D Perspectives
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 30 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 98-Pack Plan 2 3D Perspectives
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 32 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 108-Pack Plan 3 3D Perspectives
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 34 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 118-Pack Plan 4 3D Perspectives
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 36 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 12Fence and Wall PlanUPUP
REF.UPUPREF.REF.UP
UP REF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UP
UP REF.UPUP UPUPUPUP UPUPUPUP UPUP UPUPUPUP UPUP
REF
.UPUPREF.REF.UP
UP REF.REF.UPUPREF.
REF.
UP
UP REF.
REF.
UP
UP REF.REF.UPUPREF.
REF.
UP
UP REF.REF.UPUPREF.
REF.
UP
UP REF.REF.UPUP
REF.REF.
UP
UP REF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.
UP
UP REF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.
UP
UP REF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UP UP REF.
REF
.UPUPREF.REF.
UP
UP REF.REF.UPUPREF.UP REF.HC91PLN1-B90PLN2-C89PLN4-A88PLN4-C87PLN1-B86PLN2-A85PLN3-C84PLN3-B83PLN1-C82PLN2-A81PLN4-B80PLN4-A79PLN1-C78PLN2-B77PLN3-A76PLN3-B75PLN1-A74PLN2-B73PLN4-C72PLN4-B71PLN1-C70PLN2-A69PLN3-C68PLN3-A67PLN1-C66PLN2-B65PLN4-C64PLN4-A63PLN1-B62PLN2-C61PLN3-B60PLN3-A59PLN1-B58PLN2-C57PLN4-B56PLN4-A55PLN1-B54PLN2-C53PLN3-C52PLN3-A51PLN1-B50PLN2-A49PLN4-C48PLN4-B47PLN1-C46PLN2-A45PLN3-B44PLN3-A43PLN1-C42PLN2-B41PLN4-A40PLN4-C39PLN1-A38PLN2-B37PLN3-C36PLN3-B35PLN1-C34PLN2-B33PLN4-A32PLN4-B31PLN1-C30PLN2-A29PLN3-C28PLN3-B27PLN1-C26PLN2-A25PLN4-A24PLN4-B23PLN1-A22PLN2-B21PLN3-A20PLN3-C19PLN1-A18PLN2-B17PLN4-C16PLN4-A15PLN1-C14PLN2-B13PLN3-A12PLN3-C11PLN1-B10PLN2-A09PLN4-C08PLN4-A07PLN1-B06PLN2-C05PLN3-B151PLN2-A152PLN1-B148PLN3-C149PLN2-B150PLN1-A145PLN2-B146PLN1-C147PLN3-A142PLN3-B143PLN2-A144PLN1-C139PLN2-B140PLN1-C141PLN3-A136PLN3-C137PLN2-B138PLN1-A135PLN3-A133PLN2-B134PLN1-C130PLN3-B131PLN2-A132PLN1-C127PLN2-A128PLN1-C129PLN3-B124PLN3-C125PLN2-A126PLN1-B121PLN2-C122PLN1-B123PLN3-A118PLN3-B119PLN2-C120PLN1-A115PLN2-B116PLN1-A117PLN3-C112PLN3-B113PLN2-C114PLN1-A109PLN2-C110PLN1-B111PLN3-A106PLN3-B107PLN2-C108PLN1-A103PLN2-B104PLN1-A105PLN3-C100PLN3-A101PLN2-B102PLN1-C97PLN2-A98PLN1-C99PLN3-B188PLN2-A187PLN1-B186PLN2-C185PLN1-A180PLN3-A183PLN2-C182PLN1-A181PLN3-B177PLN2-C178PLN1-B173PLN2-B174PLN1-C175PLN3-B170PLN1-A176PLN1-A169PLN1-B171PLN2-C172PLN 1-A159PLN2-B160PLN1-A161PLN2-B156PLN1-B157PLN2-C158PLN1-A162PLN1-C154PLN1-A155PLN2-CREF
.UPUPREF
.94PLN1-ARE
F
.
UP UPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPREF.UPUPREF.UPREF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.UPREF.REF.UPUPREF.UPREF.UP
REF.REF.
UP REF.UP
UP REF.REF.UP01PLN4-B02PLN1-C03PLN4-A04PLN1-C92PLN2-A93PLN1-C95PLN2-B96PLN2-C179PLN2-C189PLN2-C190PLN2-A191PLN1-B167PLN1-B165PLN1-A166PLN2-C164PLN2-BUPREF.REF.UP184PLN1-C168PLN1-C163PLN2-A153PLN1-BF.E.W/HM
A
I
L
M
A
I
L
M
A
I
L
M
A
I
L
M
A
I
L
M
A
I
L
MAI
LMAILMAILM
A
I
L
M
A
I
L MAI
L
DOG PARKTOT LOTBOCCEOPEN LAWNAREAFENCE AND WALL LEGENDSYMBOLDESCRIPTION8' HIGH CMU WALL. WALL TO BE 1-SIDED SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL WITH PRECISION BLOCK CAP. BLOCK TO BE 6X8X16 ANGELUS .COLOR TO BE CANYONBLUFF. CAP TO BE ANGELUS PRECISION CAP (8X2X16), COLOR: CANYONBLUFF6' HIGH CMU WALL. WALL TO BE 1-SIDED SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL WITH PRECISION BLOCK CAP. BLOCK TO BE 6X8X16 ANGELUS .COLOR TO BE CANYONBLUFF. CAP TO BE ANGELUS PRECISION CAP (8X2X16), COLOR: CANYONBLUFFLOT FENCING. 6' HIGH PRIVACY STYLE VINYL FENCE - (DETAIL # V-001)- COLOR TO BE TAN - AVAILABLE THROUGH FENCEWORKSINC. (1-800-350-5620). INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONSCMU BLOCK PILASTERSIDEYARD WODDEN GATEFENCE & WALL PLAN | L401"=40'-0"SCALE40 80NORTHLAKE ELSINORE | CACOASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES |21-153DATE 07 | 01 | 22LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES8' HIGH C.M.U.SOUND ATTENUATION BLOCK WALL(ALONG THE WESTERLY EDGE)BACK BASIN SETBACK
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 38 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 13Recreation and Open Space Plan
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 40 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential City of Lake ElsinoreFigure 14Conceptual Landscape Plan
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 42 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 43 of 184
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Mission Trail Residential Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore,
CA 92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Carlos Serna, Associate Planner, (951) 674-3124, ext. 916 4. Project Location: See project location and setting in Section II.A, Project Location and Setting,
above. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Brett Crowder, Coastal Commercial Properties, 1020 2nd
Street, Encinitas, CA 92024 6. General Plan Designation: East Lake Specific Plan 7. Zoning: East Lake Specific Plan designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation
with a Mixed Use Overlay 8. Description of Project: See project description in Section II.B, Project Description, above. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See project location and setting in Section II.A, Project
Location and Setting, above. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The project would be required to comply
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction of Land Disturbance Activities (State Water Resources Control
Board [SWRCB] Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CA2000002), in addition to related City
requirements for storm water and erosion control; South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Permit to Operate; Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project
Review. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project
area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a
plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to
tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for
California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources”
with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires that
lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological
resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead
agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice
of Exemption or Addendum. The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measure for cultural
resources includes measures to address the potential for uncovering tribal cultural resources (TCRs) or
other tribal-affiliated resources during construction of the project. Please see Sections V, Cultural
Resources, and XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Environmental Checklist for more detail.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 44 of 184
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 greater significant effect than identified in the previous MND, as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or
previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without
modification. This CEQA Exemption Study concludes that none of the conditions or circumstances that would
require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND or EIR pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exists in connection with the design
of the Project. The project is consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan. No substantial changes
have been proposed to the project described in the East Lake Specific Plan or EIR that require
major revisions to the Final EIR or require preparation of an EIR. No new significant
environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
environmental effects would occur. The CEQA Exemption Study also indicates that there have
not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of
the project site, including the project, would be undertaken that would require major revisions
to the Final EIR or require preparation of an EIR. The CEQA Exemption Study also concludes
that no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time that the EIR was certified, shows that the project would cause or
substantially worsen significant environmental impacts discussed in the EIR. Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 45 of 184
information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section
15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial
increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below
a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project
applicant. Therefore, a Subsequent EIR is required. Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or,
there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary
to make the previous EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a
Supplemental EIR is required. Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or,
there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162(a)(3) such as one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.
Therefore, a Subsequent EIR is required.
Carlos Serna, Associate Planner
Date
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 46 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).
If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project; and
forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 47 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest uses?
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 48 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 49 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map,
issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 50 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 51 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge, such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 52 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental
effect?
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or other
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 53 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public services/facilities?
XVI. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 54 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k).
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 55 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 56 of 184
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous MND
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes or Additions
No New
Impact
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?
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 57 of 184
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides a summary of the Specific Plan impacts identified in the Final EIR, compares them
to the proposed project, and identifies if any new impact would result. A complete list of the reference
sources applicable to the following source abbreviations is contained in Section VII, References, of this
document.
I. AESTHETICS
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that scenic vistas visible from the Specific Plan area include distant views of the
Cleveland National Forest to the south, Santa Ana Mountains to the southwest, and the higher elevation
hills to the north and east of the Specific Plan area. The Final EIR describes the character of the area would
change from its current undeveloped character with scattered vegetation to residential, commercial, and
active recreation uses. The EIR describes that development of the area would alter views of the site but
would not result in a substantial degradation or change in character of those views.
The Final EIR describes that building heights within the Specific Plan area would not exceed 35‐45 feet
maximum depending on the land use; however, up to four hotels could be built with maximum permitted
height of up to 90 feet (six stories). The EIR determined that no impacts are anticipated to occur to public
scenic vistas would be less than significant.
The EIR determined that the Specific Plan area is not located within a State Scenic Highway. However, the
I‐15 Freeway, is an “eligible state scenic highway–not officially designated.” The I‐15 is located
approximately 0.5 mile north and east of the Specific Plan area. The EIR determined that views of the
natural features along the freeway corridor would not be impacted by the Project. Overall, the EIR
determined that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the lighting related
mitigation measure listed below.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM AES-1 Any lights used to illuminate the parking areas, driveways, and other exterior or interior
areas of the Project, shall be designed and located so that direct lighting is confined to the
subject property. The applicant/developer shall submit photometric lighting plans for each
commercial, multi-family, and recreational project. Directional lighting shall be a
minimum intensity (wattage) of one foot-candle, or as otherwise necessary, for public
safety.
Project Applicability: MM AES-1 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the development permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed
project.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No New Impact.)
Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features
that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about
view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a
particular view or visual setting. A scenic vista can be impacted in 2 ways: a development project can have
visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 58 of 184
or “vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether the proposed project would
block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land
uses and travel corridors.
The most notable aesthetic resource in the City of Lake Elsinore is Lake Elsinore itself, a 3,000-acre natural
lake. The City’s aesthetic setting is characterized by urbanized development of various densities occurring
within varied topographical features and interspersed with undeveloped natural areas around the lake.
Scenic vistas within and surrounding the City include the lake and Cleveland National Forest mountains
and ridgelines.
The project site is not within the scenic vista of the lake or the mountains. The site is located 2 miles from
the lake and approximately 2 miles from the closest mountain hillside. In addition, the site is within a
developing area adjacent to an arterial roadway. Therefore, the site is not located within a scenic vista, and
the proposed project would not encroach into a scenic vista.
Consistent with the Specific Plan overlay designation, the proposed project would develop the site with
residential structures that would be two-stories (a maximum of 27-feet) in height and consistent with the
Specific Plan regulations related to size and location of structures (as detailed in response I.c, below). The
proposed project would be setback from Mission Trail and would not encroach into a scenic vista from a
public location. Thus, no new impacts related to scenic vistas would occur with implementation of the
proposed project.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No New Impact.)
The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either currently designated or eligible
for designation as scenic highways. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) identifies SR-
74 as eligible for listing as state scenic highways, but it is not officially designated. The project site is
located 5.5 miles from SR-74, and not within the view corridor of SR-74 due to the existing intervening
development. Also, the project site is vacant and undeveloped and does not include any scenic resources.
The project includes landscaping and decorative wall treatments along Mission Trail to improve views of
the site. Therefore, the project would not result in new impacts related to scenic resources within a state
scenic highway.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.1, Aesthetics, 2017;
City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and General Plan EIR, Section 3.3, Aesthetics, 2011; California State
Scenic Highway System Map, Accessed:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aaca
a)
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (No New Impact.)
The project site is located within an urbanized area that is adjacent to roadways, residential, light industrial,
and commercial development. The project site and surrounding area is planned for development by the East
Lake Specific Plan. The project site is undeveloped and vacant, except for non-native ruderal vegetation.
The existing character of the development portion of the site is neither unique nor of special aesthetic value
or quality.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 59 of 184
The project would develop this area to provide 191 new residences with recreation areas and open space
areas, which would be consistent with the Specific Plan allowable uses. The project would also landscape
the front of the site along Mission Trail to enhance the existing visual character and quality of public views
of the site from the arterial roadway.
General Plan. The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of East Lake Specific Plan and an
East Lake Specific Plan designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation with a Mixed
Use Overlay. The project would be consistent with the General Plan policies related to scenic quality, as
shown in Table AES-1. Therefore, conflicts with General Plan regulations governing scenic quality would
not occur.
Table AES-1: Project Consistency with General Plan Scenic Goals and Policies
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 11.1 For new developments and redevelopment,
encourage the maintenance and incorporation of
existing mature trees and other substantial vegetation on
the site, whether naturally-occurring or planted, into the
landscape design.
Consistent. The proposed project does not contain
existing mature trees and other substantial vegetation on
the site. However, the project includes installation of
new ornamental trees and other landscaping throughout
the project site, as shown in Figure 14, Conceptual
Landscape Plan. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with Policy 11.1.
Policy 11.2 Maintain and improve the quality of existing
landscaping in parkways, parks, civic facilities, rights-
of-ways, and other public open areas.
Consistent. The proposed project includes installation
of new landscaping throughout the project site, within
the open space recreation area, and along Mission Trail,
as shown in Figures 14, Conceptual Landscape Plan.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy
11.2.
Policy 11.3 Where appropriate, encourage new planting
of native and/or non-invasive ornamental plants to
enhance the scenic setting of public and private lands.
Consistent. The proposed project includes installation
of non-invasive ornamental plants to enhance the scenic
setting of public and private lands as shown in Figure
14, Conceptual Landscape Plan. Therefore, the project
would be consistent with Policy 11.3.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and General Plan EIR, Section 3.3, Aesthetics, 2011, and East Lake
Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.1, Aesthetics, 2017)
East Lake Specific Plan. The project site has East Lake Specific Plan designation of Action Sports,
Tourism, Commercial and Recreation with a Mixed Use Overlay. The Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial
and Recreation Specific Plan designation provides for a wide range of extreme action sports and accessory
manufacturing, service and retail uses. The East Lake Specific Plan Mixed Use Overlay allows for
development residential and commercial uses.
As shown Table AES-2, the proposed project meets the Specific Plan development standards for detached
residential. Therefore, a conflict with the Specific Plan development standards would not occur. Overall,
the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and
the proposed project would not degrade the visual character of the project site and surrounding area. No
new impacts would occur.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 60 of 184
Table AES-2: Consistency with East Lake Specific Plan Mixed Use Development Standards for
Detached Residential
Development Criteria Standard Provided
Density Up to 18 du/ac 11.3 du/ac
Setbacks (ft)
• Front- Living Area to Public Drive 10 ft. 10 ft.
• Front- Porch 10 ft. 10 ft.
• Front- Garage, Straight-in Drive 18 ft. 19 ft.
• Front- Rear Ally/Street Loaded
Garage
5 ft. 5 ft.
• Side- Main Dwelling 5 ft. 5 ft.
• Side – Garage 5 ft. 5 ft.
• Rear 10 ft. 10 ft.
• Corner Side- Private Street 10 ft. 10 ft.
Separation Between Buildings (ft)
• Garage Face to Garage Face 28 ft. 30 ft.
• Bldg. Side to Rear 8 ft. 10 ft.
• Bldg. Rear to Rear 15 ft. for one-story building, plus 5 ft.
additional ft. for each additional story
20 ft.
Lot Coverage (%) 70 ft. 42 ft.
Building Height (ft.) 40 ft. maximum 27-ft 9-inches
Driveway in front of garage door 18 ft. minimum length 19 ft.
Private Street Width 40 ft. maximum 36 ft.
Garage Access Alley/Street Width
• Building heights up to 25 feet 24 ft. with no on-street/alley parking allowed 24 ft.
(Source: City of Lake Elsinore East Lake Specific Plan)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (No New Impact.)
The project site is vacant and generally undeveloped, and light is not generated on the site. However, the
project site is located along Mission Trail, which is an arterial roadway, adjacent to residential and
commercial uses, and located across the street from, residential and commercial uses. Existing sources of
light in the vicinity of the project site includes security lighting, landscape lighting, and roadway lighting
at intersections, and lighting from building interiors that pass-through windows.
The proposed project would include the provision of nighttime lighting for security purposes around all of
the residences, recreation areas, and at the project driveway entrance at Mission Trail, which would
contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. However, all outdoor
lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses. Pursuant to the Final EIR
Mitigation Measure MM AES-1, the project shall include photometric lighting plans as part of project
plans, which would ensure that lighting is focused downward and onsite. The lighting increase in light that
would be generated by the project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Overall,
no new lighting impacts would occur.
Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as
window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have a higher visible
light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun
reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. The proposed project would not use highly reflective
surfaces, or glass sided buildings. Although the residences would contain windows, the windows would be
separated by stucco and architectural elements, which would limit the potential of glare. In addition, as
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 61 of 184
described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the potential
on onsite lighting to generate glare. Therefore, the project would not generate substantial sources of glare,
and no new impacts would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore East Lake Specific Plan. Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=20871; East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project
Final EIR, Section 5.1, Aesthetics, 2017; City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code)
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding aesthetics. There have not been 1) changes
related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have
been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that the project site is not classified as either Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland
or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency. The Final EIR also describes that the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract
and the project site is not utilized for agricultural cultivation. The Final EIR determined that no impacts
related to agriculture and forestry resources would occur from implementation of the East Lake Specific
Plan.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed 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? (No New Impact.)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 62 of 184
The California Department of Conservation Important Farmland mapping identifies the project site and
surrounding areas as Urban and Built-Up Land. No areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance is located on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, impacts related
to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would not occur.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 4.0, Impacts
Determined to be Less than Significant, 2017; California Department of Conservation Important Farmland
Mapping, Accessed: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No New
Impact.)
The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of East Lake District Specific Plan and an East
Lake Specific Plan designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation with a Mixed Use
Overlay. The project site is surrounded by areas designated by the Specific Plan for the same uses. No
agricultural zoning is located in the vicinity of the project site and no parcels in the project vicinity have
Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Thus, no new impact would occur.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 4.0, Impacts
Determined to be Less than Significant, 2017; City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, accessed:
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603; California Department of Conservation
Important Farmland Mapping, Accessed: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/)
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))? (No New Impact.)
The project site is located in an area that is void of forest land or timberland. In addition, the project site
has a General Plan Land Use designation of East Lake District Specific Plan and an East Lake Specific Plan
designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation with a Mixed Use Overlay. Also, the
site is surrounded by areas designated by the Specific Plan for similar uses. Therefore, the project would
not conflict with existing forest land, timberland, or zoning for forest or timberland uses. Thus, no new
impact would occur.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? (No New Impact.)
As described in the previous response, the project area is void of any forest land and is not zoned for forest
uses. Thus, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
uses. No new impact would occur.
(Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603)
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? (No New Impact.)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 63 of 184
As described in the previous responses, the project area does not include and is not near any land zoned for
farmland or forest land. The project would redevelop the vacant site for residential uses. As the project site
is not used for agriculture and is within an area developed with and planned for urban uses, the development
of the site with residences would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Thus, no new
impact would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding agriculture and forestry resources. There
have not been 1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 4.0, Impacts
Determined to be Less than Significant, 2017; City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, accessed:
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603; California Department of Conservation
Important Farmland Mapping, Accessed: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/)
III. AIR QUALITY
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that buildout of the Specific Plan is consistent with the growth projections in the
City’s General Plan and within the allowable density provided by the zoning; and therefore, consistent with
the AQMP, and that no impact would occur.
The Final EIR describes that the Specific Plan would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local
laws and regulations to reduce emissions and control fugitive dust during construction. However, given the
amount of developable land, possibility of construction activity overlap and potential for such activities to
be within proximity of sensitive receptors; the Final EIR determined that emissions could reach levels above
SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, Mitigation Measures MM AQ‐1 through MM AQ‐5 were included to
require each development project to reduce and/or minimize such air quality impacts; however, the Final
EIR determined that it cannot be guaranteed that such measures would reduce impacts to less than
significant; and that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 64 of 184
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 Prior to approval of each new implementing development project within the East Lake
Specific Plan, the applicant/developer shall demonstrate avoidance, to the extent possible,
of significant impacts on air quality from construction activities through implementation
of regulatory requirements and best management practices. Where project- specific
analysis determines that air quality standards may be exceeded, mitigation measures that
shall reduce the emissions to within air quality standards or to the greatest extent
practicable shall be implemented. Project-specific analysis may be provided in the form of
an air quality technical report, study, or memorandum. The mitigation measures shall
include but not be limited to:
Dust Control
1. Apply soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to inactive areas
(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
2. Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate
soil disturbance when winds (as instantaneous gust(s)) exceed 25 mph.
3. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed.
4. Water actively graded surfaces 3 times per day.
5. Cover all stock piles with tarps if left undisturbed for more than 72 hours.
6. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible.
7. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.
8. Install wheel washers, shaker plates and gravel where vehicles enter and exit the
construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the
site each trip.
9. All streets shall be swept at least once a day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 1186.1
certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil materials are
carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).
10. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered.
11. Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning
onsite construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10
generation.
Exhaust Emissions
12. Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment.
13. Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
14. Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation
catalysts if available.
15. Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy equipment where feasible.
16. Utilize Tier 4 off-road construction equipment. If Tier 4 off-road construction
equipment is not available, require alternative fueled off-road equipment.
17. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
18. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline
power generators where connections are available.
19. Provide temporary traffic controls when activities encroach on active roadways,
such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic
flow.
20. Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-
peak hours to the extent practicable.
21. Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 65 of 184
22. Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment
on- and off-site.
23. Require the use of 2010 model year diesel haul trucks that conform to 2010 EPA
truck standards or newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil
import/export), and if 2010 model year or newer diesel haul trucks cannot be
obtained, the City shall require use of trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx
emissions requirements. Example verification includes making this provision a part
of the construction contractor’s bid package, construction contract, or hauling
permit.
Project Applicability: MM AQ-1 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the construction permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed
project.
MM AQ-2 Prior to approval of each new implementing development project within the East Lake
Specific Plan that proposes new sensitive receptors and/or would be within 500 feet of
sensitive receptors shall conduct an evaluation of human health risks and/or Localized
Significance Threshold (LST) analysis to identify and reduce any potential health risks
from construction and/or operation impacts to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors
include residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or
other places of long-term residency. The thresholds to determine exposure to substantial
pollution concentrations are: A Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) of greater
than ten (10) in one million. For non-cancer risks, the threshold is a hazard index value
greater than one (1). LST thresholds shall be those recommended by SCAQMD. LST
analysis may be provided in the form of an air quality technical report, study, or
memorandum. If the analysis demonstrates LST thresholds will not be exceeded, no
additional mitigation shall be required. If the analysis demonstrates exceedance during
temporary construction activities or long-term operations, additional mitigation
measures shall be required through conditions of approval to reduce impacts to below
thresholds. Additional measures may include but not be limited to the use of one or more
of the following: reduced construction schedules, low-emitting construction equipment,
particulate filters, temporary or permanent use of setbacks, screening, buffers and
building ventilation filters.
Project Applicability: MM AQ-2 is applicable to the proposed project and has been completed as part of
the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, included as Appendix A.
MM AQ-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit for new implementing development projects within
the East Lake Specific Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate that the following measures
to conserve energy have been incorporated into building design:
1. Submit plans demonstrating that any new residential buildings achieve 15%
energy efficiency above 2019 Title 24 for projects after 2020.
2. Submit plans demonstrating that any new commercial buildings shall include
the following green building design features:
2.1. Low-E and ENERGY STAR windows where feasible;
2.2. High-efficiency lighting systems and incorporate advanced lighting
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 66 of 184
controls, such as auto shut-offs, timers, and motion sensors;
2.3. High R-value wall and ceiling insulation; and,
2.4. Use of fluorescent lighting and/or LED lighting.
3. Require acquisition of new ENERGY STAR qualified appliances and
equipment.
4. Implement passive solar design strategies in new construction. Examples of
passive solar strategies include orienting building to enhance sun access,
designing narrow structures, and incorporating skylights and atria.
Project Applicability: MM AQ-3 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the building permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed project.
MM AQ-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit for new commercial, multi-family residential,
and mixed-use implementing development projects within the East Lake Specific
Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate on the landscaping plan that the following water
and energy conservation measures have been incorporated:
1. Participation in green waste collection and recycling programs for landscape
maintenance with designated green waste collection and storage areas and use
of vendors that provide green waste collection and recycling services during
operation of future development project;
2. Use of landscaping with low water requirements in accordance with the City of
Lake Elsinore’s Water Efficient Landscape Requirements Ordinance (Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 19.08);
3. Planting of trees or vegetation to shade buildings and thus reduce
heating/cooling demand.
Project Applicability: MM AQ-4 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the building permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed project.
MM AQ-5 Prior to issuance of a building permit for permit for new commercial, multi-family
residential, and mixed-use implementing development projects within the East Lake
Specific Plan, the applicant shall provide an exhibit demonstrating that the following
measures have been incorporated to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles subject
to City Engineer review and approval. These provisions shall be made a ‘Condition of
Approval’ on implementing development applications:
1. Provide one or more secure dedicated shuttle drop-off point(s) and/or bus stop(s) at
new Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation facilities with
connections to Malaga Drive, Lucerne Street or Cereal Street. Such areas should
provide seating, signage, shelters and trash receptacles where spatially feasible.
2. Provide safe, appropriately lighted, and attractively landscaped physical linkages
between land uses that encourage bicycling and walking as alternatives to driving
through the provision of bike lanes and/or walking paths;
3. Off-street bicycle parking shall be distributed throughout the commercial areas of
the East Lake Specific Plan and placed conveniently near building entrances
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 67 of 184
without obstructing pedestrian movement.
Project Applicability: MM AQ-5 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the building permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed project.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis prepared for the
proposed project that is provided in Appendix A. The project’s construction and operational emissions were
calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1. 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 pollutant and GHG
emissions associated with construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The results and
conclusions of the report and calculations relative to pollutant emissions are summarized herein.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No New Impact.)
The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD.
SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for
formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The AQMP is a
series of plans adopted for the purpose of reaching short- and long-term goals for those pollutants the SCAB
is designated as a ‘nonattainment’ area because the SCAQMD does not meet federal and/or state Ambient
Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for certain pollutants. The land use and transportation control portions of
the AQMP are based on the regional growth forecasts included in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is a long-range transportation plan that uses growth
forecasts to project trends over a 20-year period to identify regional transportation strategies to address
mobility needs. Both the RTP/SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County
and City General Plans. The two principal criteria for conformance to the AQMP are (1) whether a project
would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute
to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards; and (2) whether a project would
exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.
The project site has General Plan land use designation of East Lake District Specific Plan and an East Lake
Specific Plan designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation with a Mixed Use
Overlay that provides for residential densities up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project
includes 191 residential units within the 16.98-acre site resulting in 10.6 units per acre. Thus, the project
would not exceed the allowable density of the Specific Plan land use. As a result, the development density
of the proposed project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and would not conflict with
SCAQMD’s attainment plans.
Also, as further described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the 191 new residences would result
in a 1.0 percent increase in residential units within the City. This limited level of growth would not exceed
growth projections and would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP. In addition, emissions
generated by construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed thresholds. As described
in the analysis below, the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air
quality violations or cause a new violation. Therefore, no new impacts related to conflict with the AQMP
would result from the proposed project.
(Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 68 of 184
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? (No
New Impact.)
The SCAB has a non-attainment status for not meeting federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide
standards, and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the
proposed project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. The methodologies from the
SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts. SCAQMD has established
daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are listed in Table AQ-1. The SCAQMD’s
CEQA Air Quality Handbook methodology describes that any project that results in daily emissions that
exceed any of these thresholds would have both an individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant
air quality impact. If estimated emissions are less than the thresholds or reduced to below the thresholds
with implementation of mitigation, impacts would be considered less than significant.
Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds1
Pollutant Construction
(lbs/day)
Operations
(lbs/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate pollutant emissions from the
following: (1) grading and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3)
delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel combustion by
onsite construction equipment; (5) building construction and application of architectural coatings; and
paving. The volume of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and
types of construction activities occurring.
It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403
for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements
include, but are not limited to: applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible
dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible,
utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before
vehicles exit the site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height
of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted
for in the construction emissions modeling for the project.
As shown in Table AQ-2, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed
project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, no new impacts would occur.
1 Regional thresholds are from the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 69 of 184
Table AQ-2: Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Summary (lbs/day)
Construction Activity Maximum Daily Regional Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2024
Site Prep 3.7 36.0 34.4 0.0 6.9 4.2
Grading 3.6 35.4 32.1 0.1 4.3 2.4
Building Construction 2.8 23.7 32.5 0.1 2.1 1.2
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.7 36.0 34.4 0.1 6.9 4.2
2025
Building Construction 2.6 22.0 31.9 0.1 2.0 1.1
Paving 1.5 7.5 11.1 0.0 0.5 0.4
Architectural Coating 55.1 0.9 2.3 0.0 0.2 0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 55.1 22.0 31.9 0.1 2.0 0.5
Maximum Daily Emission 2024-2025 55.1 36.0 34.4 0.1 6.9 4.2
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A
Operation
Operation of the 191 residences would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and
ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications
of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, vehicular emissions would generate a majority
of the operational emissions from the project. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project
were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, the proposed project would
result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s
applicable thresholds. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and no new operational impacts would occur.
Table AQ-3: Maximum Daily Operational Emissions(lbs/day)
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area 7.0 0.1 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.1 1.7 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.1
Mobile 7.4 6.5 54.6 0.1 4.3 0.8
Total Project Operational Emissions 14.5 8.3 66.6 0.1 4.5 1.0
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (No New Impact.)
The SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008) recommends the
evaluation of localized NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold
(LST) analysis. According to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, “off-
site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs”
(SCAQMD 2008). SCAQMD has developed LSTs that 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
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 70 of 184
state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts.
LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each
of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The project site is located in SRA 25, Lake Elsinore.
Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities.
The nearest sensitive receptors are existing residences located adjacent to the project site. The distance
between the project site boundary and the closest existing residential structure is approximately 111-feet
(34 meters). As such, the Air Quality Analysis utilizes a sensitive receptor distance of 25 meters, which is
the closest distance provided by SCAQMD LST guidance.
Construction
The localized thresholds from the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final LST methodology
document, were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to 5-acres in size or have a
disturbance of less than or equal to 5 acres daily. The Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized
Significance Thresholds, prepared by SCAQMD, 2015, provides guidance on how to determine the
appropriate site acreage size to utilize for LST analyses. The Fact Sheet details that the maximum number
of acres disturbed on the peak day of construction is calculated from the construction equipment list utilized
in the CalEEMod model, which identifies that crawler tractors, graders, and rubber-tired dozers disturb 0.5-
acre in an 8-hour day and scrapers disturb 1.0-acre in an 8-hour day.
As shown in Table AQ-4, the site preparation and grading activities would disturb a maximum of 3-acres
per day. As such, the 2-acre and 5-acre project sites thresholds from the SCAQMD look-up tables were
interpolated in order to calculate the 3.0-acre threshold that has been utilized in Table AQ-5.
Table AQ-4. Construction Equipment Modeled in CalEEMod and Acres Disturbed per Day
Activity Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Operating
Hours per
Day
Acres Disturbed
per piece of
Equipment per Day
Acres
Disturbed per
Day
Grading
Graders 1 8 0.5 0.5
Excavators 2 8 0 0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 0 0
Scrapers 2 8 1.0 2.0
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 0.5 0.5
Total Acres Disturbed Per Day 3.0
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A
Table AQ-5 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest air quality sensitive receptor location at 111 feet
from the project site boundary. As shown, localized maximum day construction emissions would not exceed
any the SCAQMD LSTs. Thus, no new LST construction related impacts would occur.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 71 of 184
Table AQ-5: Localized Significance Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2024
Site Prep 36.0 32.9 6.7 4.1
Grading 34.3 30.2 3.8 2.3
Building Construction 22.4 26.2 1.0 0.9
Maximum Daily Emissions 36.0 32.9 6.7 4.1
2025
Building Construction 20.9 26.1 0.9 0.8
Paving 7.5 10.0 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0
Maximum Daily Emissions 20.9 26.1 0.9 0.8
Maximum Daily Emission 2024-2025 36.0 32.9 6.7 4.1
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 294 1,631 13.3 6.1
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A
Toxic Air Pollutants. The construction equipment would emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is a
carcinogen. However, the DPM emissions would be short-term in nature and occur intermittently
throughout the 11-month construction process. Determination of risk from DPM is considered over a 30-
year exposure time. As such, considering the short time frame for construction, exposure to DPM during
construction would be less than significant.
CO Hotspots. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These
pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9
ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse
into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an
analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic
congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.
With the turnover of older vehicles and introduction of cleaner fuels, electric vehicles, and vehicles with
stop-start systems (where the engine shuts down when the vehicle is stopped and restarts when the break
petal is released), as well as implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO
concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin and the state have steadily declined.
The analysis of CO hotspots compares the volume of traffic that has the potential to generate a CO hotspot
(exceedance the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm) and the volume of
traffic with implementation of the proposed project. In 2003, the SCAQMD estimated that a project would
have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to exceed state standards and
generate a CO hot spot.
As detailed in Section XVII, Transportation, shown on Table T-2, the proposed project would generate 134
new vehicle trips (35 inbound trips and 99 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak
hour, the project would generate 180 vehicle trips (114 inbound trips and 66 outbound trips). Over a 24-
hour period, the project is forecast to generate approximately 1,801 daily trips. Thus, the proposed project
would not result in an increase in traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per
hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix and would not generate
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 72 of 184
a CO hotspot. Therefore, impacts related to CO hotspots from operation of the proposed project would not
occur.
(Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A)
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people? (No New Impact.)
No New Impact. The proposed project would not emit other emissions, such as those generating
objectionable odors, that would affect a substantial number of people. The threshold for odor is identified
by SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:
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. The provisions of
this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for
the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
The type of facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, include
wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass
manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries,
asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities.
The proposed project would implement residential development that does not involve the types of uses that
would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, odors generated by
non-residential land uses are required to be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, which would prevent
nuisance odors.
During construction, emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving activities
may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and would not affect
a substantial number of people. The noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the
construction equipment. Also, the short-term construction-related odors would cease upon the drying or
hardening of the odor-producing materials. Therefore, impacts associated with other emissions, such as
odors, would not adversely affect a substantial number of people.
(Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A)
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce pollutant air quality emissions from the proposed
project:
PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply
with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The project
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.
PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply
with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 73 of 184
includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25
mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project
are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather;
preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced
to 15 miles per hour or less.
PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. The construction plans shall include a note that the project is required to comply
with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only
“Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure
Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
PPP AQ-4: Rule 445. No wood burning devices shall be installed and any dwelling units consistent
with SCAQMD Rule 445.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding air quality. There have not been 1) changes
related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have
been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures for air quality that are
applicable to the project, as listed previously, either have been completed through preparation of the Air
Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) or would be implemented as part of
the City’s permitting processes.
No new mitigation measures are required.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 74 of 184
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that in addition to required surveys, compliance with the MSHCP and Mitigation
Measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-10 as applicable, for all future implementing development projects
with special status plant species within the Specific Plan area would reduce potential direct impacts to
below a level of significance. The Final EIR also determined that the Specific plan site may serve a function
in local wildlife movement; however, the preservation of open space, would reduce impacts to local wildlife
movement to a less than significant level.
The Final EIR determined that with implementation of the goals and policies of the Specific Plan, applicable
local ordinances, regional plans, and regulations together with the mitigation measures would reduce
potential cumulative impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 For future implementing development projects within the Project site, the applicant will
implement the following avoidance and protection measures to protect vegetation and
wildlife.
• Prior to project implementation, a biologist will conduct a Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) which will describe the biological constraints of the
particular project. Key personnel who will work within the project site will attend
the WEAP prior to the commencement of construction activity. The WEAP will be
administered to key personnel regarding the sensitive biological resources,
restrictions, protection measures, and individual responsibilities associated with the
construction.
• Work area limits will be defined and respected. All construction/laydown areas will
have their boundaries clearly flagged or marked before project implementation and
all disturbances will be confined to the flagged areas. All project personnel will be
instructed that their activities must be confined to locations within the flagged areas.
Disturbance beyond the actual construction zone is prohibited without site-specific
surveys.
• Cleared or trimmed vegetation and woody debris will be disposed of in a legal
manner at an approved disposal site.
• If any wildlife is encountered during the course of project activities, said wildlife
will be allowed to freely leave the area unharmed.
• Wildlife will not be disturbed, captured, harassed, or handled. Animal nests,
burrows and dens will not be disturbed without prior survey from a qualified
biologist.
• Active nests (nests with chicks or eggs) cannot be removed or disturbed. Inactive
nests may be removed or disturbed by a qualified biologist.
• To avoid impacts to wildlife, the applicant will comply with all litter and pollution
laws and will institute a litter control program during the course of the construction
activities. All contractors, subcontractors, and employees shall also obey these
laws. Trash removal will reduce the attractiveness of the area to opportunistic
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 75 of 184
predators such as coyotes, opossums and common ravens.
• Employees, contractors, and site visitors will be prohibited from collecting plants
and wildlife unless under the direction of a qualified biologist for purposes of
project implementation, relocation, or mitigation.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-1 is applicable to the proposed project, will be implemented as part of the
construction permitting process, and will be included in the project MMRP.
MM BIO-2 In addition to the general measures mentioned above, each project is required to comply
with the following standard construction BMPs found in Appendix C of the MSHCP.
• Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in
accordance with RWQCB requirements.
• The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible.
Access to sites shall be via preexisting access routes to the greatest extent possible.
• The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of
disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the
field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.
• Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel
within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland
habitats used by target species of concern.
• Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with
minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These
designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from
entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release
of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project-related spills of
hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited
to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFW, RWQCB and shall be cleaned up
immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
• The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to preexisting contours and
revegetated with appropriate native species.
• Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be
permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-2 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the construction permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed
project.
MM BIO-3 Mitigation for impacts to vegetation communities caused by development within the
Project site will be achieved through compliance with MSHCP requirements as applicable.
Each future implementing development project will go through the MSHCP approval
process. Mitigation for impacts to sensitive vegetation communities associated with
jurisdictional waters, riparian, riverine, or vernal pool resources may be satisfied through
compensatory and/or preservation requirements described below under MM BIO-4 and
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 76 of 184
MM BIO-8.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-3 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project would not
impact sensitive vegetation communities associated with jurisdictional waters, riparian, riverine, or vernal
pool resources, as detailed in the General Biological Assessment (Appendix B).
MM BIO-3a Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant of a future implementing
development project shall complete systematic wildlife and sensitive plant surveys to
document species occurrence. For sensitive species detected onsite, but not covered by the
MSHCP, project specific mitigation measures will be included in future specific plan
approvals to offset impacts. These measures shall include the preservation of appropriate
natural open space areas in perpetuity via a conservation easement and provision of a non-
wasting endowment to fund the long-term management by a CDFW-approved local
conservation entity. Preservation of open space shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-3a is applicable to the proposed project and has been implemented by
completion of the General Biological Assessment (Appendix B). This measure would be included in the
MMRP for the proposed project.
MM BIO-4 Future implementing development projects within the ELSP will adhere to the MSHCP
special status plant species requirements, which include the Narrow Endemic and Criteria
Area Plant surveys (NEPSSA and CAPSSA respectively). All surveys will be performed
during the time of year specified in the MSHCP. Per the MSHCP, either Equivalency
Findings or a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP)
will be prepared for each project on which a NEPSSA or CAPSSA species is found during
surveys. If 90% of the area with long term conservation value to the NEPSSA or CAPSSA
plant species on the project site can be avoided, then an Equivalency Finding will be made.
If impacts to more than 10% of the area with conservation value to the plant species is not
avoided, then a DBESP will be prepared and provided to the Wildlife Agencies for review
and approval.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-4 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project site is not
located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
(NEPSSA), as detailed in the General Biological Assessment (Appendix B).
MM BIO-4a Whenever more than 10% of the area with long term conservation value within a future
implementing development project’s footprint is affected by that future implementing
development project’s activities and the DBESP has been prepared and approved, if the
mitigation strategy includes translocation and or seed collection with propagation to an on-
site or off-site preserved property, the receiving property must be acceptable to the City and
Wildlife Agencies. The property shall provide habitat characteristics suitable to support the
plant species, including but not limited to: appropriate soils, elevation, hydrology, and
vegetation community. The property shall be conserved via recordation of a conservation
easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFW-due diligence approved local conservation
entity to protect sensitive plant species on the property in perpetuity. Alternatively, the land
may be transferred in fee title to a CDFW approved local conservation entity. A
management fund shall be established by the Applicant and will consist of an interest-
bearing account with the amount of capital necessary to generate sufficient interest and/or
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 77 of 184
income to fund all monitoring, management, and protection of the conservation area(s),
including but not limited to, reasonable administrative overhead, biological monitoring,
invasive species and trash removal, fencing and signage replacement and repair, law
enforcement measures, long-term management reporting (as described below), and other
actions designed to maintain and improve the habitat of the conserved land(s), in perpetuity.
A Property Analysis Record, or substantially equivalent analysis, shall be conducted by the
Applicant and approved by the City to determine the management needs and costs described
above, which then will be used to calculate the capital needed for the management of the
fund. This management fund shall be held and managed by a CDFW-approved local
conservation entity. To protect the mitigation area(s), the Applicant shall place appropriate
fencing and/or natural barriers and signage around the perimeter of each site. Except for
uses appropriate to a habitat conservation area, the public shall not have access to the
mitigation area(s), and no activities shall be permitted within the site, except maintenance
of habitat, including the removal of nonnative plant species, trash, and debris, and the
installation of native plant materials. Mitigation areas can include limited trails to allow
passive use of the land, subject to CDFW and City approval. Prior to any ground
disturbance, the Applicant shall prepare a Planting Plan (Plan) for sensitive plant species.
The Plan shall require a replacement ratio of 1:1 by area and ensure a minimum 90 percent
survivorship at the end of a five-year monitoring period, which shall be verified by the
monitoring biologist (minimum qualifications of the monitoring biologist are specified
below). At a minimum, the five-year plan shall include the following information:
1. A description of the existing conditions of the receiver site(s), characterizing the
suitability of the site(s) for the plant, and documenting the acreage of the site.
2. A description of how the site will be preserved in perpetuity, e.g., conservation
easement, deed restriction, etc., and the name of the CDFW-approved due diligence
entity that will hold the easement/deed restriction, etc.
3. Qualifications of the monitoring biologist: At a minimum, the monitoring biologist
will possess a minimum of two-year’s experience conducting habitat restoration
projects in coastal sage scrub, chaparral and/or other native habitat in Riverside
County, California.
4. Receiver site preparation for transplanting.
5. Goals for success.
6. Schedule.
7. Propagation techniques.
8. Transplant and seedling installation methods.
9. Plant spacing.
10. Performance criteria for success, including provision for control of non-native
and invasive species.
11. Monitoring and reporting procedures for each of the five years of the
monitoring period.
12. Adaptive management strategies, including a contingency plan should the site fail
to meet the specified success criteria.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 78 of 184
13. Maintenance requirements that will be reviewed and approved by the City. The
Plan shall also ensure a mixture of both male and female plants (where
appropriate).
Project Applicability: MM BIO-4a is not applicable to the proposed project because the project site does
not include areas with long term conservation value and no DBESP is required to be prepared or approved,
as detailed in the General Biological Assessment (Appendix B).
MM BIO-5 Most of the special status wildlife species with potential to occur within the Project site
are covered under the MSHCP. Therefore, mitigation for potential impacts to special
status wildlife species caused by development within the Project site will be achieved
through compliance with MSHCP requirements. Each future implementing development
project will go through the MSHCP approval process (including burrowing owl surveys
and/or other focused species surveys as appropriate for each site/development, per
MSHCP requirements).
Project Applicability: MM BIO-5 is applicable to the proposed project and has been implemented by
completion of the General Biological Assessment (Appendix B). Compliance with MSHCP requirements
would be ensured through the construction permitting process. This measure would be included in the
MMRP for the proposed project.
MM BIO-6 Unless impacts can be avoided, focused surveys conducted pursuant to Appendix E of
the MSHCP, Summary of Species Survey Requirements shall be conducted to determine
presence/absence of Riverside fairy shrimp within vernal pool habitat. If fairy shrimp are
present, the City shall determine whether avoidance can be achieved. If not, and 90
percent of the occupied portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation
value for the fairy shrimp shall be conserved consistent with the MSHCP.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-6 is applicable to the proposed project and has been implemented by
completion of the General Biological Assessment (Appendix B), which determined that no vernal pool/fairy
shrimp habitat exists within the project site.
MM BIO-7 The following measures shall be performed by each respective applicant for future
implementing development projects prior to clearing and grubbing within the Project site
to avoid impacts to burrowing owl and other nesting birds:
• Prior to the commencement of future implementing development project-related
activities (including all ground-disturbing activities) during the nesting season of
January 1 through September 1, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist not more than 72 hours prior to ground disturbance activities, to
determine if active bird nests or nesting birds are present. If active nests are
identified, the avian biologist will establish appropriate buffers around the nest
(typically 500 feet for raptors and sensitive species, 200 feet for non-raptors/non-
sensitive species). All work within these buffers will be halted until the nesting
effort is finished (i.e. the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The
on- site biologist will review and verify compliance with these nesting boundaries
and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume within the buffer
area when no other active nests are found. Alternatively, the qualified avian
biologist may determine alternate appropriate buffer distances by referencing
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 79 of 184
current species-specific standards and taking into account the conservation status
of the species, species-specific biology, and the nature of the planned disturbance
(e.g., driving past a nest versus extensive grading). In either case, the qualified
avian biologist shall develop a monitoring plan to ensure that the project complies
with all rules and regulations pertaining to nesting birds. Upon completion of the
survey and any follow-up construction avoidance management, a report shall be
prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record
keeping. If vegetation clearing is not completed within 72 hours of a negative
survey during nesting season, the nesting survey must be repeated to confirm the
absence of nesting birds.
• Pre-construction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl within the Project
site where suitable habitat is present shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
within 30 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. pursuant
to California Department of Fish and Wildlife and MSHCP protocols (Section 6.3.2
of the MSHCP, Additional Survey Needs and Procedures).
• If BUOW are found onsite, the Lead Agency shall notify the Wildlife Agencies and
the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to develop
a conservation strategy including a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. If active
burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season, the qualified
biologist will establish an appropriate buffer (typically a minimum 300 feet) and
all work will be halted within the buffer until the biologist observes that nesting
efforts have finished. Work can resume in the buffer when no other active
burrowing owl burrows nests are found within the buffer area.
• If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season or during
the breeding season and its determined nesting activities have not begun, then
passive and/or active relocation may be approved with a Burrowing Owl Relocation
Plan following consultation with the City of Lake Elsinore, the Wildlife Agencies
and the RCA. Passive relocation, the installation of one-way doors, is not
recommended unless suitable burrows are available within 100 meters of the closed
burrows and the relocation area is protected through a long-term conservation
mechanism (e.g., conservation easement). The installation of one-way doors may
be installed as part of a passive relocation program. Burrowing owl burrows shall
be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be
unoccupied, and back filled to ensure that animals do not re-enter the holes/dens.
Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up construction avoidance
management, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City, the Wildlife
Agencies and the RCA for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-7 is applicable to the proposed project and would be included in the
MMRP for the proposed project.
MM BIO-8 To reduce the impact of domestic cats on special status species in the conservation areas,
cat-proof barriers shall be erected between future implementing residential development
projects and any conservation area that exists at the time of development. The barrier
should consist of a minimum 8-foot-tall fencing made of secure materials that cats cannot
scale placed along the entire boundary adjacent to the conservation areas to prohibit
movement of people and pets from residential and recreational areas into the conservation
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 80 of 184
area. No section of the barrier should include clear panels or sections such as glass or
plastic as these are a hazard to birds, which may fly into them and perish.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-8 is not applicable because the site is not adjacent to any conservation
areas.
MM BIO-9 Mitigation for each future implementing development project will be completed prior to
or concurrently with Project implementation and will be consistent with the 770 Plan
currently developed for the Back Basin.
Impacts to Corps jurisdiction below elevation 1246’ and CDFW jurisdiction below
elevation 1265’ shall be compensated for by the preservation of waters below elevation
1246’ and/or below 1265’ in the confines of the Back Basin or Lake Elsinore or other
agency-approved mitigation, including a bank or in-lieu fee program. Appropriate
mitigation shall be identified in discussion with USACE and CDFW during the respective
regulatory permitting process as appropriate for each future implementing development
project. Mitigation for non-elevation related impacts to jurisdictional features may be
combined with mitigation for impacts to the elevation-bound jurisdictional lakebed due to
the significant overlap in these areas in the acreage calculations in the previous sections.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-9 is not applicable to the proposed project because the entire project
site is above the elevation of 1,246 feet AMSL. Therefore, no areas of the project site are USACE
jurisdiction. Also, the project would avoid construction within the 0.15-acre of CDFW Back Basin
jurisdictional area.
MM BIO-9a Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant of each future implementing
development project shall provide to the City of Lake Elsinore either of the following:
Written correspondence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife stating that
notification under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code is not required for
the project; or a copy of a Department-executed Lake or Streambed Alteration
Agreement, authorizing impacts to California Fish and Game Code, section 1602
resources associated with the project.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-9a is not applicable to the proposed project because the project would
not involve construction within the CDFW Back Basin jurisdictional area. Thus, Section 1602 permitting
pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code is not required for the project, as further detailed in the
General Biological Assessment (Appendix B).
MM BIO-10 Mitigation for each future implementing development project will be completed prior to
or concurrently with each project’s implementation (may require grading to occur to
establish mitigation area) and will be consistent with the 770 Plan currently developed
for the Back Basin as well as other requirements as described in Section 2.5.4.2 of
ELSPA No. 11.
Removal of tamarisk scrub vegetation and other woody invasive species (including
Arundo donax) will be considered a benefit to the Back Basin and no mitigation will be
required by the City provided the woody invasive species are eradicated in perpetuity.
This means that development of a site that is graded, paved, etc. such that Tamarisk and
any other woody invasive species cannot survive, does not need mitigation. If a portion
of Tamarisk scrub or other woody invasive plant species remains on a project site, the
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 81 of 184
project proponent will be required by the City to establish an endowment to
remove/eradicate the woody invasive species in perpetuity. Impacts to riverine and
riparian resources will be mitigated in the Back Basin, Lake Elsinore or other agency-
approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program. Impacts to riparian resources will be
compensated for at a minimum ratio of 2:1 preservation in the Back Basin, Lake Elsinore
or other agency-approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program.
Project Applicability: MM BIO-10 is not applicable to the proposed project. Although the site contains
approximately 0.15 acre below the CDFW jurisdictional elevation associated with the back basin of Lake
Elsinore, the project has been designed to avoid this area of the project site and this area is not
riparian/riverine. Thus, no mitigation related to the 770 Plan for the back basin is required and MM BIO-
10 is therefore not applicable.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the General Biological Assessment prepared for the proposed project by Hernandez
Environmental Services (Appendix B).
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?
(No New Impacts.)
As detailed in the General Biological Assessment, the project site consists of vacant, disturbed land with
evidence of weed abatement activities and offroad vehicle use. The entire site consists of disturbed, ruderal
habitat. The dominant plant species observed within the site include brome grass (Bromus sp.) and non-
native vegetation including shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and tall tumblemustard (Sisymbrium
altissimum). The General Biological Assessment determined that there is no habitat on the site to support
any of the sensitive species that have the potential to occur onsite. The site is located within an MSHCP
identified area requiring surveys for burrowing owl. Thus, a habitat assessment for burrowing owl was
conducted, which determined that the site does not provide suitable habitat for the species. However, due
to the fact that the project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP burrowing owl
survey area, a 30-day preconstruction survey is required prior to the commencement of project activities
(e.g. vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering) to ensure that no owls have
colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding project activities. This requirement is consistent with East
Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM BIO-5 and MM BIO-7. Therefore, no sensitive
species would be impacted by the project, and no new impacts would occur.
(Sources: General Biological Assessment, Appendix B)
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? (No New Impact.)
The General Biological Assessment (Appendix B) describes that the project site does not include any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. As described in the previous response, the site consists
of disturbed, ruderal habitat with evidence of weed abatement activities and offroad vehicle use.
The General Biological Assessment describes that the project site contains approximately 0.15 acre below
the CDFW jurisdictional elevation associated with the back basin of Lake Elsinore. However, as detailed
in the project description, the project has be designed to avoid this area of the project site, and this area is
not riparian/riverine. Due to the lack of riparian or sensitive habitat on the project cite, no new impacts
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 82 of 184
would occur from the project.
(Sources: General Biological Assessment, Appendix B)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (No New Impact.)
The entire site consists of ruderal habitat and no wetland areas exist on or adjacent to the site. Therefore,
no impacts to wetlands would occur from the project. As detailed in the project description, the northwestern
corner of the project site contains 0.15 acre of land that is located below the CDFW jurisdictional elevation
of 1,265 feet AMSL and is associated with the back basin of Lake Elsinore. The proposed project has been
designed to avoid the 0.15 acre of CDFW jurisdictional area on the project site; therefore, no impacts to
CDFW jurisdictional areas would result from project implementation.
The entire project site is located above the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional elevation
of 1,246 feet AMSL; therefore, no areas on the project site are within USACE jurisdiction. Also, no areas
of the project site are within Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction. Overall, the
proposed project would not result in impacts related to either wetlands or state or federally jurisdictional
areas. No new impacts would result.
(Sources: General Biological Assessment, Appendix B)
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? (No New Impact.)
Habitat linkages are areas which provide a connection between two or more other habitat areas which are
often larger or superior in quality to the linkage. Corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific
opportunities for individual animals to disperse or migrate between areas, generally extensive but otherwise
partially or wholly separated regions. Adequate cover and tolerably low levels of disturbance are common
requirements for corridors.
The site is surrounded by walls and fences on three sides and a roadway on the fourth. The areas beyond
those structures are developed with residential and commercial uses. The General Biological Assessment
determined that no wildlife corridors exist within the project site which consists of flat, disturbed land
surrounded by urban development. Thus, impacts related to wildlife corridors would not occur from
implementation of the project.
Wildlife nurseries are sites where wildlife concentrate for hatching and/or raising young, such as rookeries,
spawning areas, and bat colonies. No wildlife nurseries or maternity roosts for colonial bat species exist
within the project site. However, the project site contains shrubs, and ground cover that provide suitable
habitat for nesting native birds during the nesting bird season of February 1 through September 15. Nesting
bird species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Sections 3503, 3503.5,
and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Final EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-7 and PPP
BIO-1 requires nesting bird surveys if vegetation is removed during nesting bird season pursuant with the
MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code requirements. The potential of nesting birds in shrubs within
the Specific Plan area is not a new condition and significant impacts would not occur with compliance with
existing regulations. Therefore, no new impacts would occur.
(Sources: General Biological Assessment, Appendix B)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 83 of 184
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? (No New Impact.)
The General Biological Assessment (Appendix B) determined that the project site does not contain any
trees or other biological resources protected by City of Lake Elsinore policies or ordinances. Therefore,
development of the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources. Public trees in Lake Elsinore are protected under Chapter 15.120, Tree Preservation, of the
Municipal Code (PPP BIO-2), which regulates street trees or trees located in other public locations in the
City; including the location and species of any trees to be installed along Lakeshore Drive. The proposed
project would be required to comply with the Municipal Code requirements as part of the City permitting
process would ensure that the project does not conflict with local policies or ordinances related to public
trees. As a result, no new impact would occur.
(Sources: General Biological Assessment, Appendix B)
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? (No
New Impact.)
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional effort that includes
unincorporated County of Riverside lands and multiple cities in the western portion of the County, including
the City. Rather than address sensitive species on an individual basis, the MSHCP focuses on the
conservation of 146 species, proposing a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres and a mechanism
to fund and implement the reserve system (County 2003). The MSHCP allows participating entities to issue
take permits for listed species so that individual applicants need not seek their own permits from USFWS
and/or CDFW. The MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003 by the County Board of Supervisors. The
Incidental Take Permit was issued by both the USFWS and CDFW on June 22, 2004.
The General Biological Assessment (Appendix B) describes that the project site is located within the
Western Riverside County MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, and approximately 0.28-acre of the southwestern
corner of the site is located within a Criteria Area. Pursuant to the provisions of the MSHCP, all
discretionary development projects within a Criteria Area are to be reviewed for compliance with the
“Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy” (LEAP) process or
equivalent process. The LEAP process “ensures that an early determination will be made of what properties
are needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area, that the owners of property needed for the MSHCP
Conservation Area are compensated, and that owners of land not needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area
shall receive Take Authorization of Covered Species Adequately Conserved through the Permits issues to
the County and Cities pursuant to the MSHCP.” A formal and complete LEAP application (LEAP 2022-
03) was submitted to the City on August 3, 2022 and a JPR (23-04-11-01) was completed by the RCA on
August 7, 2023. Concurrence from CDFW and USFWS (collectively, the Wildlife Agencies) was received
on August 16, 2023, which is included as Appendix C.
The General Biological Assessment (Appendix B) describes that the approximately 0.28-acre Criteria Area
within the southwestern corner of the site is located within the Elsinore Subunit (SU3), within the
northeastern corner of Criteria Cell 5131. Conservation within Cell 5131 focuses on grassland habitat and
connections of grassland habitat proposed to conservation areas in Cell 5137 to the west. Conservation
within Cell 5131 will range from 30 to 40 percent of the Cell focusing on the southwestern portion of the
Cell. The portion of the site within Criteria Cell 5131 is comprised of disturbed, ruderal habitat, and does
not contain the native grassland habitat identified for conservation within the Cell. Furthermore, the site is
located within the northeastern portion of the Criteria Cell and is surrounded by urban development and
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 84 of 184
does not connect to grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 5137 to the west. Therefore, the
portion of the site located within Criteria Cell 5131 is not a conservation area, and no impacts related to
Criteria Cells and grassland habitat connections would occur.
MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Habitat and Vernal Pools
As described previously, the project site contains 0.15 acre located below the CDFW jurisdictional
elevation of 1,265 feet AMSL and is associated with the back basin of Lake Elsinore; however, this area
does not support suitable riparian habitat with the potential to support riparian/riverine bird species. Further,
none of the riparian/riverine bird species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP were found within the project
site. Due to the lack of suitable riparian habitat on the project site, focused surveys for riparian/riverine bird
species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are not warranted.
Regarding vernal pools, the entire site was evaluated for the presence of habitat capable of supporting
branchiopods and was evaluated as described in the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large
Branchiopods (May 31, 2016). The project area is primarily comprised of sandy loams, and the onsite soils
do not allow for water pooling on the site for any significant length of time after rain events. No vernal
pools, swales, or vernal pool mimics such as ditches, borrow pits, cattle troughs, or cement culverts with
signs of pooling water were found on the site. In addition, the site does not contain areas that showed signs
of ponding water, hydrophytic vegetation, or soils typical of vernal pools that would be suitable for large
branchiopods.
Section 6.1.3 Sensitive Plant Species
The project site is not located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Area (NEPSSA) pursuant to Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. Therefore, the NEPSSA requirements
are not applicable to the project and no impacts would occur.
Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines
The project site contains 0.15 acre of riparian/riverine areas associated with the back basin of Lake Elsinore
which is described for conservation. These resources would be avoided by the project, and the
Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (Section 6.14 of the MSHCP) are applied to the project as described
below.
• Drainage: Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be incorporated, including the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) and erosion control requirements from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that the quantity and quality of surface water
runoff discharged into riparian/riverine areas are not altered in an adverse way when compared
with existing conditions. These BMPs will be implemented as part of the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in order to ensure that water quality is not degraded, as detailed in
Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.
• Toxics: Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues would be implemented for
toxics. Land uses proposed in proximity to the onsite riparian/riverine areas that use chemicals or
generate bioproducts that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or
water quality must incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result
in discharge to riparian/riverine areas. These BMPs will be implemented as part of the Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as detailed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.
• Invasives: Invasive, non-native plant species would not be used as landscaping materials for
development that is proposed adjacent to the onsite riparian/riverine areas, as detailed in the project
landscaping plan that would be reviewed and approved as part of the City’s permitting process.
Section 6.3.2 Additional Surveys and Procedures
The project site is not located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Additional survey areas for
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 85 of 184
amphibians, mammals, 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.
The project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP additional survey area for
burrowing owl. A habitat assessment conducted on the site determined that no suitable habitat is present.
However, because the site is located within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area, a 30-day
preconstruction survey is required prior to the commencement of project activities (e.g. vegetation clearing,
clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days
or weeks preceding project activities. This requirement is consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan Final
EIR Mitigation Measures MM BIO-5 and MM BIO-7. Thus, the project would not result in impacts
related to the MSHCP.
(Sources: General Biological Assessment, Appendix B and Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project
Review Findings, Appendix C)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding biological resources. There have not been
1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce potential biology related impacts from the proposed
project:
PPP BIO-1: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits that
include vegetation and/or tree removal activities that will occur within the active breeding season for
birds (February 1 through September 15), the project applicant (or their Construction Contractor) shall
retain a qualified biologist (meaning a professional biologist that is familiar with local birds and their
nesting behaviors) to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of
construction activities.
The nesting survey shall include the project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could
potentially be affected by project-related construction activities, such as noise, human activity, and
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 86 of 184
dust, etc. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet (ft) of the designated construction area
prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer around the active nests
(e.g., as much as 500 ft for raptors and 300 ft for non-raptors [subject to the recommendations of the
qualified biologist]), and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and
the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.
PPP BIO-2: Tree Regulations. The trees shrubs and plants installed on public property shall conform
to the regulations within Municipal Code Chapter 15.120.
PPP BIO-3: MSHCP Fees. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall pay the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) development
mitigation fee in effect at the time the permits are issued.
Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures for biological resources
that are applicable to the proposed project, as detailed previously, would be included in the project MMRP
to ensure implementation.
No new mitigation measures are required.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that there are numerous cultural resources that are mapped within 0.5 mile of the
Specific Plan area, and states that the quantity of known cultural resources and their mapped locations
suggest intensive prehistoric occupation along past manifestations of the lake shoreline. The Final EIR
describes that it is likely that there are historic and archaeological resources that have not been identified
due to changing environmental conditions. Therefore, the Final EIR included mitigation measures that
would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Prior to implementation of each implementing development project that shall occur in
undisturbed native soils, an archaeological survey shall be conducted by a qualified
archaeologist to document site conditions and any identified cultural resources. A survey
shall not be required where ground disturbance is limited to invasive plant species removal
or planting of native plant species, without the use of heavy equipment (e.g. scrapers or
excavators), for enhancement or preservation of those sites or where documentation shows
that prior disturbance greater than nine (9) feet in depth has occurred. Examples of adequate
documentation include “As-Builts”, geotechnical reports, or similar documents reviewed
by the Project’s archeologist and provided to the City with the grading permit application.
Previous archeological surveys may be utilized provided they are no more than five years
old at the time of submitting the grading permit application (survey age requirement based
on period of time where site conditions and/or survey methodologies may have
substantially changed; thus, warranting a new survey).
If any site is confirmed to meet the eligibility criteria in Section 15064.5(a) (3) (A–D) in
the State CEQA guidelines, consultation between the City of Lake Elsinore, the developer,
the project archeologist, and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Pechanga Band) and
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (Soboba Band) will be initiated in order to determine
specific disposition in compliance with Section 15126.4(b)(3) of the State CEQA
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 87 of 184
Guidelines.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-1 is applicable to the proposed project and has been completed
as part of the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey that is included as Appendix D.
MM CUL-2 Cultural sites CA-RIV- 4648 and C-0180-001 located within Planning Area 6 are
considered eligible for California Register of Historic Resources and should be avoided
and preserved in place. If an implementing development project proposes to impact these
resources, consultation between the City of Lake Elsinore, the developer, the project
archeologist, and the Pechanga Band and Soboba Band (Tribes) will be initiated in order
to determine whether in- place preservation, re-location and/or re-burial may be necessary.
As well as to determine appropriate mitigation in compliance with Section 15126.4(b)(3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-2 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project
site is not located within Planning Area 6.
MM CUL-3 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) for an implementing development project, a qualified
archaeologist shall be retained to monitor all ground-disturbing activities. Previously
disturbed soils or those areas where ground disturbance is limited to invasive plant species
removal or planting of native plant species for enhancement or preservation of those sites,
per MM CUL-1, shall not require archaeological monitoring.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-3 is applicable to the proposed project and would be
implemented as part of the grading permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for
the proposed project.
MM CUL-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permit(s) and any earthmoving activities in those areas of
the East Lake Specific Plan including off site project improvement areas, that require
monitoring as described in MM CUL-3, the implementing development Project applicant
shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist and qualified Luiseño Native American
monitors from the Pechanga Band and the Soboba Band to monitor all ground disturbing
activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-4 is applicable to the proposed project and would be
implemented as part of the grading permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for
the proposed project.
MM CUL-5 At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit for an implementing development
project proposing work within undisturbed native soils, the Project Applicant shall contact
both the Pechanga Band and the Soboba Band to notify each Tribe of grading; to provide
a pre-grade report; and to coordinate with each Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources
Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement shall address the
treatment of known and discovered cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and
participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and other
ground disturbing activities within undisturbed native soils; project grading and
development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final
disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 88 of 184
site. The Agreement shall incorporate the provisions set forth in MM CUL-7 and MM
CUL-11. Ground disturbing activities within previously disturbed soils as described under
measure MM CUL-1 may not require notification, monitoring or an Agreement, subject to
verification by a qualified archaeologist, the Tribe(s), and the City.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-5 is applicable to the proposed project and would be
implemented as part of the grading permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for
the proposed project.
MM CUL-6 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the implementing development Project
archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City to document the proposed
methodology for grading activity observation. A pre-grading report shall not be required
in previously disturbed soils or those areas where ground disturbance is limited to invasive
plant species removal or planting of native plant species for enhancement or preservation
of those sites, per MM CUL-1. If a pre-grading report is required, report methodology shall
include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have
the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the Agreement
required in MM CUL-5, the archaeological monitor’s authority to stop and redirect grading
will be exercised in consultation with the designated tribal monitor(s) assigned to the
project by the Luiseño Tribe(s) in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological
resources discovered on the property.
Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and ground breaking
activities, and shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in the
immediate area of the find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next
steps. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent
treatment pursuant to the Agreement, which may include avoidance of cultural resources,
in-place preservation and/or reburial on the project property in an area that will not be
subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. The reburial of any cultural
resources shall occur at a location to be determined between the landowner and the
Pechanga band and Soboba Band, the details of which will be addressed in the
Agreement(s).
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-6 is applicable to the proposed project and would be
implemented as part of the grading permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for
the proposed project.
MM CUL-7 All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the
professional archaeologist and the Native American monitor(s) per the policies and
procedures set forth in the Agreement required in MM CUL-5 for the implementing
development project. In the event that archaeological resources and/or tribal cultural
resources are unearthed, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from
the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet
shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to
continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be
monitored by additional monitors if needed. The significance of tribal cultural resources
shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and shall consider the tribal
values, religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Luiseño tribes. All items found in
association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or
sacred in origin and subject to special handling.
The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 89 of 184
archaeological artifacts and non-human remains that cannot be avoided or relocated at the
Project site. Native American artifacts that cannot be avoided or relocated at the Project
site shall be prepared in a manner for curation. These cultural resources shall be prepared
in a manner for curation and the archaeological consultant shall deliver the materials to a
qualified repository in Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79,
and which shall be made available to all qualified researchers and tribal representatives.
The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to said curation
facility to be accompanied by any payment of fees necessary for permanent curation. If
more than one Native American Tribe or Band is involved with the project and cannot
come to an agreement as to the disposition of Native American cultural resources, the
resources shall be curated at the Western Science Center by default.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-7 is applicable to the proposed project and would be included
in the MMRP for the proposed project.
MM CUL-8 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the Project site, shall be avoided and
preserved as the mitigation, if feasible.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-8 is applicable to the proposed project and would be included
in the MMRP for the proposed project.
MM CUL-9 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/tribal cultural resources are
discovered during grading, the Developer, the Project archaeologist, and the Pechanga
Band and the Soboba Band (Tribes) shall consult regarding the nature and significance of
such discovered resources. The qualified archeologist, with assistance from the Tribes,
shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be
implemented to protect the discovered resources. In accordance with Section 15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines, such measures may include but are not limited to avoidance,
excavation of the finds, collection, evaluation of the materials, additional testing,
relocation, and curation. Potentially significant prehistoric archaeological and Tribal
Cultural Resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell
artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any
previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area must
be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and
evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria, in consultation with the Tribes. If the
Developer and the Tribes 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
California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall
take into account the religious beliefs, customs and practices of the Tribes.
Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the CDD shall be
final.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-9 is applicable to the proposed project and would be included
in the MMRP for the proposed project.
MM CUL-10 Implementing development projects that are required to plant vegetation in onsite or offsite
biological mitigation areas within the East Lake Specific Plan boundary by their CEQA or
regulatory approvals shall incorporate local native plant species of importance to the
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 90 of 184
Pechanga Band and Soboba Band within the planting palette of the preservation area,
including but not limited to California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), white sage
(Salvia apiana), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), California buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasciculatum), and/or coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis). Specific plant species and
coverage shall be determined by the project biologist, landscape contractor or other
qualified person approved by the City on a case-by case basis based on field conditions,
soil types and hydrology to ensure plant survival.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-10 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project
does not include planting vegetation in biological mitigation areas.
MM CUL-11 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. If the Riverside County Coroner
determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. Subsequently, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely
descendant.” The most likely descendant may then make recommendations within 48 hours
and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public
Resources Code 5097.98.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM CUL-11 is applicable to the proposed project and would be included
in the MMRP for the proposed project.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey prepared for the proposed project by Brian
F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (Appendix D). The Phase I Cultural Resources Survey includes a records
search, Sacred Land File search, historic archival research, and a field survey.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5? (No New Impact.)
According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is defined as something that meets one or
more of the following criteria:
1) Listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources;
2) Listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
5020.1(k);
3) Identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section
5024.1(g); or
4) Determined to be a historical resource by the project’s Lead Agency.
PRC Section 5024.1 directs evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing on the
CRHR. The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with
previously established criteria developed for listing on the NRHP, enumerated above, and require similar
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 91 of 184
protection to what NHPA Section 106 mandates for historic properties. According to PRC Section
5024.1(c)(1-4), a resource is considered historically significant if it meets at least one of the following
criteria:
1) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;
3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the
local area, California or the nation.
The project site is vacant and does not include any buildings or structures, and no potential impacts related
to historic resources would occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new impacts to a
historic resource.
(Sources: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix D)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (No New Impact.)
An archaeological records search for the project identified archaeological resources within a 1-mile radius
of the project site that include prehistoric lithic scatter and isolates. The Phase I Cultural Resources Survey
for the site describes that the site has the potential to contain archaeological resources that could be
uncovered and impacted during project grading and excavation activities. The Geotechnical Investigation
describes that the project site is underlain by three feet of artificial fill, which was documented in 6
exploratory borings. Excavation and grading for the proposed project is anticipated to be limited to 3 feet
below the existing ground for excavation and compaction of the existing fill soils. However, the Phase I
Cultural Resources Survey determined that due to the location of the site near the lake and previous local
finds of resources, that archaeological monitoring pursuant to Mitigation Measures CUL-3 through
CUL-9 would be required. This is consistent with the findings of the Final EIR. Therefore, no new impacts
to buried archaeological resources would occur from the project.
(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E and Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix
D)
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (No New
Impact.)
The Phase I Cultural Resources Survey describes that the project site has been previously used for
agricultural activities and a reservoir. The project site has not been previously used as a cemetery. Thus,
human remains are not anticipated to be uncovered during project construction. However, California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as
implemented through Mitigation Measure MM CUL-11) mandate a process to be followed in the event
of an accidental discovery of any human remains. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the
coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of death, and made
recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person responsible
for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of
the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority
and if the coroner has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 92 of 184
contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Compliance with
existing law would ensure that no new impacts to human remains would occur.
(Sources: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix D)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding cultural resources. There have not been 1)
changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures for cultural resources
that are applicable to the proposed project, as detailed previously, would be included in the project MMRP
to ensure implementation.
No new mitigation measures are required.
VI. ENERGY
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that construction of the Specific Plan buildout is not anticipated to require
excessive amounts of energy or result in the wasteful expenditure of fuels; but would rather be consistent
with standard construction practices and in conformance with current efficiency regulation standards.
Likewise, for operational energy, the Final EIR determined that all future implementing development
projects would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Green Building Code and the
following specific requirements, which would serve to encourage the efficient use of energy. Therefore, the
Final EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, included as
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 93 of 184
Appendix A. The project’s construction and operational energy usage was calculated using CalEEMod,
Version 2022.1 and are summarized herein.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (No New Impact.)
The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to the project vicinity and gas lines are currently
located within Mission Trail, adjacent to the site. Southern California Edison currently provides electricity
services to the project area. The proposed project would install onsite electrical and natural gas
infrastructure that would connect to the existing offsite lines.
Construction
During construction of the proposed project, energy would be consumed in three general forms:
1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project
site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, as well as delivery truck trips;
2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and
3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes,
and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Based on these uses of energy during construction activities, the proposed buildings and the associated
infrastructure would not be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis
than other development projects in Southern California. Construction does not involve any unusual or
increased need for energy and would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. In addition, the extent of
construction activities that would occur is limited to a 11-month period, and the demand for construction-
related electricity and fuels would be limited to that time frame.
Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources
Board (CARB) regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-
duty diesel on- and off-road equipment as part of the City’s construction permitting process. Compliance
with existing CARB idling restrictions, which is included as PPP E-2, would reduce fuel combustion and
energy consumption. The energy modeling shows that project construction equipment usage over the 11-
month construction period is estimated to use 17,784 gallons of diesel fuel, as shown in Table E-1.
Table E-1: Estimated Construction Equipment Diesel Fuel Consumption
Equipment Number Horse-
power
Load
Factor Days
Total
Horsepower-
hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel
Use
(gallons)
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 367 0.4 10 35,232 0.020611684 726
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 0.37 10 9,946 0.019159781 191
Grading
Graders 1 148 0.41 30 14,563 0.021158296 308
Excavators 2 36 0.38 30 6,566 0.019874265 130
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 84 0.37 30 14,918 0.019159781 286
Scrapers 2 423 0.48 30 97,459 0.025004406 2,437
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 367 0.4 30 35,232 0.020611684 726
Cranes
Cranes 3 82 0.2 300 118,080 0.010444033 1,233
2 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroadzone/pdfs/offroad_booklet.pdf
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 94 of 184
Equipment Number Horse-
power
Load
Factor Days
Total
Horsepower-
hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel
Use
(gallons)
Forklifts 1 14 0.74 300 24,864 0.091046002 2,264
Generator Sets 1 367 0.29 300 223,503 0.014896922 3,330
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 46 0.45 300 49,680 0.033866729 1,682
Welder 3 84 0.37 300 195,804 0.019159781 3,752
Paving
Pavers 2 81 0.42 20 10,886 0.021546393 235
Paving Equipment 2 89 0.36 20 10,253 0.018465555 189
Rollers 2 36 0.38 20 4,378 0.019840109 87
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors 1 78 0.48 30 6,739 0.030881642 208
Total 17,784
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A
Table E-2 summarizes the project’s construction vehicle fuel usage based on vehicle miles traveled and
fuel usage factors contained in the ARB EMFAC2021. The trips included are worker vehicles, vendor
vehicles, and haul vehicles. As shown, the project would utilize 8,133 gallons of diesel fuel and 16,033
gallons of gasoline during construction.
Table E-2: Estimated Construction Worker, Vendor, and Haul Trip Fuel Consumption
Construction Source Number VMT Fuel Rate Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Haul Trucks 188 3,760 6.11 616 0
Vendor Trucks 22 67,320 8.96 7,517 0
Worker Vehicles 141 433,455 27.04 0 16,033
Total 8,133 16,033
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A
Table E-3 shows that project construction is anticipated to require a total of approximately 25,954 gallons
of diesel fuel and 16,033 gallons of gasoline.
Table E-3: Estimated Total Construction Fuel Consumption
Construction Source Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Construction Vehicles 8,164 16,033
Off-road Construction Equipment 17,790 0
Total 25,954 16,033
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A
Operation
Once operational, the project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for
motor vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the residences,
water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, and outdoor lighting, and the transport
of electricity, natural gas, and water to the residences where they would be consumed. This use of energy
is typical for residential development, no additional energy infrastructure would be required to be built to
operate the project, and no operational activities would occur that would result in extraordinary energy
consumption.
The proposed project would be required to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards, which is
included as PPP E-1. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design
components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 95 of 184
that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating,
ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials; solar panels;
energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with
the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide
and regional energy needs would be reduced. Thus, operation of the project would not use large amounts
of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and no new operational energy impacts would occur.
As detailed in Table E-4, the vehicular trips related to the new residences are anticipated to result in
5,441,136 annual VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 201,262 gallons of fuel. Operation of
the proposed residences is estimated to result in the annual use of approximately 6,792,784 thousand British
thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas and approximately 1,783,796 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity.
Table E-4: Project Annual Energy Consumption from Operation
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
1,783,796
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units)
6,792,784
Petroleum (gasoline) Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
5,441,136 201,262
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A
(Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A)
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (No
New Impact.)
The proposed project would be required to meet the CalGreen energy efficiency standards in effect during
permitting of the project, as included as PPP E-1. The City’s administration of the requirements includes
review of design components and energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which
ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the project would not conflict with or obstruct
opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy. As discussed, the project includes photovoltaic
(PV) solar panels on each of the residences to offset their energy demand in accordance with the existing
Title 24 requirements (included as PPP E-1). As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no new impacts would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding energy resources. There have not been 1)
changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 96 of 184
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
pursuant to the East Lake Specific Plan.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies: The following existing requirements would reduce energy
consumption from the proposed project:
PPP E-1. CalGreen Compliance. The project is required to comply with the CalGreen Building Code
as included in the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.32.010 to ensure efficient use of energy. CalGreen
specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition of building permit
approval.
PPP E-2: Idling Regulations. The project is required to comply with California Air Resources Board
(CARB) Rule 2485 (13 CCR, Chapter 10 Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that the Elsinore fault zone is within the Specific Plan area boundaries; and that
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM GEO‐1 through MM GEO‐5 would ensure adequate setbacks
for habitable structures away from active faults and fissures would be required to reduce potential impacts
to less than significant levels.
Also, the Final EIR describes that all new structures and facilities in the City are required to be designed
and constructed in accordance with current state and local laws and regulations including the California
Building Coded (CBC), City Municipal Code Title 15 (Building Code) and Title 17 (Zoning) Chapter 17.28
and 17.32 to ensure that the potential damage from seismic shaking would be less than significant.
Potential impacts resulting from liquefaction, ground lurching, landslides, slope stability issues, and
seismic‐induced ground settlement would also be considered less than significant because of the generally
flat nature of the Specific Plan area, relatively low risk for liquefaction and medium‐stiff to very‐stiff dense
soil characteristics and compliance with the California Building Code.
The EIR determined that the Specific Plan area would be improved during grading and construction to
avoid significant soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil in the post development condition. With implementation
of standard WQMP and BMP requirements, impacts would be less than significant.
According to the Final EIR, past soil sampling done at the Specific Plan site found very low to medium
expansion potential; thus, expansive soil may be encountered throughout portions of the site, requiring
specialized grading recommendations for remediation. Implementation of these measures pursuant to the
California Building Code would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
The Final EIR describes that the Specific Plan would not result in the installation of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting such sewage disposal
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 97 of 184
systems. Thus, no impacts would occur.
The Final EIR describes that both the Pleistocene‐age alluvial fan and valley deposits in the north, and the
unnamed sandstone member of the Pauba Formation in the south, have a high sensitivity for paleontological
resources. Fossil deposits encountered in the Specific Plan area would qualify as a “unique paleontological
resource or site” as defined by CEQA. Thus, the Final EIR included mitigation, as listed below to ensure
that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to approval of future implementing development projects within the East Lake
Specific Plan (ELSP), a geotechnical engineering investigation shall be prepared by a
California registered geologist or Certified engineering geologist and submitted to the
Engineering Department. Said report shall contain the detailed soil, foundation, and
seismic design parameters to be used in the project design.
Project Applicability: MM GEO-1 is applicable to the proposed project and has been completed as part
of the Geotechnical Investigation, included as Appendix E.
MM GEO-2 Grading plans for projects within the ELSP shall include a grading monitoring and testing
program under direction of a California registered geotechnical engineer and/or Certified
engineering geologist to verify compliance with the geotechnical recommendations and to
confirm that the geotechnical conditions found are consistent with the findings of the
investigation performed under MM GEO-1.
Project Applicability: MM GEO-2 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the construction permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed
project.
MM GEO-3 Proposed structures in the ELSP shall be designed in accordance with Uniform Building
Code, local building codes, and site-specific ground motion parameters developed during
subsequent site planning investigations, whichever has precedence.
Project Applicability: MM GEO-3 is applicable to the proposed project and would be verified as part of
the construction and building permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the
proposed project.
MM GEO-4 Prior to approval of future implementing development projects within the ELSP and within
areas enclosed by the State of California Special Studies maps, a fault hazards investigation
shall be conducted by a geotechnical engineer to identify potential hazards onsite
associated with the Wildomar fault and previously theorized buried en-echelon faults. The
geotechnical engineer in coordination with the City shall make design and setback
recommendations, where required. Pending results of the investigation, additional
evaluation (e.g. fault trenching) may be required by the geotechnical engineer in
coordination with the City to ensure engineering design and setback recommendations are
site-appropriate.
Project Applicability: MM GEO-4 is applicable to the proposed project and has been completed as part
of the Geotechnical Investigation, included as Appendix E.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 98 of 184
MM GEO-5 Due to the known or potential presence of active faults, potentially capable of surface
rupture, structures for human occupation shall not be permitted within 50 feet of any
capable faults or fault zones now documented or ultimately documented during further
geologic/geophysical investigation of the site during the design of future implementing
development projects within the ELSP.
Project Applicability: MM GEO-3 is applicable to the proposed project and would be verified as part of
the construction and building permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the
proposed project.
MM GEO-6 Prior to approval of a future implementing development, a site-specific geotechnical
subsurface investigation shall be conducted by a California registered geologist to
determine design soil liquefaction parameters and provide specific recommendations for
site grading and foundation design for projects within the ELSP.
Project Applicability: MM GEO-6 is applicable to the proposed project and has been completed as part
of the Geotechnical Investigation, included as Appendix E.
MM GEO-7 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects within the ELSP, documentation of slope
stability shall be required when the type of fill material has been determined.
Project Applicability: MM GEO-7 is applicable to the proposed project and has been completed as part
of the Geotechnical Investigation, included as Appendix E.
MM GEO-8 Use of Sulphur resistant concrete (e.g. "Type V" or equivalent with fly ash) shall be
required per Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction for areas containing
near surface, high-sulfate content soils for projects within the ELSP.
Project Applicability: MM GEO-8 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the construction permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed
project.
MM GEO-9 Prior to tentative map approval for projects within the ELSP, the project geotechnical, civil,
and structural engineers shall review seismic seiche design parameters and incorporate
appropriate design standards into the site plan.
Project Applicability: MM GEO-9 is applicable to the proposed project and has been completed as
part of the Geotechnical Investigation, included as Appendix E; and would be ensured through the
City’s construction and building permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for
the proposed project.
MM GEO-10 Prior to issuance of grading permits, Applicants shall submit a detailed grading plan, which
shall at a minimum include the following information:
1. Preliminary quantity estimates for grading (i.e., cut and fill);
2. Designation of areas of temporary borrowing or depositing of material;
3. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and
after the grading process. Approved erosion and sedimentation control measures
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 99 of 184
shall include but not be limited to:
1.1. measures to retain sediment on the site such as design and specifications for
sediment detention basins and traps, and silt fences;
1.2. measures to control surface runoff and erosion on the site such as applying
mulches, stabilizers, and designs and specifications for diverters, dikes, and
drains; and
1.3. measures to enhance and restore groundcover on the site such as identifying
types of seeds, fertilizer and application rates, type, location and extent of pre-
existing undisturbed vegetation.
4. A schedule for the routine inspection, upkeep, and maintenance of all erosion
control features shall be included.
5. Approximate timeframes for grading including identification of areas which may
be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March.
Project Applicability: MM GEO-10 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as
part of the grading permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed
project.
MM CUL-12 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each implementing development project that
shall result in any ground disturbance within undisturbed native soils in highly sensitive
paleontological areas (shown on 5.4-1 Paleontological Sensitivity Map of the Cultural and
Paleontological Assessment as Ha) in Planning Area 7, Planning Area 8, and the very
northeast corner of Planning Area 1, Planning Area 3, Planning Area 4, and the very
southeast corner of Planning Area 5, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to prepare
a Paleontological Resources Survey of the Project site to determine the site-specific
potential of finding paleontological resources within the Project site. If the approved
Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is unlikely that paleontological
resources will be uncovered by earth-moving activities, grading and construction activities
may proceed, subject to compliance with MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-11. However, if
the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is likely that
paleontological resources will be uncovered during earth-moving activities, a qualified
paleontologist shall be retained to develop a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and
Treatment Plan (PRMTP) for approval by the Community Development Director.
Following Community Development Director approval of the PRMTP, grading and
construction activities may proceed in compliance with the provisions of the approved
PRMTP.
The PRMTP shall include the following measures:
1. Identification of those locations within the Project site where paleontological resources
are likely to be uncovered during grading.
2. A monitoring program specifying the procedures for the monitoring of grading
activities by a qualified paleontologist.
3. Deep ground disturbance (8 feet b.g.s. or deeper) within undisturbed native soils in low
to highly sensitive paleontological areas at-depth (shown on Figure 5.4-1
Paleontological Sensitivity Map as L or Hb) in Planning Area 2, Planning Area 6, or
the remaining areas of Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 5 should be monitored part-
time. Monitoring shall not be required where ground disturbance is limited to invasive
plant species removal or planting of native plant species, without the use of heavy
equipment (e.g. scrapers or excavators), for preservation of those sites or where
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 100 of 184
documentation shows that prior disturbance greater than nine (9) feet in depth has
occurred. Examples of adequate documentation include “As-Builts”, geotechnical
reports, or similar documents reviewed by the Project’s paleontologist and provided to
the City with the grading permit application. Due to the small size of many of the fossil
resources documented from nearby localities, any paleontological monitoring shall
include regular collection and screening of sediment samples. The monitor shall work
under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist (B.S. /B.A. in geology and/or
paleontology with demonstrated competence in research, fieldwork, reporting, and
curation).
4. If fossil remains large enough to be seen are uncovered by earth-moving activities, a
qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall temporarily divert earth-moving
activities around the fossil site until the remains have been evaluated for significance
and, if appropriate, have been recovered; and, the paleontologist or qualified designee
allows earth-moving activities to proceed through the site. If potentially significant
resources are encountered, a letter of notification shall be provided in a timely manner
to the Community Development Director, in addition to the report (described below)
that is filed at completion of grading.
5. If a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee is not present when fossil remains
are uncovered by earth-moving activities, these activities shall be stopped and a
qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall be called to the site immediately to
evaluate the significance of the fossil remains.
6. At a qualified paleontologist’s or qualified designee’s discretion and to reduce any
construction delay, a construction worker shall assist in removing fossiliferous rock
samples to an adjacent location for temporary stockpiling pending eventual transport
to a laboratory facility for processing.
7. A qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall collect all significant identifiable
fossil remains. All fossil sites shall be plotted on a topographic map of the Project site.
8. If the qualified paleontologist or qualified designee determines that insufficient fossil
remains have been found after fifty percent of earthmoving activities have been
completed, monitoring can be reduced or discontinued.
9. Any significant fossil remains recovered in the field as a result of monitoring or by
processing rock samples shall be prepared, identified, catalogued, curated, and
accessioned into the fossil collections of the San Bernardino County Museum, or
another museum repository complying with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
standard guidelines. Accompanying specimen and site data, notes, maps, and
photographs also shall be archived at the repository.
10. Within 6 months following completion of the above tasks or prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits, whichever comes first, a qualified paleontologist or qualified
designee shall prepare a final report summarizing the results of the mitigation program
and presenting an inventory and describing the scientific significance of any fossil
remains accessioned into the museum repository. The report shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department – Planning Division and the museum
repository. The report shall comply with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
standard guidelines for assessing and mitigating impacts on paleontological resources.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 101 of 184
Project Applicability: The project is not located within Planning Area 7, Planning Area 8, Planning Area
1, Planning Area 3, Planning Area 4, or Planning Area 5. However, MM CUL-12 is applicable to the
proposed project for excavation, grading, and ground disturbances at 5-feet below the surface in undisturbed
non-fill soils and would be implemented per Mitigation Measure MM CUL-a (listed below, as specified for
the project) as part of the grading permitting process. Monitoring above 5-feet in depth and monitoring of
disturbed deposits and artificial fill is not warranted. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the
proposed project.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, prepared by Sladden Engineering (Appendix
E); the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Wilson Mikami Corporation, 2022
(Appendix I); and the Paleontological Assessment, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., 2022
(Appendix F).
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. (No New Impact.)
The Geotechnical Investigation describes that the project site is not within a Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone based on State published geologic hazard maps. However, the County of
Riverside identifies that the Elsinore Fault (Glen Ivy Section) transects the northern portion of the
site. This fault is not zoned as an active fault and previous investigations determined that the fault
in Holocene in age and not an active fault. In addition, no active fault tracing is observed on the
site. Therefore, the Geotechnical Investigation determined that the potential for onsite rupture is
low. The Final EIR identified the existing fault and determined that implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM GEO‐1 through MM GEO‐5 would ensure adequate setbacks for habitable
structures and other measures that would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Thus, impacts would be consistent with the Final EIR, and no new impacts related to faults would
occur.
(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (No New Impact.)
The project site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California. As described
in the previous response a non-active portion of the Elsinore fault transects the northern portion of
the site. However, an active portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone is located 3 miles from the site, and
there are various other active faults in the region. Thus, moderate to strong ground shaking can be
expected at the site. The amount of motion can vary depending upon the distance to the fault
activity, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected
at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter, that consists of poorly consolidated material such
as alluvium, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude.
Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code
(CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), included in the Municipal Code as Title
15. In addition, PPP GEO-1 has been included to provide provisions for earthquake safety based
on factors including occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probable strength of the
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 102 of 184
ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety
features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper
building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would
withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. Also, the Final EIR identified that implementation
of Mitigation Measures MM GEO‐1 through MM GEO‐5 would reduce potential seismic related
impacts to a less than significant level. Because the proposed project would be constructed in
compliance with the CBC and Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM GEO‐1 through MM GEO‐
5, impacts would be less than significant, and no new impacts related to strong seismic ground
shaking would occur.
(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (No New Impact.)
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils layers, located within
approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure
generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil
acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties
and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths
to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils.
Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine-
grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground
surface. Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface
layer.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project, the site is mapped
by Riverside County as having moderate potential for liquefaction. Based on groundwater at 38
feet below the site, as identified by the Geotechnical Investigation, it was determined that risks
related to liquefaction are low and the potential settlement is 1 inch over a horizontal distance of
approximately 100 feet includes engineering and design recommendations in compliance with the
CBC that include excavation and recompaction of the upper 3 feet of existing soils.
As described previously, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the
CBC, as included in the City’s Municipal Code as Title 15 (and herein as PPP GEO-1), which
implements specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, and building
construction. Also, the Final EIR identified that implementation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO‐
6 would reduce potential seismic related impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM GEO‐6 and compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1
would ensure that no new impacts would occur.
(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E)
iv) Landslides? (No New Impact.)
Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon
after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquakes induced landslides are steep slopes
underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.
As described above, the project site is located in a seismically active region subject to strong ground
shaking. However, the project site is generally flat and does not contain any hills or any other areas
that could be subject to landslides, and no substantial slopes are located adjacent to the site. The
Geotechnical Investigation describes that the project site is relatively flat and does not include a
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 103 of 184
hillside and is not adjacent to a hillside that could result in a landslide. Therefore, the project would
not result in impacts related to landslides.
(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (No New Impact.)
Construction of the project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Grading
and excavation activities that would be required for the proposed project would expose and loosen topsoil,
which could be eroded by wind or water. However, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 14.08 implements
the requirements of the NDPES Storm Water Permit and all projects in the City are required to conform to
the permit requirements. This includes installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance
with the NPDES permit, which establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls
that are required to be implemented for the proposed project. To reduce the potential for soil erosion and
the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer).
The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction
activities. The SWPPP is required to identify potential sources of erosion and sedimentation loss of topsoil
during construction, identify erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil,
such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding.
With compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and the BMPs in the SWPPP
that is required to be prepared to implement the project included as PPP WQ-1, construction impacts related
to erosion and loss of topsoil would not occur.
In addition, the proposed project includes installation of landscaping, such that during operation of the
project large areas of loose topsoil that could erode would not exist. In addition, as described in Section X,
Hydrology and Water Quality, the onsite drainage features that would be installed by the project have been
designed to slow, filter, and infiltrate stormwater, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to
erode topsoil during project operations. Furthermore, implementation of the project requires City approval
of a site specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), included as PPP WQ-2, which would ensure
that the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and appropriate operational BMPs would be
implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result,
no new impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would occur.
(Sources: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix I)
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? (No New Impact.)
Landslide. As described above, the project site is generally flat, and does not contain nor is adjacent to any
slope or hillside area. The project would not create slopes. Thus, on or off-site landslides would not occur
from implementation of the project.
Liquefaction. As described previously, the site is mapped by Riverside County as having a moderate
potential for liquefaction, but the Geotechnical Investigation determined that the potential for liquefaction
is low. The Geotechnical Investigation includes engineering and design recommendations in compliance
with the CBC, as included in the City’s Municipal Code as Title 15 (and herein as PPP GEO-1), which
would ensure that no new impacts related to liquefaction hazards would occur.
Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading, a phenomenon associated with seismically induced soil liquefaction,
is a display of lateral displacement of soils due to inertial motion and lack of lateral support during or post
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 104 of 184
liquefaction. It is typically exemplified by the formation of vertical cracks on the surface of liquefied soils,
and usually takes place on gently sloping ground or level ground with nearby free surface such as drainage
or stream channel. The Geotechnical Investigation describes that due to the lack of slope and compacted
site soils, lateral spread potential is expected to be minimal, and no new impact would occur with
implementation of PPP GEO-1.
Subsidence and Collapse. The Geotechnical Update describes that settlement resulting from the project
would be minimal with the recommended CBC compliant foundation designs. As described previously, the
project includes excavation and recompaction of the upper 3 feet of existing soils. Implementation of the
CBC measures would be ensured by PPP GEO-1 and no new impacts would occur.
(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E)
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? (No New Impact.)
Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or well as the moisture content changes;
the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with
seasonal changes of soil moisture experiences, such as southern California, have a higher potential of
expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.
The Geotechnical Investigation describes that the site is underlain by silky sand and clayey sand. The testing
of the onsite soils identified a low expansion potential. As described previously, compliance with the CBC,
as included as PPP GEO-1 would ensure that foundation designs are consistent with the CBC regulations,
included as PPP GEO-1. Thus, no new impacts related to expansive soils would occur.
(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E)
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? (No New Impact.)
The project would not use septic tanks or alternative methods for disposal of wastewater into subsurface
soils. Furthermore, the proposed project would connect to existing public wastewater infrastructure within
Mission Trail. Therefore, the project would not result in new impacts related to septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal methods.
(Sources: Project Plans)
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? (No New Impact.)
Paleontological resources are the remains of prehistoric life that have been preserved in geologic strata.
These remains are called fossils and include bones, shells, teeth, and plant remains (including their
impressions, casts, and molds) in the sedimentary matrix, as well as trace fossils such as footprints and
burrows. Fossils are considered older than 5,000 years of age (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010),
but may include younger remains (subfossils), for example, when viewed in the context of local extinction
of the organism or habitat.
A Paleontological Resource Assessment (Appendix F) was completed for the project, which describes that
the geologic units mapped as underlying the project site are Holocene and late Pleistocene-aged, young,
sandy, alluvial-valley deposits (Qyva). The sedimentary deposits are almost entirely of Holocene age,
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 105 of 184
consisting of unconsolidated silt, sand, and clay-bearing alluvium. The Paleontological Resource
Assessment describes that Holocene alluvium is generally considered to be geologically too young to
contain significant fossils. In addition, the City’s General Plan Figure 4.6, “Paleontological Resources,”
identifies the project site as having a “Low” sensitivity for potential paleontological resources. However,
older deposits of Pleistocene age underlie the Holocene surficial deposits at an unknown depth. These older
Pleistocene sediments have a potential to yield significant paleontological resources.
The Paleontological Resource Assessment includes a records search of the Western Science Center (WSC)
in Hemet and primary literature, which determined that no fossil localities have been previously identified
within the project boundaries. A prior paleontological literature review and collections and records search
was performed by the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACM) for another housing
subdivision project bordering the western boundary of the project site that identified a fossil locality
approximately one mile north in the vicinity of the San Jacinto River outlet, which consist of the remains
of a Pleistocene camel (LACM 6059). Other prior records searches by the LACM for other nearby projects
have indicated a lacustrine origin for locality LACM 6059. Also, Pleistoceneaged lacustrine sediments of
Lake Elsinore produced 18,100-year-old freshwater mollusks, some now extinct in the region, that were
discovered at depths as shallow as five feet during construction mitigation for a project that is less than one
mile west of the project site.
The Geotechnical Investigation describes that the project site is underlain by three feet of artificial fill,
which was documented in 6 exploratory borings. Excavation and grading for the proposed project is
anticipated to be limited to 3 feet below the existing ground for excavation and compaction of the existing
fill soils. The Paleontological Resource Assessment determined that based on the nearby occurrences of
significant paleontological resources found in older Pleistocene sediments that have the potential to underlie
Holocene sediments on the site, that monitoring would be required if project excavation and grading exceed
5-feet in depth; and that monitoring of disturbed deposits and artificial fill is not warranted. These
monitoring requirements are consistent with Final EIR Mitigation Measure MM CUL-12. Thus, no new
impacts would occur.
(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E and Paleontological Assessment, Appendix F)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding geology and soils. There have not been 1)
changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 106 of 184
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce geology and soils related impacts from the proposed
project:
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the project is
required to demonstrate compliance with the California Building Code as included in the City’s
Municipal Code Title 15 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.
California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the project are
required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of construction permit
approval.
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed in in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.
PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As listed in in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures for geology and soils,
which are listed previously are applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented. In addition,
Mitigation Measure MM CUL-12a below provides a clarification to MM CUL-12 to detail at what depth
of excavation monitoring would be required. These mitigation measures would be included in the project
MMRP to ensure implementation.
MM CUL-12a: Paleontological Resources. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed
project, pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM CUL-12 and the Paleontological Assessment
for the Mission Trail Project, any ground disturbance at or below 5-feet below the surface
within undisturbed native soils will require that a qualified paleontologist be retained to
develop a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (PRMTP) for
approval by the Community Development Director and implementation for ground
disturbances at or below 5-feet in depth. Monitoring above 5-feet in depth and monitoring
of disturbed deposits and artificial fill is not warranted.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
According to the Final EIR, the Specific Plan would exceed the target efficiency metric by 9.3 metric tons
per year CO2e/SP in the year 2022 and by 11.5 metric tons per year CO2e/SP in the year 2040. Based on
the conservative analysis, the Specific Plan would result in significant unavoidable increased GHG
emissions from future operations and construction. Implementation of the air quality and GHG mitigation
measures would be required for future implementing development projects to reduce GHG impacts
generated during construction and operations; however, it cannot be guaranteed at this time that such
measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. Thus, the Final EIR determined that impacts would
be significant and unavoidable.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM GHG-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit for new implementing development projects within
the East Lake Specific Plan, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with
the following:
1. Achieve 15% energy efficiency above 2016 Title 24, Part 6 for projects after 2018
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 107 of 184
and 5% energy efficiency above 2016 Title 24 for projects after 2020.
2. Reduce indoor water consumption by 30% for projects after 2018 and 35% for
projects after 2020 above baseline identified in 2016 Title 24, Part 11.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
prepared for the proposed project. The project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated
using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1. The results and conclusions of the report and calculations relative to
emissions are summarized herein. These impacts are analyzed on a cumulative basis, utilizing Carbon
Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e), measured in metric tons (MT) or MTCO2e.
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole. GHGs
contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by allowing solar radiation (sunlight)
into the Earth’s atmosphere but preventing radiative heat from escaping. The principal GHGs include
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of
planning and regulation, CCR Section 15364.5 defines GHGs to include CO2, CH4, N2O,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GHGs are emitted by both natural
processes and human activities. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor
vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions,
accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the
second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. Emissions of GHGs
in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the
greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed “global warming,” the trend of warming of the Earth’s
climate from anthropogenic activities.
GHG Thresholds
The City of Lake Elsinore has not adopted a numerical significance threshold to evaluate greenhouse gas
(GHG) impacts. SCAQMD does not have approved thresholds; however, it does have draft thresholds that
provides a tiered approach to evaluate GHG impacts, which includes the following:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under
CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a
project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG
emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with
all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years
and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the
following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
o Residential and Commercial land use: 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2e) per year
o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e per year
o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e
per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
The SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 year 2050 goal as the basis for the Tier 3
screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap
CO2 concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm), thus stabilizing global climate. Therefore, for purposes
of examining potential GHG impacts from implementation of the proposed project, and to provide a
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 108 of 184
conservative analysis of potential impacts, the Tier 3 screening level for all land use projects of 3,000
MTCO2e was selected as the significance threshold.
In addition, SCAQMD methodology for evaluating a project’s construction emissions are to amortize them
over 30-years and then add them to the project’s operational emissions to determine if the project would
exceed the screening values listed above.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? (No New Impact.)
Construction activities produce GHG emissions from various sources, such as site excavation, grading,
utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles onsite, equipment hauling materials to and from the site,
asphalt paving, building construction, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. As shown on
Table GHG-1, construction of 191 residences would result in a total of 708 MTCO2e amortized over 30
years.
Table GHG-1: Project Construction Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTC02e)
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2024 425
2025 283
Total Emissions 708
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 24
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A.
In addition, operation of the proposed residences would result in area and indirect sources of operational
GHG emissions that would primarily result from vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption,
water transport (the energy used to pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from
electricity consumed by the residences would be generated off-site by fuel combustion at the electricity
provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy
required to transport water from its source. The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be
generated from 191 residences was determined using CalEEMod. Additionally, in accordance with
SCAQMD recommendation, the project’s amortized construction related GHG emissions are added to the
operational emissions estimate in order to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions.
As shown on Table GHG-2, operation of 191 residences would generate approximately 2,640 MTCO2e per
year, plus the amortized construction emissions of 24 MTCO2e would equal 2,663 MTCO2e per year,
which would be below the screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, operation of the
proposed 191 residences would be below the screening threshold, and no new impacts related to greenhouse
gas emissions would occur.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 109 of 184
Table GHG-2: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Project Operational Emissions
Mobile 2,040
Area 3
Energy 502
Water 24
Waste 71
Total Project Gross Operation Emissions 2,640
Project Construction Emissions 24
Total Emissions 2,663
Tier 3: Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A.
(Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases? (No New Impact.)
The proposed project would develop the site with single-family residences and related open space and
recreation areas that would comply with state programs that are designed to be energy efficient. The
proposed project would comply with all mandatory measures under the California Title 24, California
Energy Code, and the CalGreen Code, which would provide efficient energy and water consumption.
Consistent with these requirements, the project includes photovoltaic (PV) solar panels to offset the energy
demand. The City’s administration of the requirements includes review of the energy conservation
measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Also, as described in
Section 17, Transportation, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact because the project would generate less than 3,000 MTCO2e per year.
In addition, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan recommends strategies for
implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan to
reduce GHG emissions levels. The Scoping Plan identifies the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990
levels, set by SB 32. The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable measures established in
the Scoping Plan, as shown in Table GHG-3. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with CARB
plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions.
Table GHG-3: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
Implement SB 350 by 2030
Increase the Renewables Portfolio
Standard to 50% of retail sales by 2030
and ensure grid reliability.
CPUC,
CEC,
CARB
Consistent. The project area uses
energy from Southern California
Edison (SCE). SCE has committed to
diversify its portfolio of energy sources
by increasing energy from wind and
solar sources. The project would not
interfere with or obstruct SCE energy
source diversification efforts.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 110 of 184
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
Establish annual targets for statewide
energy efficiency savings and demand
reduction that will achieve a
cumulative doubling of statewide
energy efficiency savings in electricity
and natural gas end uses by 2030.
Consistent. The new development
implemented by the project would be
designed and constructed to implement
the energy efficiency measures. The
project would not interfere with or
obstruct policies or strategies to
establish annual targets for statewide
energy efficiency savings and demand
reduction.
Reduce GHG emissions in the
electricity sector through the
implementation of the above measures
and other actions as modeled in
Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) to
meet GHG emissions reductions
planning targets in the IRP process.
Load-serving entities and publicly-
owned utilities meet GHG emissions
reductions planning targets through a
combination of measures as described
in IRPs.
Consistent. The new development
would be designed and constructed to
implement the Title 24 (CalGreen)
Standards.
Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels)
At least 1.5 million zero emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty EV by 2025.
CARB,
California State
Transportation
Agency (CalSTA),
Strategic Growth
Council (SGC),
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans),
CEC,
OPR,
Local Agencies
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB zero
emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty
EV 2025 targets.
At least 4.2 million zero emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty EV by 2030.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB zero
emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty
EV 2030 targets.
Further increase GHG stringency on
all light-duty vehicles beyond existing
Advanced Clean cars regulations.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
to further increase GHG stringency on
all light-duty vehicles beyond existing
Advanced Clean cars regulations.
Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG
Phase 2.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
to implement Medium- and Heavy-
Duty GHG Phase 2.
Innovative Clean Transit: Transition
to a suite of to-be-determined
innovative clean transit options.
Assumed 20% of new urban buses
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
improve transit-source emissions.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 111 of 184
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
purchased beginning in 2018 will be
zero emission buses with the
penetration of zero-emission
technology ramped up to 100% of new
sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas
buses, starting in 2018, and diesel
buses, starting in 2020, meet the
optional heavy-duty low-NOX
standard.
Last Mile Delivery: New regulation
that would result in the use of low NOX
or cleaner engines and the deployment
of increasing numbers of zero-
emission trucks primarily for class 3-7
last mile delivery trucks in California.
This measure assumes ZEVs comprise
2.5% of new Class 3–7 truck sales in
local fleets starting in 2020, increasing
to 10% in 2025 and remaining flat
through 2030.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
to improve last mile delivery emissions.
Further reduce vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) through continued
implementation of SB 375 and
regional Sustainable Communities
Strategies; forthcoming statewide
implementation of SB 743; and
potential additional VMT reduction
strategies not specified in the Mobile
Source Strategy but included in the
document “Potential VMT Reduction
Strategies for Discussion.”
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with
implementation of SB 375 and would
therefore, not conflict with this
measure.
Increase stringency of SB 375
Sustainable Communities Strategy
(2035 targets).
CARB
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
to Increase stringency of SB 375
Sustainable Communities Strategy
(2035 targets).
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 112 of 184
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
Harmonize project performance with
emissions reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes (e.g. via
guideline documents, funding
programs, project selection, etc.).
CalSTA,
SGC,
OPR,
CARB,
Governor’s Office
of Business and
Economic
Development
(GO-Biz),
California
Infrastructure and
Economic
Development
Bank (IBank),
Department of
Finance (DOF),
California
Transportation
Commission
(CTC),
Caltrans
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to harmonize transportation facility
project performance with emissions
reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes.
By 2019, develop pricing policies to
support low-GHG transportation (e.g.
low-emission vehicle zones for heavy
duty, road user, parking pricing, transit
discounts).
CalSTA,
Caltrans,
CTC,
OPR,
SGC,
CARB
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to develop pricing policies to support
low-GHG transportation.
Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve freight system efficiency.
CalSTA,
CalEPA,
CNRA,
CARB,
Caltrans,
CEC,
GO-Biz
Consistent. This measure would apply
to all trucks accessing the project site,
this may include existing trucks or new
trucks that are part of the statewide
goods movement sector. The project
would not obstruct or interfere with
agency efforts to Improve freight
system efficiency.
Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles
and equipment capable of zero
emission operation and maximize both
zero and near-zero emission freight
vehicles and equipment powered by
renewable energy by 2030.
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles
and equipment capable of zero emission
operation and maximize both zero and
near-zero emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable
energy by 2030.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 113 of 184
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard
with a Carbon Intensity reduction of
18%.
CARB
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard
with a Carbon Intensity reduction of
18%.
Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS) by 2030
40% reduction in methane and
hydrofluorocarbon emissions below
2013 levels.
CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA,
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
Consistent. These are not emissions
related to the proposed project. Hence,
the proposed project would not obstruct
or interfere agency efforts to reduce
SLPS emissions.
50% reduction in black carbon
emissions below 2013 levels.
By 2019, develop regulations and
programs to support organic waste
landfill reduction goals in the SLCP
and SB 1383.
CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
Consistent. The new development
would be required through City
permitting to implement waste
reduction and recycling measures
consistent with state and City
requirements. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
support organic waste landfill reduction
goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.
Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-
Trade Program with declining annual
caps.
CARB
Consistent. The project is not
applicable to implementation of Cap-
and-Trade Program provisions. Thus,
the project would not obstruct or
interfere implementation the post-2020
Cap-and-Trade Program.
By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure
California’s land base as a net carbon sink
Protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other
incentives.
CNRA,
Departments
Within
CDFA,
CalEPA,
CARB
Consistent. The project includes 0.15
acre located below the CDFW
jurisdictional elevation of 1,265 feet
AMSL and is associated with the back
basin of Lake Elsinore. The project has
been designed to be setback from this
area. Thus, the project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other
incentives.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 114 of 184
Action Responsible
Parties Consistency
Increase the long-term resilience of
carbon storage in the land base and
enhance sequestration capacity
Consistent. The project provides for
residential development on a disturbed
site with ruderal vegetation that does
not provide for carbon storage or
sequestration. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
increase the long-term resilience of
carbon storage in the land base and
enhance sequestration capacity.
Utilize wood and agricultural
products to increase the amount of
carbon stored in the natural and built
environments
Consistent. Where appropriate, the
new development would incorporate
wood or wood products. The project
would not obstruct or interfere agency
efforts to encourage use of wood and
agricultural products to increase the
amount of carbon stored in the natural
and built environments.
Establish scenario projections to serve
as the foundation for the
Implementation Plan
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
establish scenario projections to serve
as the foundation for the
Implementation Plan.
Establish a carbon accounting
framework for natural and working
lands as described in SB 859 by 2018
CARB
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
establish a carbon accounting
framework for natural and working
lands as described in SB 859.
Implement Forest Carbon Plan
CNRA,
California
Department of
Forestry and Fire
Protection
(CAL FIRE),
CalEPA and
Departments
Within
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
implement the Forest Carbon Plan.
Identify and expand funding and
financing mechanisms to support
GHG reductions across all sectors.
State Agencies &
Local Agencies
Consistent. The project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
identify and expand funding and
financing mechanisms to support GHG
reductions across all sectors.
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 115 of 184
The City of Lake Elsinore adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2011. The following table consists of
an analysis of project consistency with the policies in the CAP.
Table GHG-4: Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan
CAP Measure Applicability to
Proposed Project Consistency
Measure T-1.2:
Pedestrian Infrastructure Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires the installation of
sidewalks along new and reconstructed streets and
sidewalks or paths to internally link all uses and
provide connections to neighborhood activity centers,
major destinations, and transit facilities contiguous
with the project site.
The project would provide sidewalks along all
internal streets and along Mission Trail that would be
implemented through project permitting. As such, the
proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure T-1.4: Bicycle
Infrastructure Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires new development
to implement and connect to the network of Class I, II
and III bikeways, trails and safety features identified
in the General Plan, Bike Lane Master Plan, Trails
Master Plan and Western Riverside County Non-
Motorized Transportation plan.
The General Plan identifies a planned Class II bicycle
lane along the project site frontage. The project
includes installation of sidewalks and a Class II
bicycle lane along the project frontage. As such, the
proposed project would implement this measure and
would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-1.5: Bicycle
Parking Standards Not Applicable
Not Applicable. This measure requires the City to
enforce short-term and long-term bicycle parking
standards for new non- residential developments. This
measure is not applicable to the residential project. As
such, the proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure T-2.1:
Designated Parking for
Fuel Efficient Vehicles
Not Applicable
Not Applicable. This measure requires new non-
residential developments to designate 10% of total
parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient
vehicles. This measure is not applicable to the
residential project. As such, the proposed project
would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-4.1:
Commute Trip
Reduction Program
Not Applicable
Not Applicable. This measure requires the City to
institute a commute trip reduction program for
employers with fewer than 100 employees. This
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 116 of 184
CAP Measure Applicability to
Proposed Project Consistency
measure is not applicable to the residential
project. As such, the proposed project would not
conflict with this measure.
Measure E-1.1: Tree
Planting Requirements Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires new developments
to plant at minimum one 15-gallon non-deciduous,
umbrella-form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary
length near buildings. The project would comply with
this measure as shown on Figure 14, Conceptual
Landscape Plan. This measure is implemented by the
Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Parks
and Recreation through the development review
process, and conditions of approval. As such, the
proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure E-1.2: Cool
Roof Requirements Not Applicable
Not Applicable. This measure requires new non-
residential development to use roofing materials
having solar reflectance, thermal emittance, or Solar
Reflectance Index consistent with CALGreen Tier 1
values. This measure is not applicable to the
residential project. As such, the proposed project
would not conflict with this measure.
Measure E-1.3: Energy
Efficient Building
Standards
Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires that new
construction exceed the California Energy Code
requirements through either the performance-based or
prescriptive approach described in the California
Green Building Code. This measure is implemented
by the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and
Building through the development review process,
and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed
project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure E-3.2: Energy
Efficient Street and
Traffic Signal Lights
Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires the City to work
with Southern California Edison to replace existing
high-pressure sodium streetlights and traffic lights
with high efficiency alternatives, such as Low
Emitting Diode (LED) lights; replace existing City
owned traffic lights with LED lights; require any new
street and traffic lights to be LED. This measure is
currently being implemented by the Department of
Public Works through renovation. This measure
would apply to any street and/or traffic lights replaced
or installed as part of the project. This measure is
implemented by the Departments of Planning, Public
Works, and Building through the development review
process, and conditions of approval. As such, the
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 117 of 184
CAP Measure Applicability to
Proposed Project Consistency
proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure E-4.1:
Landscaping Ordinance Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires the City to enforce
the City’s AB 1881 Landscaping Ordinance, which
requires that landscaping be water efficient, thereby
consuming less energy and reducing emissions. The
proposed project is consistent with the City’s
landscaping and irrigation requirements. This
measure is verified by the Departments of Planning,
Public Works, and Building through the development
review process, and conditions of approval. As such,
the proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure E-4.2: Indoor
Water Conservation
Requirements
Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires that development
projects reduce indoor water consumption. The
proposed project is designed to be consistent with the
Title 24 water conservation requirements. This
measure would be verified by the Departments of
Building and Planning through project permitting. As
such, the proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure E-5.1:
Renewable Energy
Incentives
Applicable
Consistent. This measure facilitates the voluntary
installation of small-scale renewable energy systems,
such as solar photovoltaic and solar hot water
systems, by connecting residents and businesses with
technical and financial assistance through the City
website. This measure is implemented by the
Departments of Building and Planning through
outreach and incentive programs. The proposed
project is designed to be consistent with the Title 24
energy requirements and would include PV solar
panels. No elements of the proposed project would
conflict with this measure.
Measure S-1.4:
Construction and
Demolition Waste
Diversion
Applicable
Consistent. This measure requires development
projects to divert, recycle or salvage nonhazardous
construction and demolition debris generated at the
site, and requires all construction and demolition
projects to be accompanied by a waste management
plan for the project. This measure is implemented by
the Departments of Planning and Building through
City contracts, Municipal Code amendments,
development and review process, and conditions of
approval. The proposed project would implement
construction and demolition waste diversion, as
further detailed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service
Systems. As such, the proposed project would not
conflict with this measure.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 118 of 184
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A.
(Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding greenhouse gas emissions. There have not
been 1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that no hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste would occur that would pose threat to the nearby schools. No impact would
occur, and no mitigation would be required.
The Final EIR describes that the Specific Plan’s proposed uses and infrastructure improvements are not
typically associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities that would result
in significant impacts. Although land uses may utilize products that contain toxic substances, these products
are usually in relatively low concentration and small in amount and would not pose a significant risk to
humans or the environment during transport to/from or use at the area. In addition, pursuant to State law
and local regulations, residents and operators of the non‐residential uses would be required to dispose of
hazardous waste (e.g., batteries, used oil, old paint) at a permitted hazardous waste collection facility;
therefore, no impacts would occur.
The Final EIR describes that because any remediation activities would be completed pursuant to existing
regulations and Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2, prior to occupation and operations of
new development, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The Final EIR states that
implementation MM HAZ-3 and MM HAZ‐4 would ensure potential impacts related to Skylark Airport
would be less than significant.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 119 of 184
New developments associated with the buildout of the Specific Plan would be required to comply with all
applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the site. Therefore, the Specific Plan would
not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan and no mitigation is required. Also, the Specific Plan would implement General
Plan Policies 4.1 through 4.3 to reduce impacts from wildland fire hazards and are ensured through
Mitigation Measure MM HAZ‐5. Thus, the Final EIR determined that impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 Testing for the presence and location(s) of asbestos containing materials and lead-based
containing materials shall be performed by a professional service provider prior to issuance
of a demolition permit for structures built prior to 1980. Any identified contaminated
materials shall be removed, handled and processed per applicable health and safety code
regulations.
Project Applicability: MM HAZ-1 is not applicable to the proposed project because the site is vacant and
does not contain any structures built prior to 1980.
MM HAZ-2 Assessor’s parcel number (APN) 371-020-07 shall be inspected by a professional service
provider for staining or signs of hazardous materials or petroleum products by associated
with an abandoned oil/gas well known as “Conklin-Walker 1”. Inspection and confirmation
of the well’s abandonment as well as removal of any remaining equipment or improperly
abandoned elements of the well shall be conducted in accordance with Division of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) requirements prior to issuance of a grading or
building permit for the parcel.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM HAZ-2 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project
site is does not include APN 371-020-07. The project site is limited to APNs: 370-050-019, -020, and -032.
MM HAZ-3 Relocation of the Skylark Airport and/or future implementing development projects within
the ELSP and Skylark Airport Influence Area (as shown in Figure 5.7-1 Airport Influence
Areas or as amended in the future) shall require a City plan check of the construction plans
to confirm no tall equipment or construction activities would violate applicable
requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding any encroachment
into the airport’s navigable airspace in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) Part 77, or shall obtain encroachment approvals through Caltrans if such activities
cannot avoid encroachment during airport operating ours.
Project Applicability: MM HAZ-3 is applicable to the proposed residential project and would be
implemented as part of the approval process and included in the project’s MMRP. The project site is located
within the Skylark Airport Influence Area (as shown in Final EIR Figure 5.7-1); however, the project is
limited to construction of two-story residences that would not encroach into navigable airspace.
MM HAZ-4 Relocation of the Skylark Airport and/or future implementing development projects within
the East Lake Specific Plan and Skylark Airport Influence Area (as shown in Figure 5.7-1
Airport Influence Areas or as amended in the future) shall be evaluated for consistency
with continued operations at the existing airport or relocated airport. The project applicant
of each such development project shall comply with the applicable requirements of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding any encroachment into the airport’s
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 120 of 184
navigable airspace in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 and
demonstrate land use consistency with the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
Proposed Project Applicability: MM HAZ-4 is not applicable to the proposed residential project. The
project site is located within the Skylark Airport Influence Area (as shown in Final EIR Figure 5.7-1);
however, the project is limited to construction of two-story residences that would not encroach into
navigable airspace.
MM HAZ-5 As part of the approval process for a future implementing development project, projects
shall be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with
wildfire hazards through implementation of Policies 4.1 through 4.3 of the Wildfire
Hazards section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter of the General Plan. (Ref. General
Plan EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hazards 5). In addition, all fuel modification activities
for future implementing development projects must be conducted in accordance with
Section 6.4 Fuels Management of the MSHCP, where applicable.
Project Applicability: MM HAZ-5 is applicable to the proposed residential project and would be
implemented as part of the approval process and would be included in the project MMRP.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Sladden Engineering,
Inc., 2021. (Appendix G).
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials? (No New Impact.)
A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or
chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the
environment if released into the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous
substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that regulatory agencies have a reasonable basis for
believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released
into the home, workplace, or environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because
of their potential to damage public health and the environment.
Construction
The proposed construction activities would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking during construction activities. In addition,
hazardous materials would routinely be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the
site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these
materials are regulated by federal and state regulations that are implemented by the City during building
permitting for construction activities. Construction of the project would not require the use of acutely
hazardous materials. As such, impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is not expected. Therefore, no new impacts related to use
of these materials during construction would occur.
Operation
The project involves operation of 191 new residences and recreation facilities, which involve routinely
using hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and
aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 121 of 184
limited quantities. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing
regulations would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the
project. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and no new impacts would
occur.
(Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix G)
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?
(No New Impact.)
Construction
While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable
regulations during construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts;
improper use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in
accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. To avoid an
impact related to an accidental release, the use of best management practices (BMPs) during construction
are implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (and included as PPP WQ-1).
Implementation of an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the
environment. Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs
that include, but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities
that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies;
• Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products
used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks;
• Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and
• Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
Operation
Other operational aspects of the proposed residential project involve use and storage of common hazardous
materials such as paints, solvents, cleaning products, fuels, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and
pesticides/herbicides. These types of hazardous materials are regulated by existing laws that have been
implemented to reduce risks related to the use of these substances. Normal routine use of typical residential
products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment,
residents, or workers in the vicinity of the project.
(Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix G)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No New
Impact.)
The closest school to the project site is the Jean Hayman Elementary School that is located at 21440 Lemon
Street, which is approximately 0.2-miles from the project site. As detailed previously, construction and
operation of the proposed residential project would involve the use, storage, and disposal of small amounts
of hazardous materials on the project site. These hazardous materials would be limited and used and
disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential of
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 122 of 184
accidental release into the environment near the school.
Additionally, the emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the project were
evaluated in the Air Quality analysis presented in Section III, and the emissions generated from the project
would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the federal or state air quality standards. Thus, the project
would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste near the school, and
no new impacts would occur.
(Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A and Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix G)
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? (No New Impact.)
A search of government databases was conducted during preparation of the Phase I and the environmental
database report system did not identify the project site on any list of hazardous material sites. In addition,
the Phase I conducted a search to identify if there are any hazardous material uses in the project vicinity
that could adversely affect the project site. Information from the search was reviewed for potential
environmental concerns; however, none of the offsite listings were identified as a potential impact.
Therefore, the proposed project would not be located on a list of hazardous material sites or create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no new impacts would occur.
(Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix G)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No New Impact.)
The project site is located within the Skylark Airport Influence Area (as shown in Final EIR Figure 5.7-1).
The Skylark Airport is a private airport that is the hub for air sports in Lake Elsinore and accommodates
organizations that utilize the airport for plane use, glider flights, and skydiving. The General Plan EIR
describes that the allowable land uses include residential development in the vicinity of the airport; and that
these uses, including the allowable residential uses within the project site, would not conflict with
requirements of the FAA regarding proximity of development to airports.
The proposed project is limited to construction of two-story residences that would not encroach into
navigable airspace, and the project site is not within the flight path of the airport. As such, the project would
not be exposed to hazards related to airport operations, and no impacts would occur.
(Sources: Google Earth; Lake Elsinore General Plan, East Lake Specific Plan EIR)
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (No New Impact.)
The proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
Construction
Short-term construction activities include development of the project driveway, and installation of utility
connections to the existing infrastructure systems. These activities could require the temporary closure of
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 123 of 184
one lane of Mission Trail. However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency
access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations,
Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process, as incorporated into the construction
permits. Thus, no new impacts related to an emergency response or evacuation plan would occur during
construction.
Operation
Direct access to the project site would be provided from Mission Trail. The design of internal streets would
provide access to each of the proposed residences. The project is required to provide internal streets and
fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) that conform to the California Fire Code
requirements, included in Municipal Code Chapter 15.56 (included as PPP HAZ-1), as verified through
the City’s permitting process. As such, the project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no new impacts
would occur.
(Sources: project plans, City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code)
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires? (No New Impact.)
The project site is vacant and moderately covered with vegetation. The project site is adjacent to a
motorsports park, roadways, commercial uses, vacant parcels, and developed areas within the urban
environment. The project site is not within or adjacent to any wildland areas. According to the CalFire
Hazard Severity Zone map, the project site is not within a high fire hazard zone. As a result, the proposed
project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires. In addition, Final EIR Mitigation Measure MM HAZ‐5 would
ensure implementation of Policies 4.1 through 4.3 of the Wildfire Hazards section of the Public Safety and
Welfare chapter of the General Plan. Therefore, no new impacts related to wildland fires would occur.
(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hazards and hazardous materials. There
have not been 1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 124 of 184
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
pursuant to the East Lake Specific Plan.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce the potential for impacts related to hazards:
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed in in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.
PPP HAZ-1: Fire Code. The project shall conform to the California Fire Code (Title 24, California
Code of Regulations, Part 9), as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56, Fire Code.
Specifically, Section 503 of the California Fire Code provides regulations related to emergency access.
Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures for hazards and
hazardous resources that are applicable to the proposed project, as detailed previously, would be included
in the project MMRP to ensure implementation.
No new mitigation measures are required.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
According to the Final EIR, future implementing development projects within the Specific Plan area 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
Project site may be expected to result in increased generation of urban water contaminants. The increased
pollutants carried in runoff into the Lake (Lake Elsinore) is a potentially significant indirect impact.
Therefore, the Final EIR included mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
Buildout of the Specific Plan would indirectly increase the amount of future development on currently
vacant land. Implementing development projects within the Specific Plan area would require compliance
with NPDES permits and BMPs during construction and operation of new development. Compliance with
these permits and implementation of BMPs included as Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-5
would ensure potential erosion and siltation impacts would be less than significant.
The Final EIR also describes that buildout of the Specific Plan area would result in the conversion of vacant
land into developed land that would increase the amount of impervious surface area. Local drainage systems
would be designed, sized for capacity pursuant to drainage permitting requirements, and constructed and/or
connected to existing systems to service new development. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
The Final EIR determined that the Specific Plan area is not particularly suited for groundwater recharge
due to the presence of a semipermeable clay layer at depth. Consequently, the potential loss of infiltration
and recharge or supply from the increase in impervious surface area would be less than significant.
The Final EIR describes that most of the Specific Plan area is located within the 100‐year floodplain and
would be subject to a potential 100‐year flood event. Based on current site elevations, mitigation measures
MM HWQ‐6 through MM HWQ‐8 would be required of all future development to ensure potential flood
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 125 of 184
hazard impacts are less than significant.
As described in the Final EIR, modeling determined that at the starting water surface elevation in the Lake
(Lake Elsinore) equal to 1,249 feet, there would be sufficient capacity within the East Lake Drainage Plan
to function properly. However, Mitigation Measures MM HWQ‐6 through MM HWQ‐8 would be required
for all future development to ensure potential flood hazard impacts are less than significant.
The EIR also describes that the Specific Plan area is within the high inundation zone of the Railroad Canyon
Dam. Although failure of the Railroad Canyon Dam is an extremely unlikely event, the Project site would
potentially be subject to flooding, possibly necessitating evacuation of the area. The Specific Plan area
would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. The EIR determined that feasibility of evacuation and the improbability of dam
failure support the conclusion that impacts associated with potential dam failure would be less than
significant.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM HWQ-1 Future implementing development projects requiring 401 Water Quality Certification and
NPDES construction and stormwater permits, United States Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 permit, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Section 1602
Streambed Alteration Agreement, shall obtain such permits prior to the issuance of City
grading permits.
Project Applicability: MM HWQ-1 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project does not
require Section 401, Section 404, or Section 1602 permits.
MM HWQ-2 Prior to conducting any dredging in the Lake (Lake Elsinore) associated with future
implementing development projects within the Project site, standard toxicity tests shall be
conducted of sediments in potential dredge locations. Only locations that pass standard
toxicity tests shall be dredged unless otherwise abated utilizing additional measures as
approved by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Project Applicability: MM HWQ-2 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project site does
not include the Lake, and the project does not involve dredging.
MM HWQ-3 Prior to conducting any dredging in the Lake (Lake Elsinore) associated with future
implementing development projects within the Project site, measures (including the use of
silt curtains around dredge equipment) shall be taken to reduce turbidity impacts. The city
shall review and approve any turbidity abatement measures developed by the Applicant
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers prior to initiation of dredging.
Project Applicability: MM HWQ-3 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project site does
not include the Lake, and the project does not involve dredging.
MM HWQ-4 Prior to conducting any dredging in the Lake (Lake Elsinore) associated with future
implementing development projects within the project site, measures shall be taken to
prevent any release of hydrocarbons into the Lake during routine dredging operations as
well as uncontrolled accidental spillage of petroleum products into the Lake from dredging
machinery. Such measures shall include the use of floating oil booms to collect any
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 126 of 184
petroleum hydrocarbons that might escape and to develop a dredging petroleum spill
avoidance and contingency plan.
Project Applicability: MM HWQ-4 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project site does
not include the Lake, and the project does not involve dredging.
MM HWQ-5 All drainage facilities shall conform to the requirements and standards of the City of Lake
Elsinore and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Project Applicability: MM HWQ-5 is applicable to the proposed project and would be included in the
MMRP for the proposed project.
MM HWQ-6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for future implementing development projects
proposing fill at elevation 1,260 MSL or below in the Project site, consistency shall be
demonstrated with the HEC-5 analysis of the Outlet Channel design with a maximum of
100-year flood elevation of I,263.3 feet MSL, an overflow weir height of 1,261 MSL and
an operating Lake level of I,240 MSL. Documentation showing consistency with the HEC-
5 analysis shall be submitted to the USACE, EVMWD, RCFCD and WCD, and these
agencies shall provide written approval of the adequacy of such documentation.
Project Applicability: MM HWQ-6 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project site does
not include areas below elevation 1,260 or any other areas within USACE jurisdiction.
MM HWQ-7 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for future implementing development projects
proposing fill at elevation 1,260 MSL or below in the Project site, a copy of the grading
plans shall be submitted to the USACE, the Bureau of Reclamation (as applicable),
EVMWD, RCFCD and WCD for review and approval. The grading plans must
demonstrate that 1) the flood storage capacity of 30,735 acre-feet is maintained, 2)
adequate conveyance of the 45–100-year flood events is maintained, and 3) the hydrology
necessary to sustain the 365-acre Wetlands Mitigation Area and the Wetland Areas are
maintained pursuant to the specification of the Lake Management Plan, as applicable.
Project Applicability: MM HWQ-7 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project site does
not include areas below elevation 1,260 or any other areas within USACE jurisdiction.
MM HWQ-8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for projects below elevation 1,260, approval shall
be secured from the USACE that the proposed project complies with the conditions of
Permit No. 88-00215-RRS and amendments thereto. Project shall also comply with
SARWQCB requirements as applicable.
Project Applicability: MM HWQ-8 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project site does
not include areas below elevation 1,260 or any other areas within USACE jurisdiction.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The discussion below is based on the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Project Specific Water Quality
Management Plan, included as Appendix H and Appendix I.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 127 of 184
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality? (No New Impact.)
Construction
Implementation of the proposed project includes grading, site preparation, construction of new buildings,
and infrastructure improvements. Grading, stockpiling of materials, excavation, construction of new
structures, and landscaping activities would expose and loosen sediment and building materials, which
would have the potential to mix with stormwater and urban runoff and degrade surface and receiving water
quality.
Additionally, construction generally requires the use of heavy equipment and construction-related materials
and chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents,
and paints. In the absence of proper controls, these potentially harmful materials could be accidentally
spilled or improperly disposed of during construction activities and could wash into and pollute surface
waters or groundwater, resulting in a significant impact to water quality.
Pollutants of concern during construction activities generally include sediments, trash, petroleum products,
concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in
combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. In addition, chemicals,
liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may
be spilled or leaked during construction, which would have the potential to be transported via storm runoff
into nearby receiving waters and eventually may affect surface or groundwater quality. During construction
activities, excavated soil would be exposed, thereby increasing the potential for soil erosion and
sedimentation to occur compared to existing conditions. In addition, during construction, vehicles and
equipment are prone to tracking soil and/or spoil from work areas to paved roadways, which is another
form of erosion that could affect water quality.
However, the use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit (and Municipal Code
Section 14.08) and included as PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that project impacts related to
construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would not occur. Furthermore, an Erosion
and Sediment Transport Control Plan prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer (QSD) is required to be
included in the SWPPP for the project, and typically includes the following types of erosion control methods
that are designed to minimize potential pollutants entering stormwater during construction:
• Prompt revegetation of proposed landscaped areas;
• Perimeter gravel bags or silt fences to prevent off-site transport of sediment;
• Storm drain inlet protection (filter fabric gravel bags and straw wattles), with gravel bag check
dams within paved roadways;
• Regular sprinkling of exposed soils to control dust during construction and soil binders for
forecasted wind storms;
• Specifications for construction waste handling and disposal;
• Contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas;
• Erosion control measures including soil binders, hydro mulch, geotextiles, and hydro seeding of
disturbed areas ahead of forecasted storms;
• Construction of stabilized construction entry/exits to prevent trucks from tracking sediment on City
roadways;
• Construction timing to minimize soil exposure to storm events; and
• Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 128 of 184
Therefore, compliance with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements,
included as PPP WQ-1, which would be verified during the City’s construction permitting process, would
ensure that no new impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality
would occur.
Operation
The proposed project includes operation of residential and recreation/open space uses. Potential pollutants
associated with the proposed uses include various chemicals from cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes,
nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease
from vehicles. If these pollutants discharge into surface waters, it could result in degradation of water
quality. However, operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of
the Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit and has prepared a project-specific WQMP (included as Appendix I)
that describes the low-impact development (LID) infrastructure and non-structural, structural, and source
control and treatment control BMPs that are included in the project’s design to protect surface water quality.
The Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit regulations are included in the City’s Municipal Code in Chapter
14.08. The MS4 Permit:
• Provides the framework for the program management activities and plan development;
• Provides the legal authority for prohibiting unpermitted discharges into the storm drain system and
for requiring BMPs in new development and significant redevelopment;
• Ensures that all new development and significant redevelopment incorporates appropriate Site
Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs to address specific water quality issues; and
• Ensures that construction sites implement control practices that address construction related
pollutants including erosion and sediment control and onsite hazardous materials and waste
management.
The Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit requires that new development and significant redevelopment projects
(or priority projects), such as the proposed project, develop and implement a WQMP that includes BMPs
and LID design features that would provide onsite treatment of stormwater to prevent pollutants from onsite
uses from leaving the site. A WQMP has been developed (included as Appendix I) and is required to be
approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
The proposed project would install catch basins, a bio-treatment unit, and an underground detention basin,
which have been sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour) from the
project site. As described previously, the WQMP is required to be approved prior to the issuance of a
building or grading permit. The project’s WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure it
complies with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Permit regulations. In addition, the City’s permitting process
would ensure that all BMPs in the WQMP would be implemented with the project. Overall, implementation
of the WQMP pursuant to the existing regulations (included as PPP WQ-2) would ensure that operation of
the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or
otherwise degrade water quality; and no new impacts would occur.
(Sources: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix I)
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
(No New Impact.)
The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) provides water services to the project area. The
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 129 of 184
EVMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan describes that the EVMWD obtains water from local
groundwater wells, surface water from Canyon Lake Reservoir and treated at the Canyon Lake Water
Treatment Plant, and imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District. EVMWD pumps
water from the Elsinore Valley Subbasin and the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. EVMWD actively manages
the groundwater subbasins and serves as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Elsinore
Valley Subbasin and is a member of the Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Authority
(BCGSA), which serves as the GSA for the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. The EVMWD 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) shows that the anticipated production of groundwater would remain the same
through 2045 and the supply would exceed demand in both normal years and multiple dry year conditions
(shown in Table UT-1 in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems). The project would not result in
changes to the projected groundwater pumping that would decrease groundwater supplies, and the project
would not otherwise impede the sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
The project site is undeveloped with pervious surfaces. After completion of project construction, a large
portion of the site would be impervious. The project would convey stormwater drainage into landscaping
areas, catch basins, a bio-treatment unit, and an underground detention basin, from which it would be
discharged and drain into the Lake. Therefore, no new impacts related to interference with groundwater
recharge would occur.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan,
Appendix I)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i). Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (No New Impact.)
The project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a natural stream or river. The project would
not alter the existing drainage pattern and implementation of the project would not alter the course of a
stream or river.
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and grading activities that would expose
and loosen building materials and sediment, which has the potential to mix with storm water runoff and
result in erosion or siltation off-site. However, the project site does not include any slopes, which
reduces the erosion potential, and the large majority of soil disturbance would be related to excavation
and backfill for installation of building foundations and underground utilities.
The NPDES Construction General Permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a
Qualified SWPPP Developer for the proposed construction activities (included as PPP WQ-1). The
SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to potential sources of sedimentation and
erosion and would list the required BMPs that are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of
erosion or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. In addition, a Qualified SWPPP
Practitioner (QSP) is required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and
visual inspections during construction activities. The SWPPP would be amended and BMPs revised, as
determined necessary through field inspections, in order to protect against substantial soil erosion, the
loss of topsoil, or alteration of the drainage pattern. Compliance with the Construction General Permit
and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) would prevent
construction-related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or erosion from
development activities. With implementation of the existing construction regulations that would be
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 130 of 184
verified by the City during the permitting approval process, no new impacts related to alteration of an
existing drainage pattern during construction that could result in substantial erosion, siltation, and
increases in stormwater runoff would occur.
Operation
The project site consists of an undeveloped site with a ruderal vegetation and soil surface, which has
the potential for erosion and sedimentation. With development of the project, a large portion of the site
would be covered by impervious surfaces, such as residential structures, roadways, sidewalks, and
driveways, which would not be subject to erosion. Pervious areas of the site would be landscaped with
groundcovers that would inhibit erosion and the water quality basin that is designed to filter in infiltrate
stormwater and would not result in erosion or sedimentation.
The proposed project would maintain the existing drainage pattern. The runoff from the project area
would be collected by roof drains, surface flow designed pavement, curbs, and area drains and conveyed
to either landscaping areas or to the catch basins and bio-treatment units and be routed to an
underground detention basin. Additionally, the MS4 permit requires new development projects to
prepare a WQMP (included as Appendix I) that is required to include BMPs to reduce the potential of
erosion and/or sedimentation through site design and structural treatment control BMPs. As part of the
permitting approval process, the proposed drainage and water quality design and engineering plans
would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division to ensure that the site-specific design limits the
potential for erosion and siltation. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing
regulations would ensure that no new impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern and
erosion/siltation from operational activities would occur.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H; Project Specific Water Quality Management
Plan, Appendix I)
ii). Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite; (No New Impact.)
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and grading. These activities could
temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and change runoff flow rates. However, as
described previously, implementation of the project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that
would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the project and include BMPs to
eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. This
includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the
Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP
WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction-
related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding on or off-site from
development activities. Therefore, no new construction impacts would occur.
Operation
As described previously, the proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces on the
project site. However, the project would convey runoff to landscaped areas or to catch basins and bio-
treatment units and be routed to an underground detention basin for treatment that have been designed
to accommodate the stormwater volume pursuant to the MS4 permit requirements, as shown in the
Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H. Therefore, an increase in the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite would not occur.
As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage design and engineering plans would
be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that the proposed drainage would
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 131 of 184
accommodate the appropriate design flows. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to
the existing MS4 permit regulations, which would ensure that no new impacts related to alteration of a
drainage pattern or flooding from operational activities would occur.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H; Project Specific Water Quality Management
Plan, Appendix I)
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;
(No New Impact.)
Construction
As described in the previous response, construction of the proposed project would require grading and
excavation activities that could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and could
result in increased runoff and polluted runoff if drainage is not properly controlled. However,
implementation of the project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site
specific pollutant and drainage issues related to construction of the project and include BMPs to
eliminate the potential of polluted runoff and increased runoff during construction activities. This
includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the
Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP
WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction-
related impacts related to increases in run-off and pollution from development activities. Therefore, no
new impacts would occur.
Operation
As described previously, the proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces.
However, the project would manage stormwater flows with landscaping and catch basins and a bio-
treatment unit and be routed to an underground detention basin that have been designed to
accommodate the stormwater volume pursuant to the MS4 permit requirements. As stormwater flow
conditions would be controlled and accommodated by the proposed infrastructure, an increase in runoff
that could exceed the capacity of storm drain systems and provide polluted runoff would not occur.
As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage design and engineering plans would
be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that project specifications adhere to the
existing MS4 permit regulations, which would ensure that pollutants are removed prior to discharge.
Overall, with compliance to the existing regulations as verified by the City’s permitting process, no
new impacts related to the capacity of the drainage system and polluted runoff would occur.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H; Project Specific Water Quality Management
Plan, Appendix I)
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (No New Impact.)
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 06065C2043G, the
northwestern portion of the site is identified as an area inundated by the base elevation of 1,266 and the
central portion of the site is identified an area with a 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard and an
area with a 1 percent annual chance of flood with average depths less than one foot. As detailed in the
previous responses, implementation of the project would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces
on the site. However, the runoff from the project area would be accommodated by landscaping, catch
basins, a bio-treatment unit and an underground detention basin that have been sized to accommodate
the MS4 required design storm. Therefore, the project would not result in impeding or redirecting flood
flows by the addition of the impervious surfaces. As detailed previously, the City’s permitting process
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 132 of 184
would ensure that the drainage system specifications adhere to the existing MS4 permit requirements,
and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that no new impacts would occur.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan,
Appendix I)
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
(No New Impact.)
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 06065C2043G, the northwestern
portion of the site is identified as an area inundated by the base elevation of 1,266 and the central portion
of the site is identified an area with a 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard and an area with a 1 percent
annual chance of flood with average depths less than one foot. In addition, as described previously
construction activities would require implementation of an approved SWPPP and project operation would
require implementation of a City approved WQMP, which would reduce the potential for risks related to
release of pollutants. Thus, no new impacts related to flood hazards and pollutants would not occur from
the project.
Tsunamis are generated ocean wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the sea floor
associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The
proposed project is approximately 23 miles from the ocean shoreline and behind mountains. Based on the
distance of the project site to the Pacific Ocean, the project site is not at risk of inundation from tsunami.
Therefore, the proposed project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from a tsunami. No
impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside
water retention facilities (e.g., reservoirs and lakes). Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and
flood downstream properties. The project site is located approximately 2 miles from Lake Elsinore, which
could generate a seiche. However, due to the range of intervening structures between the site and the lake,
that include walls, the possibility of seiches impacting the site negligible. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in new impacts related to risk related to the release of pollutants from inundation from a
seiche.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H; Google Earth)
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? (No New Impact.)
As described previously, use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by
the NPDES Construction General Permit and PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that project impacts related
to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Thus,
construction of the project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
All new development projects are required to implement a WQMP (per PPP WQ-2) that would comply
with the MS4 permit requirements. The WQMP and applicable BMPs are verified as part of the City’s
permitting approval process, and construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with
these regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan.
Water production from groundwater basins is managed by EVMWD, who is the Groundwater Sustainability
Agency (GSA) for the Elsinore Valley Subbasin, and by the Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 133 of 184
Sustainability Authority for the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. The 2020 UWMP details that the anticipated
production of groundwater would remain steady through 2045 (as shown in Table UT-1). As detailed in
Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, the EMWD’s supply of water listed in Table UT-1 would be
sufficient during both normal years and multiple dry year conditions between 2025 and 2045 to meet all of
the estimated needs, including the proposed project. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the
groundwater management plan and would not conflict with or obstruct its implementation. Thus, no new
impacts related to water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would occur.
(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan,
Appendix I)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hydrology and water quality. There have
not been 1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major
revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of
substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not
known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality:
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall
provide the City Building and Safety Department evidence of compliance with the NPDES (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water
Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of
one acre or larger. The project applicant/proponent shall comply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI)
and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring
program and reporting plan for the construction site.
PPP WQ-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a
completed Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and
submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department. The Final WQMP shall identify all Post-
Construction, Site Design. Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving
waters.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 134 of 184
Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measure for hydrology and water
quality regarding drainage permitting (MM HWQ-5), which is listed previously, is applicable to the
proposed project and would be included in the project MMRP to ensure implementation.
No new mitigation measures are required.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that buildout of the Specific Plan would decrease the number of planned residential
units in the area and instead add more active recreation and associated uses to capitalize on the City’s
growing reputation as a destination for extreme sports. The EIR also determined that the Specific Plan
would not result in physical division of an established community, and no impacts would occur.
The Final EIR reveals that the Specific Plan is generally consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS performance
measures. The Specific Plan would not conflict with any applicable policy documents. The proposed Project
would also be generally consistent with goals and policies of the City General Plan. Therefore, impacts
were determined to be less than significant.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community? (No New Impact.)
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project site is located within Planning Area 2 of
the East Lake Specific Plan and is planned for development. The site is adjacent and across the street from
a mix of light industrial, commercial, and residential development. The proposed project would develop
the site with 191 two-story residential units, onsite roadways, parking, and recreation areas in consistency
with the allowable Specific Plan land uses. Because the site is bound by a roadway and vacant parcels exist
to the north and south of the site, development of the area to a residential neighborhood would not physically
divide an established community. Conversely, it would develop the community in consistency with land
use plans. In addition, the proposed driveway/sidewalk system provides for circulation through the site and
does not result in any physical division. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to
physical division of an established community.
(Sources: Project site plan, General Plan Land Use map, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24601; and City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed:
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603)
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No New
Impact.)
As described previously, the project site is adjacent to residential, retail/service commercial, and roadways.
The project would develop the project site to provide 191 residential units, which is consistent with the
allowable uses on the site.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 135 of 184
General Plan
The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of East Lake District Specific Plan and an East
Lake Specific Plan designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation with a Mixed Use
Overlay. The Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation Specific Plan designation provides for
a wide range of extreme action sports and accessory manufacturing, service and retail uses. The East Lake
Specific Plan Mixed Use Overlay allows for development residential and commercial uses, and provides
for residential densities up to 18 units per net acre.
The project includes 191 residential units within 18 acres of the site, which would result in 11.3 units per
acre. Thus, the project would not exceed the allowable residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with the existing residential land use designations for the site, and
no new impacts related to General Plan land uses would occur.
East Lake Specific Plan
The project site is located in the East Lake Specific Plan and has a land use designation of Action Sports,
Tourism, Commercial and Recreation with a Mixed Use Overlay. The Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial
and Recreation Specific Plan designation provides for a wide range of extreme action sports and accessory
manufacturing, service and retail uses. The East Lake Specific Plan Mixed Use Overlay allows for
development residential and commercial uses.
The proposed project includes 191 two-story residences on the site. As shown previously in Table AES-2,
the proposed project meets the Specific Plan development standards. Therefore, a conflict with the Specific
Plan development standards would not occur. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with the
Specific Plan designations for the site, and no new impact would occur.
(Sources: Project site plan, General Plan Land Use map. Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24601; City of Lake Elsinore Zoning code. Accessed:
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603; City of Lake Elsinore East Lake Specific
Plan. Accessed: http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=20871)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding land use and planning. There have not been
1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 136 of 184
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) classifies the entire Specific
Plan area and much of Western Riverside County as Mineral Resource Zone No. 3 (MRZ‐3. MRZ‐3 areas
contain known mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources based on knowledge of economic
characteristics of those resources. No existing mineral resource recovery operations are present and no
known mineral resources occur within the Specific Plan area. In addition, the current land‐use designations
do not allow for mineral resource recovery activities. Therefore, the Final EIR determined that buildout of
the Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact to mineral resources.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed 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? (No New Impact.)
Figure 3.12-1 of the General Plan EIR shows that the project site is located within the Mineral Resource
Zone 3 Area (MRZ-3), or areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated
from available data. The project site is not located within an area that has been classified or designated as
a mineral resource area by the State Board of Mining and Geology, nor has mineral extraction been
documented to occur on site. The project site has a land use designation of East Lake Specific Plan
designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation with a Mixed Use Overlay and is not
planned for mineral extraction use. Therefore, impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state would not occur.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 4.0, Impacts
Determined to be Less than Significant, 2017; City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR Section 3.12 and
Figure 3.12-1, Mineral Resource Zones)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No New Impact.)
As described in the previous response, Figure 3.12-1 of the General Plan EIR shows that the project site is
located within an MRZ-3 area and is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site. The project site
has a land use designation of East Lake Specific Plan designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial
and Recreation with a Mixed Use Overlay and is not planned for mineral extraction use. Therefore, the
project would not result in the loss of a mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a land use plan. No
impacts would occur.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 4.0, Impacts
Determined to be Less than Significant, 2017; City of Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR Section 3.12 and
Figure 3.12-1, Mineral Resource Zones)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 137 of 184
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding mineral resources. There have not been 1)
changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XIII. NOISE
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that construction of future development projects within the Specific Plan area
would result in generation of noise due to use of heavy machinery and potential increases in traffic from
construction trucks and employee vehicles. Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1 was included to require projects
to reduce and/or minimize such temporary construction noise impacts through implementation of noise
reduction measures; however, it cannot be guaranteed that such measures would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels. Therefore, impacts were determined to be potentially significant and unavoidable.
The Final EIR also determined that the Specific Plan’s incremental contribution to traffic noise increases
which, could result in a 3 dB increase in areas that exceed General Plan noise standards or result in a 5 dB
increase in other areas; thus, exceeding significance thresholds at the future project‐level. Exterior areas of
future noise‐sensitive land uses placed within these distances would be impacted significantly by traffic
noise. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM NOI‐2 through MM NOI‐4 would reduce traffic noise
impacts on existing and/or future sensitive uses to meet City standards; however, the Final EIR determined
that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
In addition, the Final EIR described that the existing motorsports park that is adjacent to the project site
generates substantial noise volume and estimates that motocross noise level from a motorbike pass‐by is
near 95 dB at a distance of 50 feet. With a conservative assumption of 20 motorbikes racing at a typical
event and a distance attenuation factor of 6 dB noise reduction per doubling of distance, maximum noise
levels from a 20‐bike race at a distance of 1,000 feet from the racing facility would be near 82 dB. Noise
levels from such an event at a distance of approximately 2,300 feet would be 75 dB. The Final EIR includes
Mitigation Measures MM NOI‐2 through MM NOI‐5 to reduce noise impacts that include use of site design,
setbacks, placement of sound walls or other shielding features to reduce impacts to below significant with
implementation of mitigation measure. However, the Final EIR determined that it cannot be guaranteed that
the measures would reduce noise impacts on existing and/or future sensitive uses to meet City standards.
Therefore, the Final EIR determined that noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 138 of 184
The Final EIR described that no heavy machinery or equipment would be operated that could lead to
excessive groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM NOI-6 is required to reduce
construction related vibration.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit for a future implementing
development project in the East Lake Specific Plan, the applicant will submit to the City
for review and approval, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) that will include
measures to reduce construction-related noise. The CMP shall include:
1. Estimated number of working days, days of the week to be worked, and daily working
hours for site preparation, grading and construction activities consistent with the Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code. Additional allowable working time restrictions may be
established by the City if activities will occur within 200 feet of sensitive receptors,
last more than 10 working days, and/or be noise intensive; as deemed appropriate by
the City Engineer’s review of the CMP.
2. Require all fixed and mobile construction equipment be checked, by the contractor or
designee, and logged weekly to verify proper tuning and operating mufflers.
3. Require all stationary noise generating construction equipment, construction staging
areas, and noise intensive activities such as metal stud and rebar cutting be located as
far as practical, and shielded if possible, from existing residences, indicating such
locations and shielding on the construction plans.
4. If impulsive noise generation (e.g. pile driving or jack-hammering) is necessary within
200 feet of noise-sensitive users, a Project-specific noise study shall be required to
determine additional measures such as special activity scheduling and/or need for the
erection of temporary sound barriers to reduce impacts.
5. Posted information onsite for contact in case of emergency or complaint.
6. If a hauling permit is required, the contractor will verify with the City prior to hauling
activities that no conflict with other projects utilizing portions of the same route, also
for hauling activities under another hauling permit, will occur.
Project Applicability: MM NOI-1 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the building permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed project.
MM NOI-2 As part of an application for a future implementing development project within the East
Lake Specific Plan, a detailed acoustical study shall be submitted that evaluates existing
and projected noise levels affecting the implementing development proposal. Design
features that may be incorporated within an implementing project may include setbacks
from the roadway or noise attenuation that will reduce noise levels to acceptable standards.
An exterior level of 60 dB CNEL in usable outdoor space shall be the noise exposure goal
for such maximally noise-sensitive uses. If such a level is not attainable with reasonably
available noise control measures, the General Plan finds levels up to 65 dB CNEL are
acceptable. In the event that patios and balconies are determined to occur within the 65
dBA noise contour, noise attenuation shall be required to reduce noise levels to 65 dBA
CNEL or lower. This may include the use of architectural treatments, barriers, or other
noise attenuating measures. Project specific measures shall provide sound level reductions
so that future uses within the Project site are consistent with the CNEL levels identified in
the Lake Elsinore General Plan and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 139 of 184
Project Applicability: MM NOI-2 is applicable to the proposed project and has been completed as part of
the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, included as Appendix J.
MM NOI-3 Prior to the approval of each future implementing development project within the East
Lake Specific Plan, the applicant/developer shall submit a detailed acoustical study
demonstrating that all structures will meet applicable City interior noise levels and exterior
living area noise levels, in accordance with applicable noise standards and zoning
regulations.
1. The study shall be prepared by a City-approved acoustical expert, to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director; and,
2. The study shall document projected ultimate noise exposure for interior office, retail
and residential space and shall demonstrate that the project specific design plans have
incorporated adequate sound attenuation measures to achieve the applicable noise
standards.
Project Applicability: MM NOI-3 is applicable to the proposed project and has been partially completed
as part of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, included as Appendix J. Once final plans are available
and a window manufacturer has been chosen, a Final Acoustical Report (FAR) would be required to confirm
design reduction capability.
MM NOI-4 Prior to the issuance of any building permits for future implementing residential
development projects, the applicant shall incorporate appropriate buffering and/or sound
attenuation in the building siting and designs to limit potential incompatibilities with the
nearby land uses. Noise levels for the residential units shall be reduced to 45 dBA for
interior noise levels.
Project Applicability: MM NOI-4 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the building permitting process. Once final plans are available and a window manufacturer has been
chosen, a Final Acoustical Report (FAR) would be required to confirm design reduction capability. This
measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed project.
MM NOI-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for future implementing commercial development
projects, the applicant shall incorporate measures to minimize hours of operation and
reduce exterior noise levels on on-offsite sensitive receptors resulting from on-site noise
sources, such as Action Sports 1 and 2 operations, Active Recreation 1 and 2 operations,
loading docks, speakerphones, music/live entertainment to 65 dBA CNEL from 10 p.m. to
7 a.m. These measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or modified for special events with issuance of a special event
permit.
Project Applicability: MM NOI-5 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project does not
include commercial development.
MM NOI-6 For future implementing development projects in the East Lake Specific Plan with the
potential to generate construction-related ground borne vibration (e.g., use of pile drivers,
rock drills, and pavement breakers) within 100 feet or less of sensitive buildings, the City
shall require the project applicant to submit a construction-related vibration avoidance,
minimization and mitigation plan to the City prior to issuance of a demolition or grading
permit. The mitigation plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and
activities and how the vibration from equipment and activities would be mitigated to
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 140 of 184
minimize human annoyance and avoid damage to buildings. The City shall require binding
implementation measures for the approved plan.
Project Applicability: MM NOI-6 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the building permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed project.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project (Appendix J) to assess the project’s
potential noise and vibration related impacts. The following analysis incorporates information from the
study.
California Building Code
The State of California’s interior noise standards for all new construction with habitable spaces are codified
in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Chapter
12, Section 1206. A habitable space in a building is defines as a space used for “living, sleeping, eating, or
cooking. The acceptable interior noise limit is 45 CNEL in all habitable rooms.
General Plan
The City’s General Plan Public Safety and Welfare Element includes a compatibility matrix (Table 3-1) to
determine if new land uses are compatible with the existing noise environment. The table identifies noise
environments that are less than 70 dBA CNEL to be normally compatible with residential uses.
Additionally, areas that have existing ambient noise levels above 75 dBA CNEL are considered clearly
incompatible with residential uses.
Municipal Code
Section 17.176.060, Exterior Noise Limits, identifies the maximum permissible sound levels by receiving
land use. For residential land use, the noise level limits for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours of
50 dBA L50 and 40 dBA L50 during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours for:
• a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any hour (L₅₀); or
• the standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour (L₂₅); or
• the standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour (L8); or
• the standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour (L2); or
• the standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (Lmax).
Municipal Code Section 17.176.060 for residential uses are detailed in Table N-1.
Table N-1: Municipal Code Residential Exterior Noise Level Standards
Receiving Land Use Condition
Based Exterior Noise Level Standards (dBA)
L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax
(30 mins) (15 mins) (5 mins) (1 min) (Anytime)
Single-Family Residential Daytime 50 55 60 65 70
Nighttime 40 45 50 55 60
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.
Section 17.176.080.F, Construction/Demolition, states that the following is prohibited:
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
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 141 of 184
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 residential
properties will not exceed those listed in the following schedule:
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
Section 17.176.080.G, Vibration, states that it is prohibited to operate 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 public space or public
right-of-way. However, the Municipal code does not define a quantitative vibration threshold. The Federal
Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual) is
used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts. Table N-2 provides the criteria for assessing the
potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building. Also, as shown in Table N-3, a
vibration level of up to 0.5 in/sec in peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting
of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) and would not result in any construction vibration
damage. For non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, the construction building vibration damage
criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV.
Table N-2: FTA Construction Vibration Annoyance Criteria
Land Use Max Lv
(VdB) Description of Use
Workshop 90 Vibration that is distinctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas not
as sensitive to vibration.
Office 84 Vibration that can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as sensitive
to vibration.
Residential Day 78 Vibration that is barely felt. Adequate for computer equipment and low-power
optical microscopes (up to 20×).
Residential Night
and Operating
Rooms
72 Vibration is not felt, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms.
Suitable for medium-power microscopes (100×) and other equipment of low
sensitivity.
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 142 of 184
Table N-3: FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.
Existing Noise Levels
As detailed in the Noise Impact and Vibration Analysis (Appendix J), to identify the existing ambient noise
level environment, long-term 72-hour noise level measurements were taken at the project site from August
19 through August 21, 2022 using four Larson Davis Spark 706RC Dosimeters.
The background ambient noise levels in the project area are dominated by the transportation-related noise
associated with Mission Trail and other local surface streets and the operation of the motorsport park to the
west of the site. Specifically, ambient noise on the site is generated by an existing motorcycle track with
jumps that is approximately 50 feet west of the western boundary of the project site.
Table N-4 provides a summary of the measured hourly and daily noise levels. As shown, measured hourly
noise levels long the western property line ranges from 40.7 dBA Leq to 83.7 dBA Leq with daily noise
levels ranging from 59.2 dBA CNEL to 76.2 dBA CNEL. Noise levels measured near the eastern portion
of the project site range from 53.1 dBA Leq to 66.8 dBA Leq and 65.9 dBA CNEL to 67.7 dBA CNEL.
Figure 15 shows the noise monitoring locations.
Table N-4: Summary of 72-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Location
Date
Daytime
Noise
Levels
(dBA
Leq)
Evening
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Community
Noise
Equivalent
Level
(CNEL)
LT-1 Along the western edge of the
project site, approximately 440
feet north of the southern site
boundary.
8/19/2022 48.5-72.0 51.0-57.0 41.1-51.0 64.6
8/20/2022 47.0-77.4 53.0-58.8 40.7-51.0 69.2
8/21/2022 49.5-83.7 50.6-76.3 41.2-47.4 76.2
LT-2 Along the western edge of the
project site, approximately 120
feet north of the southern site
boundary.
8/19/2022 52.5-62.0 53.0-57.9 42.9-52.5 59.2
8/20/2022 50.4-63.6 52.7-61.1 42.3-52.8 60.2
8/21/2022 52.4-69.8 51.5-64.6 42.5-48.9 63.4
LT-3 Approximately 75 feet north of
the northwestern corner of the
project site boundary.
8/19/2022 49.0-59.4 53.8-56.8 45.8-55.1 59.2
8/20/2022 50.6-60.2 54.7-59.1 45.7-56.1 59.7
8/21/2022 51.8-66.7 52.8-63.0 45.3-51.5 61.1
LT-4 Approximately 100 feet west of
Mission Trail, north of the
Victorian Lane intersection.
8/19/2022 61.2-66.8 63.2-65.1 53.4-63.4 67.7
8/20/2022 62.4-65.6 63.1-65.6 53.1-65.3 67.7
8/21/2022 61.8-65.8 61.9-65.0 52.4-60.2 65.9
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.
In addition to the existing noise sources, future ambient noise within the southern portion of the project site
would be generated by the proposed Corydon Gateway Development. Based on the Corydon Gateway
Development Noise Impact Study (MD Acoustics, LLC September 2020), the proposed carwash would
generate noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq within the southern portion of the project site.
Noise Monitoring Locations
Figure 15Mission Trail Residential
City of Lake Elsinore
D:\_Data\Documents\Corel\Corel Content\Templates\LSA_8x11_Photo_x2.cdt (10/31/2016)
SOURCE: Google Earth, 2021
FEET
4002000
LEGEND
- Project Site Boundary
- Long-term Noise Monitoring LocaƟonLLTT-1-1LT-1
Victorian LnVictorian Ln
Lewis StLewis St
Lemon StLemon St
Mission TrailMission TrailCorydon RdCorydon RdVictorian Ln
Lewis St
Lemon St
Mission TrailCorydon RdLLTT-2-2LT-2
LLTT-1-1LT-1
LLTT-3-3LT-3
LLTT-4-4LT-4
FIGURE 3
Noise Monitoring LocaƟons
Mission Trail ResidenƟal
D:\_Data\Documents\Corel\Corel Content\Templates\LSA_8x11_Photo_x2.cdt (10/31/2016)
SOURCE: Google Earth, 2021
FEET
4002000
LEGEND
- Project Site Boundary
- Long-term Noise Monitoring LocaƟonLLTT-1-1LT-1
Victorian LnVictorian Ln
Lewis StLewis St
Lemon StLemon St
Mission TrailMission TrailCorydon RdCorydon RdVictorian Ln
Lewis St
Lemon St
Mission TrailCorydon RdLLTT-2-2LT-2
LLTT-1-1LT-1
LLTT-3-3LT-3
LLTT-4-4LT-4
FIGURE 3
Noise Monitoring LocaƟons
Mission Trail ResidenƟal
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 144 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 145 of 184
Sensitive Receivers
Sensitive receivers are defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound
could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land, including: residences, schools, hospitals, churches,
libraries, and recreation areas. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing residences
that are as close as 440 feet from the center of the project site.
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other
applicable standards of other agencies? (No New Impact.)
Construction
The construction noise from the proposed project would occur throughout various portions of the project
site over an 11-month period. Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of
trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels.
Construction is expected to occur in the following stages: demolition, site preparation, grading, building
construction, architectural coating, paving. The composite noise levels generated by heavy construction
equipment range from approximately 74 dBA to 88 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source with the highest
noise levels occurring during the site preparation and grading phases, as shown on Table N-3.
Table N-3: Construction Reference Noise Levels
Equipment Acoustical Usage Factor
(%)
Maximum Noise Level
(Lmax) at 50 Feet
Auger Drill Rig 20 84
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Paver 50 77
Pickup Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Trencher 50 80
Welder 40 73
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.
However, per Municipal Code Section 17.176.080, included as PPP N-1, construction activities are
prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on weekend or on holidays. The
construction activities would be in compliance with the City’s construction related noise standards.
Therefore, the construction noise would be limited. In addition, construction noise would be temporary in
nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 146 of 184
construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. The typical operating cycle for a
piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or
four minutes at lower power settings. The construction equipment would include a combination of trucks,
power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators.
The calculated noise from construction equipment was attenuated to the sensitive receiver locations. As
shown on Table N-4 the construction noise levels would have a composite noise level of 70 dBA Leq at the
closest sensitive noise receptor location (not considering intervening topography or barriers). This is below
the allowable construction noise level of 75 dBA in residential areas per Municipal Code Section
17.167.080(f). In addition, the project would be required to implement the Final EIR Mitigation Measure
MM NOI-1 that requires City review and approval of an applicant provided Construction Management
Plan (CMP) that include measures to reduce construction related noise. Therefore, noise impacts related to
construction activities would not occur.
Table N-4: Project Construction Noise Levels At Nearest Receptor
Receptor (Location) Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at 50 feet1 Distance (feet) Composite Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Residences to the East 88 440 70
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.
1 The composite construction noise level represents the grading/site preparation phases, which are
expected to result in the greatest noise level compared to other phases.
Operation
Although CEQA analysis is to evaluate the project’s potential impact on the environment, the following
evaluation related to consistency with residential noise standards is provided to show that development of
the project would not result a new or increase impact related to inconsistency (or non-compliance) with
noise standards related to residential uses.
Exterior Noise
Daily Exterior Noise Assessment. As detailed previously, the Final EIR Mitigation Measure MM NOI-
2 states that “An exterior level of 60 dB CNEL in usable outdoor space shall be the noise exposure goal for
such maximally noise-sensitive uses. If such a level is not attainable with reasonably available noise control
measures, the General Plan finds levels up to 65 dB CNEL are acceptable. In the event that patios and
balconies are determined to occur within the 65 dBA noise contour, noise attenuation shall be required to
reduce noise levels to 65 dBA CNEL or lower. This may include the use of architectural treatments, barriers,
or other noise attenuating measures.”
Onsite Mission Trail Roadway Noise: As further detailed below in the traffic noise discussion, roadway
noise within the rear yards of residences along Mission Trail is anticipated to approach 70.3 dBA CNEL at
the project site. However, the noise would be reduced by 8 dBA to approximately 62.3 dBA CNEL with
the proposed 6-foot-high concrete masonry unit walls along the northern, eastern, and southern property
lines, which would meet the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. The proposed wall along the
southern property line would also reduce noise from the carwash that is proposed to be located to the south
of the site to below 65 dBA. Additionally, with the noise reduction provided by the proposed 6-foot-high
walls and intervening buildings, noise levels at the proposed open space recreation pool area would not
exceed the 65 dBA CNEL threshold.
Motorsports Park Noise: The project site is affected by operations at the Lake Elsinore Motorsports Park.
Daily noise levels along the western property line range from 59.2 dBA CNEL to 76.2 dBA CNEL which
exceeds the City’s daily exterior noise level of 65 dBA. While the project proposes an 8-foot-high concrete
masonry unit wall along the western property line, the reduction provided by the wall, of approximately 9
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 147 of 184
dBA, would not be enough to meet the City’s exterior noise standard. The City’s acceptable daily exterior
noise level of 65 dBA CNEL would be exceeded by up to 2.2 dBA CNEL.
Hourly Exterior Noise Assessment. The long-term noise level measurements show that the loudest hourly
noise levels along the western portion of the project site range from 66.7 dBA Leq to 83.7 dBA Leq, which
exceed the City’s daytime hourly exterior noise level standard of 50 dBA Leq by 16.7 dBA Leq to 33.7 dBA
Leq. While the project proposes an 8-foot-high concrete masonry unit wall along the western property line,
the reduction provided by the wall, of approximately 9 dBA, would not be enough to meet the City’s hourly
exterior noise standard. The City’s hourly exterior noise level standard of 50 dBA Leq could be exceeded
by up to 24.7 dBA Leq. at residences along the western side of the project site. In addition, hourly exterior
noise levels at the proposed open space recreation areas have the potential to exceed the daytime hourly
exterior noise level standard of 50 dBA Leq during operations of the adjacent Motorsports Park. This is
consistent with the motocross related noise levels and impacts that were identified in the Final EIR. To
ensure inclusion of the proposed walls that would reduce the offsite noise sources, they have been included
as Condition of Approval COA N-1, which also provides compliance with Final EIR Mitigation
Measures MM NOI-3 and MM NOI-4. Thus, no new or increased impacts related to exterior motocross
noise would occur from implementation of the proposed project.
Interior Noise
To reduce the onsite residential interior noise from offsite uses, the project includes an 8-foot-high wall
along the western property line that would reduce first story (ground level) noise levels by approximately
9 dBA, and 6-foot-high walls along the three other property lines that would reduce ground level noise by
approximately 8 dBA. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Protective Noise Levels
describe that a combination of exterior walls, doors, and windows, of standard construction for Southern
California (warm climate) commercial or residential buildings, provide more than 24 dBA in exterior-to-
interior noise reduction with windows closed and 12 dBA or more with windows open. Because the
proposed residences would include mechanical ventilation, windows and doors could remain closed.
Based on standard construction, the residences along the western property line would require upgraded
windows and doors with sound transmission class (STC) ratings of approximately 35, depending on the
amount of glass-wall ratio of the façades with a view of the motocross park. For the residences along the
northern, eastern, and southern property lines, noise levels would approach 71 dBA CNEL, requiring a
reduction of 26 dBA. This can be achieved with installation of upgraded windows with STC ratings of 29,
depending on the window-to-glass ratio. For all other residences, standard building construction along with
standard windows, typically in the STC 25-28 range, would meet or exceed the interior noise levels of 45
dBA CNEL.
Therefore, in addition to the proposed 8-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the western project site
boundary adjacent to the motocross park and the 6-foot-high walls along the other three sides of the site,
the following noise abatement design features provide minimum requirements (in compliance with
Mitigation Measure MM NOI-4) to ensure that interior noise levels meet or exceed the 45 dBA CNEL
requirement:
• Windows & Glass Doors: Windows and glass doors would be well-fitted, well-weather-stripped
assemblies and shall have minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 35 for residences
located along the western property line, and STC ratings of 29 for residences along the northern,
eastern, and southern property lines.
• Exterior Doors: All exterior doors facing the project site property lines (facing offsite land uses)
would be well-fitted, well-weather stripped, and have minimum STC ratings of 29.
• Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall
and pipes, ducts, or conduits would be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. All
exterior wall assemblies facing the Motorsports Park shall have a minimum STC rating of 35 and all
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 148 of 184
exterior wall assemblies along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines facing offsite land
uses shall have a minimum STC rating of 29.
• Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked
plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the
attic space.
• Ceilings: Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or constructed of well-sealed gypsum
board of at least one-half inch thick.
• Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can
be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system
(e.g., air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g., fresh air supply) shall be provided which
satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
Once final plans are available and a window manufacturer has been chosen, a Final Acoustical Report
(FAR) would be required per Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM NOI-3 and MM NOI-4 to confirm the
reduction capability of the exterior façades to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or below.
Therefore, the proposed residences would be designed to be consistent with the Final EIR mitigation
measures, and no new or increased impacts related to interior noise standard compliance would occur.
Project Traffic Generated Noise. Development of the proposed project would result in 191 residences,
which would generate approximately 1,801 daily trips including 134 trips during the a.m. peak hour and
180 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The noise generated from these vehicular trips has been identified
through utilization of the FHWA Roadway Noise Model, and a comparison of noise generated by traffic
volumes with and without the project is provided in Table N-5. These noise levels represent the worst-case
scenario, which assumes no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise
contours are drawn.
Table N-5 shows that the increase in project-related traffic noise would be no greater than 1.9 dBA. Noise
level increases above 3.0 dBA may be perceptible to some people in an outdoor environment, but the
expected increase is less than the readily perceptible threshold of 5.0 dBA. Therefore, traffic noise impacts
from project-related traffic on off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant, and no new impacts
related to operational traffic noise would occur.
Table N-5: Project Generated Traffic Noise in the Opening Year Condition
Roadway Segment
Existing Condition Opening Year Opening Year With Project
ADT
CNEL dBA
50 feet from
Centerline
of Nearest
Lane ADT
CNEL dBA
50 feet from
Centerline
of Nearest
Lane ADT
CNEL dBA
50 feet from
Centerline
of Nearest
Lane
Project
Increase
North of Mission Trail and
Project Driveway
17,110 68.8 29,680 71.2 29,830 71.2 0.0
Mission Trail between Project
Driveway and Corydon Road
17,560 68.9 29,650 71.2 31,130 71.4 0.2
Mission Trail between Corydon
Road and Bundy Canyon Road
13,800 67.9 14,350 68.0 21,810 69.9 1.9
Bundy Canyon Rd between
Mission Trail and Orange Street
11,550 65.0 15,000 66.2 16,160 66.5 0.3
East of Orange Street and Bundy
Canyon Road
16,890 66.3 20,560 67.2 21,720 67.4 0.2
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 149 of 184
(Sources: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J)
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (No New Impact.)
Construction
Construction activities for development of the project would include demolition, excavation, and grading,
which have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. People residing in close proximity
to the construction could be exposed to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels related to construction activities. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible
effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels,
to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Site ground vibrations from construction activities very
rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can be perceived in the audible range and be felt
in buildings very close to a construction site. The reference vibration levels provided by the FTA show that
a large bulldozer results in a velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet, as shown in Table N-6.
Table N-6: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet LV (VdB) at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.
Tables N-6 and N-7 provides the modeled construction equipment vibration levels at the nearest receiver
locations. As shown on Table N-7, vibration levels are expected to be 50 VdB at the closest residential uses
east of the project site, which is below the 78 VdB threshold for annoyance. Also, as shown on Table N-8,
vibration levels are expected to be 0.016 PPV in/sec at the nearest surrounding structures and would be well
below the 0.2 PPV in/sec damage threshold. Therefore, construction related vibration impacts would not
occur.
Table N-7: Project Construction Equipment Annoyance Vibration at Receiver Locations
Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (VdB) at 25 ft Distance (ft) Vibration Level
(VdB)
Residences (East) 87 440 50
Commercial (South) 1000 39
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J
Table N-8: Project Construction Equipment Damage Vibration at Receiver Locations
Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (PPV) at 25 ft Distance (ft) Vibration Level
(PPV)
Residences (East) 0.089 80 0.016
Commercial (South) 460 0.001
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J
(Sources: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J)
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No
Impact.)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 150 of 184
The project site is located within the Skylark Airport Influence Area (as shown in Final EIR Figure 5.7-1).
The Skylark Airport is a private airport that is the hub for air sports in Lake Elsinore and accommodates
organizations that utilize the airport for plane use, glider flights, and skydiving. However, the project site
is not located within the airport’s 60 dBA CNEL area, as shown on Figure 5.10-4 of the Final EIR. As such,
the project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and no impacts
would occur.
(Sources: Google Earth, ELSPA No. 11 Final EIR)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding noise and vibration. There have not been
1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce the potential for impacts related noise:
PPP N-1: Construction Hours. The project shall comply with Municipal Code Section 17.176.080,
that prohibits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on
weekend or on holidays.
Condition of Approval
The following Condition of Approval is required by the City as part of implementation of the project to
assist in meeting the applicable noise standards.
COA N-1: Prior to certificate of occupancies are granted, the 6-foot-high concrete masonry unit walls
along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines, and the 8-foot-high concrete masonry unit
wall along the western boundary of the site shall be constructed to reduce offsite ambient noise on the
project site.
Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures for noise, which are
listed previously as applicable to the proposed project would be included in the project MMRP to ensure
implementation.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 151 of 184
No new mitigation measures are required.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that the Specific Plan substantially reduces the number of dwelling units planned
for the area. The Final EIR describes that buildout would result in a maximum of 3,640 dwelling units
within the Specific Plan area, including 1,236 existing dwelling units already constructed in Planning Areas
1, 4, and 8. The EIR describes that an average of 3.6 persons lived in a Lake Elsinore household, which
under buildout conditions would be 13,104 persons. The Final EIR describes that this buildout is well below
the previously allowable buildout for the area, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The Final EIR determined that the Specific Plan does not require the off‐site extension of roads or
infrastructure to serve the site. As such, substantial population growth would not be created through
extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated, and no
mitigation measures are required.
The Specific Plan does not propose removal of existing housing so it would not displace housing or people
or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere as described in the Final EIR. As a result,
no significant impacts to housing displacement would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (No New Impact.)
The proposed project would construct 191 residential units and the associated amenities and infrastructure
on the project site. The California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of Lake Elsinore
has a residential population of 64,762 and 19,306 housing units in 2021. The East Lake Specific Plan Final
EIR details that the City has an average of 3.6 persons per household. Furthermore, the GPU EIR details
that by 2030 the population in the City is projected to be approximately 85,376 and the City would have
approximately 28,704 housing units.
Based on the East Lake Specific Plan identified average of 3.6 persons per household, the proposed 191
single-family residences would result in a net increase of approximately 688 new residents. The addition
of 688 new residents would represent a population increase of 1.1 percent and the new housing units would
result in a 1.0 percent increase in residential units within the City. The population and housing unit increase
would be within the projected population and housing stock as analyzed by the Final EIR. Furthermore, the
proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City, is surrounded by roadway and urban uses, and
is already served by the existing roadways and infrastructure systems. No infrastructure would be extended
or constructed to serve areas beyond the project site, and indirect impacts related to growth would not occur
from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no new impacts related to inducement of
unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, would occur from the project.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No.11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.11, Population and
Housing, 2017; Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR, August 2011; California
Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates, September 2021,
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 152 of 184
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (No New Impact.)
The project site is undeveloped and vacant. The site does not include any existing housing and no people
are located onsite. Therefore, the project would not displace any people or housing, and no impacts would
occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding population and housing. There have not
been 1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
Fire Protection. The Final EIR describes that the proposed Specific Plan’s residential, action sports, retail
and other development would increase the population, traffic, and number of structures in the City of Lake
Elsinore over the course of its 30‐year buildout. However, with implementation of measures listed in the
Final EIR, the Specific Plan would not have a significant impact to fire protection services and no mitigation
is required.
Police Protection. The Final EIR describes that the Specific Plan’s residential, action sports, retail and
public use development would increase permanent and daily populations and vehicular and pedestrian
traffic in the City of Lake Elsinore over the course of its 30‐year buildout. This is expected to increase the
number of calls for service by the Lake Elsinore Police Department and create a need for additional patrol
officers assigned to the area. This potential impact by the Specific Plan is accounted for within the General
Plan. Therefore, the EIR determined that the Specific Plan would not have a significant impact to police
protection services.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 153 of 184
Schools. The Final EIR describes that school development fees, apply solely to residential construction
within a school district. Payment of such compensatory fees would provide the necessary funding to offset
the Project’s impacts to schools and school facilities that would serve the Specific Plan area. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Libraries. The Final EIR describes that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an incremental
increase in the demand for library facilities and services. To offset the incremental demand for library
facilities, future implementing development projects within the Project site would be required to participate
in the City’s impact fee program that would provide for library services, and a less than significant impact
would occur.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
According to the Final EIR, buildout of the Specific Plan land uses would not 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? (No New Impact.)
The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection services throughout the City. The Fire
Department has five fire stations within 4.7 roadway miles of the project site, as listed in Table PS-1. The
closest station is Station 61 that is 2.6 miles from the site.
Table PS-1: Fire Stations Serving Project
Station Address Distance from Site
(roadway miles)
#61 32637 Gruwell St,
Wildomar, CA 92595
2.6 miles
#10 410 W. Graham Ave, Lake
Elsinore, CA 92530
4.0 miles
#94 22770 Railroad Canyon Rd,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
4.1 miles
#11 33020 Maiden Lane, Lake
Elsinore, CA 92530
4.7 miles
#97 41725 Rosetta Canyon Dr,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
4.0 miles
The proposed project would develop 191 single-family residences and the associated amenities and
infrastructure within the site. Implementation of the project would be required to adhere to the California
Fire Code, as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56. As part of the permitting process the
project plans would be reviewed by the City’s Building and Safety Division to ensure that project plans
meet the fire protection requirements.
Due to the increase in onsite people that would occur from implementation of the project, an incremental
increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would occur. However, the increase
in residents onsite is limited (688 residents) and would not increase demands such that the four fire stations
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 154 of 184
would not be able to accommodate servicing the project in addition to its existing commitments.
Furthermore, per the Riverside County Fire Department Master Plan, the City falls into the Urban category
(GPU EIR). This classification requires a fire station be within three roadway miles of the project site and
has a response time goal of 7 minutes. As shown in Table PS-1, Riverside County Fire Department Station
61 is approximately 2.6 roadway miles from the site. Based on the travel distance from the station to the
site, the approximate response time would be six minutes. As such, per the Riverside County Fire
Department Master Plan, the project site would have adequate fire service. Provision of a new or physically
altered fire station would not be required that could cause environmental impacts. Therefore, no new
impacts related to fire protection services would result from the proposed project.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.12, Public Services,
2017; Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; Riverside County
Fire Department)
b) Police protection? (No New Impact.)
The City of Lake Elsinore contracts with the County of Riverside Sheriff’s Department for police services.
The Sheriff Station serving the project area is the Lake Elsinore Station, located at 333 W. Limited Avenue,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. The Station is located approximately 3.9 roadway miles from the project site.
The City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Operating Budget describes that the City has 52.7399 sworn officers and
5 community service officers. The California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of
Lake Elsinore has a residential population of 64,762 in 2021. Therefore, the City currently has
approximately 1.2 officer per 1,000 residents.
Because the project site is currently vacant, development of the proposed 191 single-family residences
would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services. However, the increase
would not be significant when compared to current demand levels. As described previously, the residential
population of the project site at full occupancy would be approximately 688 residents. Based on the current
staffing ratio of 1.2 officers for every 1,000 residents, the proposed project would require 0.83 percent of
an additional officer. This additional staffing would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s
existing policing facilities. Thus, no new impacts would occur.
In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, which
requires a development impact fee (DIF) payment to the City for impacts to public services and facilities,
including sheriff facilities and services. Payment of the DIF fee would ensure that funds are available for
either the purchase of new equipment and/or the hiring of additional sheriff personnel to maintain the
County’s desired level of service for sheriff protection. Therefore, no new impacts related to police services
would occur.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.12, Public Services,
2017; City of Lake Elsinore FY 2020-2021 Annual Operating Budget, Accessed: http://www.lake-
elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=27115; California Department of Finance, Population and Housing
Estimates, September 2021, https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/; Lake
Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; Riverside County Sheriff’s
Department, https://www.riversidesheriff.org/743/Lake-Elsinore-Station)
c) Schools? (No New Impact.)
The project site is located within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) that is comprised of
13 elementary schools, 2 K-8 schools, 4 middle schools, and 3 high schools. The schools that serve the site
are listed below:
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 155 of 184
• Lakeland Village K8 located at 18730 Grand Avenue Lake Elsinore, approximately 3.1 miles from
the project site. Lakeside Village K8 has a capacity of approximately 1,300 students.
• Elsinore High School located at 21800 Canyon Dr, Wildomar, CA 92595, approximately 1.7 miles
from the project site. Elsinore High School has a capacity of approximately 3,425 students.
The project would develop 191 single-family residences. The LEUSD student generation rate is 0.28
students per dwelling unit for elementary school; 0.15 students per dwelling unit for middle school; and
0.20 students per dwelling unit for high school. Based on the existing capacity of the schools serving the
project site, both schools would be able to serve the project, as shown in Table PS-2.
Table PS-2: School Capacity and Project Generated Students
School
School
Capacity
2021-2022
Enrollment
Existing
Remaining
Capacity
Students
Generated by
Project
Remaining
Capacity with
Project
Lakeland Village K8 1,300 864 436 83 353
Elsinore High School 3,425 2,194 1.231 39 1,192
Source: Lake Elsinore Unified School District, School Accountability Report Cards
Additionally, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities
is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of
1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local
jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess
of fees set forth in the Government Code. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance
of building permits for development projects. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants
shall pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued;
and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts. As a result,
impacts related to school facilities would not occur with the Government Code required fee payments.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.12, Public Services,
2017; Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; Lake Elsinore
Unified School District, https://www.leusd.k12.ca.us/)
d) Parks? (No New Impact.)
The City of Lake Elsinore had approximately 559 acres of developed parks and open space within the City.
There are 16 existing park facilities totaling approximately 125.1 acres and four recreational facilities
totaling 21,000 square feet. The parks closest to the project site include the following:
• Lakepoint Park located at 420 Lakeshore Dr, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, approximately 3.4 roadway
miles from the project site. This park includes softball fields, a soccer field, tot lot, picnic facilities
and pedestrian walkways.
• Summerly Community Park located at 18505 Malaga Rd, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, approximately
2.1 roadway miles from the project site. This park includes a skate park, ball fields, picnic shelters,
a basketball court, and pedestrian walkways.
• Marna O’Brien Park located at 20505 Palomar St, Wildomar, CA 92595, approximately 1.7
roadway miles from the project site. This park includes baseball fields, soccer fields, tot lot, picnic
area, and pedestrian walkways.
The proposed project would develop 191 single-family residences and the associated amenities and
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 156 of 184
infrastructure on the site. The project includes a 48,301 square foot (1.1 acre) recreation area that would
include playground equipment, swing set, bocce ball court, fitness equipment, barbeques, overhead trellis,
turf areas, seating, sidewalks, restrooms, drinking fountains, pool and spa, shade structure, lounge chairs,
table and chairs. The City’s Municipal Code Section 17.84.120 provides park requirements that are based
on the number of dwelling units. Based on the Code’s requirement of 250 square feet of common open
space per unit, the project would require 47,750 square feet of common open space. Therefore, the project
would provide the required amount of recreational open space and a large majority of the project’s park
demand would be met by the provision of the onsite recreation area. In addition, the project would be
required to pay parkland fees pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.12.170, as a condition of the approval
of a tentative map (included as PPP PS-2), which would be used by the City for public purposes and
facilities to the benefit of the public and the residents of the City. Also, as described previously, the City
currently has over 125.1 acres of park facilities, including three parks within 3.4 miles of the project site.
Therefore, no new impacts related to the need to provide new or altered park and recreation facilities in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios would occur.
Further, the impacts of development of the proposed 48,301 square foot recreation area is considered part
of the impacts of the proposed project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this
CEQA Exemption Study. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required
for the recreation area are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and
Transportation sections.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.12, Public Services,
2017; Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011)
e) Other public services/facilities? (No New Impact.)
The proposed project would redevelop the project site with 191 single-family residences within an area is
developed with commercial and residential uses. The additional residences would result in a limited
incremental increase in the need for additional services, such as public libraries and post offices, etc.
Because the project area is already served by other services and the project would result in a limited increase
in residences, the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide
other services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no new
impacts would occur.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.12, Public Services,
2017; Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding public services. There have not been 1)
changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 157 of 184
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce impacts to school facilities from the proposed project:
PPP PS-1: Schools Development Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of building permit, the project shall
pay applicable development fees levied by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District pursuant to the
School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.407).
PPP PS-2: Park Fees. As a condition of the approval of a tentative map, the project shall pay applicable
park related fees pursuant to Municipal Code 19.12.170.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XVI. RECREATION
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that implementation of the Specific Plan development would increase population
and associated burden on parks in the area, but that residential developments would include open space and
recreation areas, which would lessen the burden on existing recreational facilities in the City. Impacts were
determined to be less than significant.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
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? (No New Impact.)
As described previously, the project would develop 191 single-family residences and a 48,301 square foot
(1.1 acre) recreation area that would include playground equipment, swing set, barbeques, overhead trellis,
turf areas, seating, sidewalks, pool and spa, , bocce ball court, fitness equipment, shade structure, lounge
chairs, tables, and chairs. The City’s Municipal Code Section 17.84.120 provides park requirements that
are based on the number of dwelling units. Based on the Code’s requirement of 250 square feet of common
open space per unit, the project would require 47,750 square feet of common open space. Therefore, the
project would provide the required amount of onsite recreational open space and a large majority of the
project’s park demand would be met by the provision of the onsite recreation area. In addition, the project
would be required to pay parkland fees pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.12.170, as a condition of
the approval of a tentative map (included as PPP PS-2), which would be used by the City for public
purposes and facilities to the benefit of the public and the residents of the City. Also, as described
previously, the City currently has over 125.1 acres of park facilities, including three parks within 3.4 miles
of the project site. Therefore, no new impacts related to the increase in the use of existing parks and
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 158 of 184
recreational facilities, such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated would occur.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.13, Recreation,
2017; Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; City of Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No New
Impact.)
As described above, the project includes a 48,301 square foot recreation area would include playground
equipment, swing set, barbeques, overhead trellis, turf areas, bocce ball court, fitness equipment, seating,
sidewalks, pool and spa, shade structure, lounge chairs, tables, and chairs. The impacts of development of
the recreation area is considered part of the impacts of the proposed project as a whole and are analyzed
throughout the various sections of this CEQA Exemption Study. For example, activities such as excavation,
grading, and construction as required for the park are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections.
In addition, while the project would contribute development impact fees pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 19.12.170 (included as PPP PS-2) to be used towards the future expansion or maintenance of parks
and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development, and the proposed
project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, no new impact would occur.
(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.13, Recreation,
2017; Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; City of Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding recreation. There have not been 1) changes
related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have
been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 159 of 184
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirement would reduce impacts to recreation facilities from the proposed project:
PPP PS-2: Park Fees. Listed previously in Section 15, Public Services.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that potential impacts related to conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system would be reduced to a
less than significant impact with implementation of a Construction Management Plan that was included as
Mitigation Measure MM TC-1.
The Final EIR determined that the recommended improvements outlined in the TIA would reduce the
impacted intersections to below the Year 2040 Adopted Specific Plan conditions and/or acceptable
conditions at ten of the eleven impacted locations. The EIR determined that improvements for the
intersection of Diamond Drive at Casino Drive/Auto Center Drive and Diamond Drive at Lakeshore
Drive/Mission Trail. The Final EIR also determined that the Specific Plan buildout may significantly impact
the level of service along 4 freeway segments (i.e. I‐15 Northbound from Baxter Road to Bundy Canyon
Road; I‐15 Northbound from Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road; I‐15 Southbound from
Railroad Canyon Road to Bundy Canyon Road; I‐15 Southbound from Bundy Canyon Road to Baxter
Road) if not improved. Thus, the Final EIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The Final EIR describes that consistent with the City General Plan, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ‐4 would
require the airport relocation or future development projects within the Project site and Skylark Airport
Influence Area be evaluated for consistency with continued operations at the airport and/or compliance
with applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding any encroachment
into the airport’s navigable airspace in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77.
Implementation MM HAZ‐4 would ensure potential impacts related to Skylark Airport would be less than
significant.
The Final EIR states that implementing development projects would be required to demonstrate consistency
with City roadway requirements for their own internal traffic flow safety and for providing safe connections
to the local roadway system. As part of the City’s plan check process, the final design and precise alignment
of all roadways and intersections would be reviewed by a licensed professional civil engineer to ensure
adequate safety to and from each new development. The Specific Plan does not include any sharp curves
or dangerous intersections in its design. Adherence to applicable existing requirements of the City and other
agencies would reduce impacts associated with this issue. In addition, the Specific Plan land uses are
compatible with existing development in the vicinity; therefore, it was determined that the Specific Plan
would not create a transportation hazard as a result of an incompatible use.
The Final EIR states that the Specific Plan area would continue to be served by RTA’s Route 8: Lake
Elsinore, Wildomar Loop Route. In addition, dedicated shuttle drop‐off point(s) and/or bus stop(s) at new
Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation facilities with connections to Malaga Drive, Lucerne
Street or Cereal Street would be required per Mitigation Measure MM AQ‐5 (see section 5.2.9, Air Quality).
The EIR also describes that bicycle trails and pedestrian circulation would be included in development of
parcels within the Specific Plan area. Thus, impacts related to transit were determined to be less than
significant.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 160 of 184
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM TC-1: Construction Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building
permit for each future implementing development project in the East Lake Specific
Plan, the applicant/developer will submit to the City for review and approval, a
Construction Management Plan (CMP) that will include measures to reduce
construction-related traffic. The CMP shall include:
1. Control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation;
2. Routes that construction vehicles will utilize to access the site;
3. Hours of construction traffic (not to occur during AM or PM peak hour);
4. Off-site vehicles staging and parking areas;
5. Proposed construction staging plan for the Project;
6. Posted onsite information for contact in case of emergency or complaint; and,
7. Hours of construction and traffic control during construction shall not interfere
with ingress/egress to and from the residential, commercial and other land uses
from each phase built and to be built-out.
Project Applicability: MM TC-1 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part
of the construction permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed
project.
MM TC-2 Roadway Improvements. Future implementing development projects in the East Lake
Specific Plan shall participate in the construction of on- and off-site intersection and street
segment improvements through payment of City of Lake Elsinore fees, and participation
in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF)
program. Improvements may include but not be limited to the construction of new
intersection(s) and/or street segment(s), street widening, striping, and signalization. Where
improvements listed below under Section ‘c.’, or other required improvements determined
under Section ‘a.’ or ‘b.’, are not covered by these programs, mitigation shall be
implemented through a fair-share contribution or as otherwise determined by the City
Engineer. The future implementing development project’s responsibility for its portion of
those improvements shall be in place prior to issuance of a building permit unless one or
more of the following scenarios occurs:
1. A new traffic study is submitted and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer
demonstrating that the identified intersection improvement is no longer needed to
maintain an acceptable LOS as determined by the City’s Traffic Engineer. (The
City’s General Plan Update allows LOS E within the Ballpark District).
2. If a programmed improvement is delayed, a new traffic study shall be submitted and
approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer identifying improvements that shall reduce
the project’s contribution to the impacted intersection, street segment or interchange.
3. Improvements shall be based on specific details provided in the Project’s TIA or new
traffic study per section “a.” and “b.” above. Planned and recommended
improvements are anticipated for the following facilities:
Internal Roadway Intersections
• Diamond Drive at Olive Street – (TIA reference Intersection 25)
• “A” Street at Olive Street – (TIA reference Intersection 26)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 161 of 184
• “A” Street at Victorian Lane – (TIA reference Intersection 27)
• “A” Street at Cereal Street – (TIA reference Intersection 25)
• Lucerne Street at Sylvester Street – (TIA reference Intersection 29)
• Stoneman Street at Cereal Street – (TIA reference Intersection 30)
Internal Roadway Segments
• Sylvester Street, between Lucerne Street and Diamond Drive – (TIA reference
Segment 27)
• Lucerne Street, between Sylvester Street and Cereal Street – (TIA reference
Segment 28)
• Cereal Street, between Lucerne Street and Stoneman Street – (TIA reference
Segment 29)
• Cereal Street between Stoneman Street and Diamond Drive – (TIA reference
Segment 30)
• Diamond Drive, between Olive Street and Cereal Street – (TIA reference
Segment 31)
External Roadway Intersections
• Railroad Canyon Road at Summerhill Road/Grape Street – (TIA reference
Intersection 1)
• Railroad Canyon Road at I-15 NB Ramps – (TIA reference Intersection 2)
• Diamond Drive at I-15 SB Ramps – (TIA reference Intersection 3)
• Diamond Drive at Auto Center Drive/Casino Drive – (TIA reference
Intersection 4)
• Lucerne Street at Lakeshore Drive – (TIA reference Intersection 5)
• Diamond Drive at Lakeshore Drive/Mission Trail – (TIA reference Intersection
6)
• Diamond Drive at Campbell Street – (TIA reference Intersection 7)
• Mission Trail at Campbell Street – (TIA reference Intersection 8)
• Diamond Drive at Malaga Road – (TIA reference Intersection 9)
• Mission Trail at Malaga Road – (TIA reference Intersection 10)
• Mission Trail at Olive Street – (TIA reference Intersection 11)
• Mission Trail at Victorian Lane – (TIA reference Intersection 12)
• Mission Trail at Lemon Street – (TIA reference Intersection 13)
• Corydon Road at Cereal Street – (TIA reference Intersection 15)
• Mission Trail at Bundy Canyon Road – (TIA reference Intersection 16)
• Orange Street at Bundy Canyon Road – (TIA reference Intersection 17)
• I-15 SB Ramps at Bundy Canyon Road – (TIA reference Intersection 18)
• I-15 NB Ramps at Bundy Canyon Road – (TIA reference Intersection 19)
• Corydon Road at Palomar Street – (TIA reference Intersection 20)
• Mission Trail at Palomar Street – (TIA reference Intersection 21)
• Stoneman Street at Grand Avenue – (TIA reference Intersection 22)
• Corydon Road at Grand Avenue – (TIA reference Intersection 23)
• Grape Street at I-15 NB Ramps – (TIA reference
Intersection 24)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 162 of 184
External Roadway Segments
• Lucerne Street, south of Lakeshore Drive – (TIA reference Segment 3)
• Mission Trail, between Diamond Drive and Campbell Street– (TIA reference
Segment 7)
• Mission Trail, between Campbell Street and Malaga Road– (TIA reference
Segment 8)
• Mission Trail, between Malaga Road and Olive Street– (TIA reference
Segment 12)
• Olive Street, between Mission Trail and Grape Street– (TIA reference
Segment 13)
• Mission Trail, between Olive Street and Victorian Lane– (TIA reference
Segment 14)
• Mission Trail, between Victorian Lane and Lemon Street– (TIA reference
Segment 15)
• Corydon Road, between Mission Trail and Cereal Street– (TIA reference
Segment 17)
• Cereal Street, west of Corydon Road– (TIA reference Segment 18)
• Bundy Canyon Road, between Mission Trail and I-15 SB Ramps– (TIA
reference Segment 20)
• Corydon Road, between Cereal Street and Palomar Street– (TIA reference
Segment 21)
• Stoneman Street, north of Grand Avenue– (TIA reference Segment 24)
• Corydon Road, between Palomar Street and Grand Avenue– (TIA reference
Segment 26)
• Bundy Canyon Road, between Corydon Road and Mission Trail– (TIA
reference Segment 32)
Caltrans Facilities
• I-15 Northbound Off-Ramp to Grape Street – (TIA reference 1)
• I-15 Northbound On-Ramp from Grape Street – (TIA reference 2)
• I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp to Railroad Canyon Road – (TIA reference 3)
• I-15 Southbound On-Ramp from Railroad Canyon Road – (TIA reference 4)
• I-15 Southbound from Railroad Canyon Road to Bundy Canyon Road – (TIA
reference 5)
• I-15 Southbound from Bundy Canyon Road to Baxter Road – (TIA reference
6)
Project Applicability: MM TC-2 is applicable to the proposed project and the applicable improvements
would be implemented as part of the construction permitting process. This measure would be included in
the MMRP for the proposed project.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis included in Appendix K. The project’s
vehicular trips were calculated using the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 2021).
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 163 of 184
Traffic Thresholds
City of Lake Elsinore. The City of Lake Elsinore 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. An addition of Project traffic that degrades operations from LOS D or better
to LOS E or worse or increases delay on a facility operating at LOS D or worse will be considered deficient
and would need to identify an improvement to return to LOS D or better. However, automobile delay, as
described solely by LOS or similar measure of traffic congestion, is no longer considered a significant
impact under CEQA, except in locations specifically identified in the Guidelines. (Pub. Resources Code, §
21099(b)(2).) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 - Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts
states that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and
provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for
evaluating VMT. Thus, the LOS analysis using a threshold of LOS D is provided to describe the project
effect on local intersections and project consistency with the General Plan circulation requirement.
City of Wildomar. Several of the traffic study intersections are within the City of Wildomar. The City of
Wildomar General Plan Mobility Element identifies LOS D as the threshold for all Mobility Element
roadways and intersections, with the exception of Clinton Keith Road, between Hidden Spring Road and I-
15 Northbound Ramps, where LOS E would be acceptable due to right-of-way constraints, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
Traffic Study Area and Existing Conditions
The following eight intersections, where the project has the potential to add 50-trips or more during any
peak hour, were evaluated for impacts related to the project:
1. Mission Trail and Project Dwy (Proposed -TWSC) (City of Lake Elsinore/City of Wildomar)
2. Mission Trail and Lemon St (Existing – Signalized) (City of Lake Elsinore/City of Wildomar)
3. Mission Trail and Corydon Rd (Existing – Signalized) (City of Lake Elsinore/City of Wildomar)
4. Mission Trail and Bundy Canyon Rd (Existing – Signalized) (City of Wildomar)
5. Almond St and Bundy Canyon Rd (Existing – AWSC) (City of Wildomar)
6. Orange St and Bundy Canyon Rd (Existing – Signalized) (City of Wildomar)
7. I-15 SB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd (Existing – Signalized) (Caltrans)
8. I-15 NB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd (Existing – Signalized) (Caltrans)
As shown in Table T-1, the intersection of Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road currently operates at
LOS E during the PM peak hour, which is considered an unsatisfactory condition per City criteria.
Table T-1: Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak PM Peak Threshold of
Significance Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Mission Trail and Project Dwy TWSC - - - - D
2. Mission Trail and Lemon St Signal 6.9 A 6.9 A D
3. Mission Trail and Corydon Rd Signal 18.7 B 17.8 B D
4. Mission Trail and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 20.2 C 24.1 C D
5. Almond St and Bundy Canyon Rd AWSC 10.8 B 12.3 B D
6. Orange St and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 94.1 F 60.6 E D
7. I-15 SB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 18.9 B 21.0 C D
8. I-15 NB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 15.3 B 17.5 B D
= Unsatisfactory Level of Service TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control AWSC = All-Way Stop Control Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 164 of 184
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (No New Impact.)
The proposed project would develop the project site with 191 residences and recreation/open space
facilities. The trip generation for the project was calculated using trip rates from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 11th Edition, 2021. As shown in Table T-2, the project would
generate approximately 1,801 daily trips including 134 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 180 trips during
the p.m. peak hour.
Table T-2: Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Single-Family Detached Housing1 DU 9.43 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94
Project Trip Generation
Single-Family Detached Housing 191 DU 1,801 35 99 134 114 66 180
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K
Opening Year Plus Project Conditions
An intersection operations analysis was conducted for the study area to evaluate the opening year a.m. and
p.m. peak hour conditions with operation of the proposed project. The opening year traffic forecasts were
developed by applying an annual growth rate of 2% to 2022 traffic volumes. As the proposed project is
expected to be complete by 2024, two years of growth was applied to existing counts, plus the project
generated trips.
As shown in Table T-3, the Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road intersection would operate at
unsatisfactory LOS F during and a.m. peak hour and an unsatisfactory LOS E during the p.m. peak hour.
The LOS at Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road delay would increase by 2.9 seconds in the a.m. peak
hour and by 2.0 seconds in the p.m. peak hour.
Table T-3: Opening Year Plus Project Peak Hour Level of Service
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak PM Peak Threshold
of
Significance Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2
1. Mission Trail and Project Dwy TWSC 12.0 B 12.1 B D
2. Mission Trail and Lemon St Signal 8.2 A 8.1 A D
3. Mission Trail and Corydon Rd Signal 17.8 B 15.8 B D
4. Mission Trail and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 16.9 B 20.7 C D
5. Almond St and Bundy Canyon Rd AWSC 11.5 B 13.6 B D
6. Orange St and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 92.1 F 63.5 E D
7. I-15 SB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 23.7 C 31.7 C D
8. I-15 NB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 17.1 B 25.8 C D
=Unsatisfactory Level of Service TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control AWSC = All-Way Stop Control
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K
To improve operating conditions at the intersection of Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road, consistent
with the Final EIR Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Section 9.3.2 and the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
Mitigation Measure MM TC-2, the southbound approach of Orange Street would be widened and/or
restriped to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through-right-turn lane. After the installation
of the improvement, the intersection of Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road would operate at a
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 165 of 184
satisfactory LOS C in the a.m. peak hours and a satisfactory LOS B during the p.m. peak hours, as shown
in Table T-4.
Table T-4: Opening Year Plus Project with Improvement Peak Hour Level of Service
Intersection
Existing Project Completion
Project Completion with
Improvement
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
6. Orange St and
Bundy Canyon Rd 94.1 F 60.6 E 92.1 F 63.5 E 20.2 C 18.5 B
=Unsatisfactory
Level of Service
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K
Opening Year Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions
The traffic volumes of opening year plus project and cumulative projects scenario were developed by
applying an ambient growth rate of two percent per year to the existing (2022) traffic volumes and adding
traffic generated by the proposed project and also by adding the traffic generated by 14 cumulative
(approved and not yet built and those under review) development projects within the Cities of Lake Elsinore
and Wildomar.
As shown in Table T-5, the intersection of Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road would operate at an
unsatisfactory LOS F during the a.m. peak hour, unsatisfactory LOS E during the p.m. peak hour; and the
intersection of I-15 Southbound Ramps and Bundy Canyon Road would operate at unsatisfactory LOS F
during the p.m. peak hour in the Opening Year Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions.
Table T-5: Opening Year Plus Project Plus Cumulative Peak Hour Level of Service
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak PM Peak Threshold of
Significance Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2
1. Mission Trail and Project Dwy TWSC 14.1 B 17.6 C D
2. Mission Trail and Lemon St Signal 14.6 B 21.9 C D
3. Mission Trail and Corydon Rd Signal 19.8 B 18.5 B D
4. Mission Trail and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 18.3 B 24.5 C D
5. Almond St and Bundy Canyon Rd AWSC 13.1 B 19.5 C D
6. Orange St and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 86.2 F 59.9 E D
7. I-15 SB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 54.5 D 123.6 F D
8. I-15 NB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 21.5 C 40.4 D D
=Unsatisfactory Level of Service TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control AWSC = All-Way Stop Control
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K
As described previously, to improve the cumulative operating conditions at the intersection of Orange Street
and Bundy Canyon Road, consistent with the Final EIR Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Section 9.3.2 and
the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measure MM TC-2, the southbound approach of Orange
Street would be widened and/or restriped to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through-right-
turn lane. After the installation of the improvement, Table T-6 shows that the intersection of Orange Street
and Bundy Canyon Road would operate at a satisfactory LOS C during the a.m. peak hours and a
satisfactory LOS B during the p.m. peak hours.
For the intersection I-15 SB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Road, the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 166 of 184
included measures that the southbound approach be widened and/or restriped to provide two exclusive left-
turn lanes and a shared through-right-turn lane. Table T-6 shows that after the installation of the
improvement, the intersection would operate at a satisfactory LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and a
satisfactory LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. Thus, with implementation of the previously planned
improvements, operation of the intersections would be within the City’s LOS thresholds.
Table T-6: Opening Year Plus Project Plus Cumulative with Improvements Peak Hour Level of
Service
Intersection
Cumulative Cumulative IMP
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
6. Orange St / Bundy Canyon Rd 86.2 F 59.9 E 20.2 C 18.5 B
7. I-15 SB Ramps / Bundy Canyon Rd
with General Plan EIR TIA Improvement 54.5 D 123.6 F 28.8 C 43.6 D
=Unsatisfactory Level of Service
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control
AWSC = All-Way Stop Control
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K
Transit Services. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides 36 local fixed-routes services that connect
local communities, nine Commuter Link express bus routes, and a Rapid Link Gold Line for long-distance
commuters traveling to Metrolink, Coaster and Sprinter stations, business parks, shopping malls and
regional transit facilities. Bus routes that run through the City include RTA routes 8, 9, 22, 40, 205/206 that
serve major destinations in the region.
RTA Route 8 is the closest to the project site and runs along Mission Trail with stops near the Lewis Street
cross street. Route 8 runs from the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center south to Wildomar. It operates Monday
through Friday from 4:40 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on weekends from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with one-hour
headways. These existing transit services would serve project residents. The proposed 191 residences would
not alter or conflict with existing transit stops and schedules, and impacts related to transit services would
not occur.
Bicycle Circulation. Class II bicycle facilities are striped lanes that provide bike travel and can be located
next to a curb or parking lane and vary between 4 and 5 feet wide. There are no existing Class II bicycle
facilities on Mission Trail adjacent to the project site. The proposed project includes half-width roadway
improvements to Mission Trail that would add a Class II bicycle lane. The proposed bicycle lane is
consistent with the General Plan proposed bicycle facilities and would provide bicycle transportation
opportunities for residents of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with, existing
bicycle facilities. Thus, no new impacts related to bicycle facilities would occur from the project
Pedestrian Facilities. There is no existing sidewalk next to the project site along Mission Trail. The
proposed project would provide onsite sidewalks throughout the project site and a new sidewalk along the
project site frontage of Mission Trail as part of the half-width roadway improvements included in the
proposed project. This would facilitate pedestrian use and walking to nearby locations. Therefore, the
proposed project would improve, and not conflict with, pedestrian facilities. Thus, no new impacts related
to pedestrian facilities would occur.
(Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K)
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? (No New Impact.)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 167 of 184
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for
evaluating transportation impacts. SB743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land
uses. The bill also specified that delay-based level of service could no longer be considered an indicator of
a significant impact on the environment. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines
beginning January 1, 2019. Section 15064.3(c) states that the provisions of the section shall apply statewide
beginning on July 1, 2020.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 - Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts states that
VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and provides lead agencies with the
discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for evaluating VMT. The City of
Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service
Assessment (June 2020) provides the following VMT screening criteria from Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG) to assess the potential for VMT impacts:
1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: Projects which are located within a TPA are presumed to
have a less than significant impact on VMT. The project site and surrounding areas are designated
by the General Plan for single-family residential uses, which are not transit priority areas. Thus, the
project does not meet this screening threshold.
2. Low VMT Area Screening: This screening threshold applies to residential or office projects that are
located within a low VMT-generating area, which are identified by WRCOG as traffic analysis zones
(TAZ) where total daily VMT per service population performs at or below the jurisdictional average
of total VMT per service population under base year (2012) conditions. Projects which are located
within a low VMT-generating area are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. The
project site is not mapped by WRCOG as being within a low VMT area, and therefore, any
development on the project site would not meet this screening threshold.
3. Project Type Screening: Local serving projects listed in the TIA Guidelines and projects that generate
fewer than 110 net new daily vehicle trips (or 11 single-family residences) are presumed to have a
less than significant impact on VMT. Also, projects that generate less than 3,000 MTCO2e per year
are considered to have a less than significant impact related to VMT. As shown previously on Table
GHG-2, operation of 191 residences would generate approximately 2,640 MTCO2e per year, plus
the amortized construction emissions of 24 MTCO2e would equal 2,663 MTCO2e per year, which
would be below the screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the project would
have a less than significant impact on VMT, and the proposed project would not result in a new
impact related to VMT.
(Sources: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, Appendix L)
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (No New Impact.)
The project includes development of residences and recreation facilities and open space. The project
includes community type uses and does not include any incompatible uses, such as farm equipment. The
proposed project would be accessed from Mission Trail through a gated driveway that has been designed
to City standards that would be verified during construction permitting. To ensure that residential vehicle
queues do not back up into the public right of way, a queuing analysis was prepared based on the arrival
rate and the average service rate to determine the number of vehicles that would be queued behind the
access gates.
The project would result in five passenger vehicles entering the Mission Trail driveway and 30 passenger
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 168 of 184
vehicles entering the Lemon Street driveway during the a.m. peak hour; and 17 passenger vehicles entering
the Mission Trail driveway and 97 passenger vehicles entering the Lemon Street driveway during the p.m.
peak hour. The specific gate to be used has not been confirmed; therefore, a conservative estimate of 25
seconds to open or close was used. A two second clearance time was assumed for the passenger vehicles to
enter the gate, which brings the total entry time per vehicle to 27 seconds. Utilizing this information, a
service rate of 133 passenger vehicles per hour would occur from the number of vehicles entering the site
during the p.m. peak hour, which generates the most inbound trips. Table T-7 shows that this would result
in a traffic intensity of 0.13 at the Mission Trail gate and a traffic intensity of 0.73 at the Lemon Street gate.
Table T-7: Gate Closed PM Peak Hour Traffic Intensity Calculation
Hour of Highest
Inbound Volume
Average Arrival
Rate
Average Service
Rate
Traffic Intensity1
Mission Trail Gate 17 133 0.13
Lemon Street Gate 97 133 0.73
1 Traffic Intensity = Average Arrival Rate ÷ Average Service Rate.
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L
The traffic intensity of 0.13 for the Mission Trail gate would correspond to a negligible car reservoir
queuing using the 95th percentile; therefore, one-car length would be expected. The traffic intensity of 0.73
for the Lemon Street gate would correspond to a three-car reservoir queuing at a given point of time during
the peak hours using the 95th percentile.
The proposed Mission Trail driveway provides a storage length of 100 feet from the access gate to Mission
Trail, and the proposed Lemon Street driveway provides a storage length of 120 feet (on the right-turn lane
meant for the project driveway 2 entrance) between the driveway and the intersection of Mission Trail and
Lemon Street. These storage lengths would be able to accommodate a queue of approximately four
passenger vehicles and five passenger vehicles respectively. Therefore, the proposed driveway and gate
design would be able to accommodate the queueing from the project, and no hazards related to a
driveway/gate access feature would occur.
The proposed onsite roadway would provide access to each residence and would be developed in
conformance with City design standards. The City’s construction permitting process includes review of
project plans to ensure that no potentially hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by
the project. For example, the design of the project street and driveway would be reviewed to ensure fire
engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, no new impacts
related to vehicular circulation design features would occur.
(Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K)
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (No New Impact.)
Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur
within the project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the project site or adjacent
areas. The installation of the driveway, and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be
implemented during construction of the proposed project could require the temporary closure of one lane
of Mission Trail. However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in
accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9),
which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the project through
the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and that no new impacts
related to construction emergency access would occur.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 169 of 184
Operation
As described previously, the proposed project area would be accessed from a driveway along Mission Trail
through the onsite street to each residence. The design and permitting of these roadways would provide
adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the project are and would provide more than one route
for emergency responders to access different portions of the project area. Because the project is required to
comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City, no new impacts related to inadequate
emergency access would occur.
(Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding transportation. There have not been 1)
changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce the potential for impacts related to transportation:
PPP HAZ-1: Fire Code. The project shall conform to the California Fire Code (Title 24, California
Code of Regulations, Part 9), as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56, Fire Code.
Specifically, Section 503 of the California Fire Code provides regulations related to emergency access.
Mitigation Measures: East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM TC-1 and MM TC-2
for transportation, which are listed previously, are applicable to the proposed project and would be included
in the project MMRP to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure MM TC-2 includes payment of fees
for the previously identified/planned roadway improvements.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that the quantity of known cultural resources and their mapped locations suggest
intensive prehistoric occupation along past manifestations of the lake shoreline. Likewise, the lake and its
immediate surroundings are within an area considered to be a Traditional Cultural Property to the Luiseños.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 170 of 184
As a result, the EIR determined that the Specific Plan area has a cultural resource sensitivity of High.
Therefore, the Final EIR included Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 though MM CUL-11 to reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-9, and MM CUL-11. Listed previously in Section
V, Cultural Resources.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey prepared for the proposed project by Brian
F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (Appendix D). The Phase I Cultural Resources Survey includes a records
search, Sacred Land File search, historic archival research, and a field survey.
AB 52 Requirements
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for
California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources”
with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead
agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological
resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead
agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice
of Exemption or Addendum.
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). (No New Impact.)
As detailed previously in Section V, Cultural Resources, the project site does not include any resources
that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources. The records search for the project identified resources within 1-mile of the project
site that include prehistoric lithic scatter and isolates. The project site has been highly disturbed from past
activities and the Geotechnical Investigation describes that the project site is underlain by three feet of
artificial fill. Excavation and grading for the proposed project is anticipated to be limited to 3 feet below
the existing ground for excavation and compaction of the existing fill soils. However, the Phase I Cultural
Resources Survey determined that due to the location of the site near the lake and previous local finds of
resources, that archaeological monitoring pursuant to Mitigation Measures CUL-3 through CUL-9 would
be required. This is consistent with the findings of the Final EIR. Therefore, no new impacts would occur
from the project.
(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E and Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix
D)
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe. (No New Impact.)
As described in the previous response, no known tribal cultural resources are known to exist on the project
site. The records search for the project identified resources within 1-mile of the project site that include
prehistoric lithic scatter and isolates. The project site has been highly disturbed from past activities and the
Geotechnical Investigation describes that the project site is underlain by three feet of artificial fill.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 171 of 184
Excavation and grading for the proposed project is anticipated to be limited to 3 feet below the existing
ground for excavation and compaction of the existing fill soils. However, the Phase I Cultural Resources
Survey determined that due to the location of the site near the lake and previous local finds of resources,
that archaeological monitoring pursuant to Mitigation Measures CUL-3 through CUL-9 would be
required. This is consistent with the findings of the Final EIR. Therefore, no new impacts would occur from
the project.
(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E and Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix
D)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding tribal cultural resources. There have not
been 1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures for cultural resources,
as detailed previously are applicable to the proposed project and would be included in the project MMRP
to ensure implementation.
No new mitigation measures are required.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that compliance with conditions or permit requirements established by the City
would ensure that discharges into the wastewater treatment facility system from the operation of the future
implementing development projects would not exceed applicable Santa Ana RWQCB wastewater treatment
requirements. Therefore, no significant impact related to wastewater treatment requirements would occur
and no mitigation would be required.
The Final EIR describes that development within the Specific Plan area would result in the conversion of
vacant land into developed land that would increase the amount of impervious surface area. Local drainage
systems would be designed, sized for capacity, and constructed and/or connected to existing systems to
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 172 of 184
service new development. Given this assessment, the Final EIR determined that potential impacts upon the
capacity of storm water drainage facilities would be less than significant.
Based on the information and analyses contained in the WSA, which is summarized in the Final EIR, it is
concluded that EVMWD’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple
dry water years during a 20‐year projection would be sufficient to meet the projected water demand
associated with the Specific Plan. Therefore, potential impacts that would require new or expanded
entitlements in order to supply sufficient water to the project would be less than significant.
The Final EIR also describes that the increase in development allowed under the Specific Plan would require
increases in the availability and adequacy of electrical, natural gas and telecommunications services.
Compliance with the goals, policies and implementation programs in the City’s General Plan and with
applicable federal, state, regional and local regulations and programs would reduce potential impacts on
electrical, natural gas and telecommunications service to a less than significant level.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed 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? No New Impact.
Water Infrastructure. The proposed project would redevelop the project site, which is served by Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). Water is not currently provided to the project site as it is
vacant and undeveloped. The proposed project would install onsite 8-inch water lines that would serve each
of the proposed residences and would connect to the existing water line within Mission Trail. The new
onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed residences and landscaping through
plumbing/landscape features that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code for efficient use of water.
The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the
proposed residences and associated open space areas is included as part of the proposed project and would
not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this CEQA Exemption
Study. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is
included in Sections III, Air Quality and VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and no new impacts would occur.
Wastewater Infrastructure. EVMWD would provide wastewater treatment services to the project site
through an existing sewer line within Mission Trail. The project would install an 8-inch sewer line that
would serve each of the proposed residences and connect with the existing offsite h sewer line within the
Mission Trail right-of-way. The construction activities related to installation of the onsite sewer
infrastructure that would serve the proposed project, is included as part of the proposed project and would
not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this CEQA Exemption
Study. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is
included in Section III, Air Quality and VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these
activities are evaluated in Section XIII, Noise. As the proposed project includes facilities to serve the
proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities
or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, no new
impacts would occur.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 173 of 184
Stormwater Drainage. The project includes installation of an onsite stormwater drainage system that
would convey onsite runoff to catch basins and bio-treatment units and be routed to an underground
detention basin that would treat and discharge runoff. The construction activities related to installation of
onsite stormwater drainage that would serve the proposed project, is included as part of the proposed project
and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this CEQA
Exemption Study. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the stormwater
infrastructure is included in Section III, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, drainage changes
are analyzed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, and noise volumes from these activities are
evaluated in Section XIII, Noise. As the proposed project includes facilities to serve the proposed
development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new stormwater drainage facilities or
expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, no new
impacts would occur.
Electricity, Natural Gas, & Telecommunications. Southern California Edison provides electricity to the
project site and Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to the project site via existing utility
lines in Mission Trail. Spectrum provides telephone service to the project site and Cox Communications
provides cable and internet to the project site. The proposed project would install onsite infrastructure that
would connect to the existing service systems. The construction activities related to installation of onsite
electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications that would serve the proposed project, is included as part
of the proposed project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified
throughout this CEQA Exemption Study. For example, construction emissions for excavation and
installation of the infrastructure is included in Section III, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section XIII, Noise. As the proposed project
includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of
other new infrastructure facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. Therefore, no new impacts would occur.
(Sources: Project Site Plans)
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (No New Impact.)
The proposed project would result in an increased demand for water supplies from the 140 residential units.
The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
details that in 2020 the water demand in the City for residential uses was 129 gallons per day per capita,
which was below the water use target of 188.6 gallons per day per capita. To provide a conservative estimate
of project water use, a generation rate of 188.6 gallons per capita per day was used to estimate water demand
from the proposed project. As described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed project
would result in 688 additional residents at full occupancy. Based on the City’s 2020 water use target of
188.6 gallons per capita per day, the 688 additional residents would generate a water demand of 129,757
gallons per day (145.35 acre-feet per year). The project would limit water demand by inclusion of low-flow
plumbing and irrigation fixtures, pursuant to the California Title 24 requirements, and by reusing treated
rainwater to irrigate the park area, as detailed in the Project Description.
The EVMWD’s 2020 UWMP estimates water supply increase to 47,219 AFY and total water demand of
38,932 AFY in 2025, as shown in Table UT-1. The project’s demand of 145.35 acre-feet equates to 0.4
percent of projected water demand in 2025, and 1.8 percent of the projected difference in supply and
demand in 2025. Therefore, the City would have water supplies available to serve the project. Furthermore,
because the project’s residential uses are consistent with the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land
use designations for the site, which are used to project future water demands, the demand from the project
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 174 of 184
is included in the UWMP demand projections listed in Table UT-1.
Table UT-1: Urban Water Management Plan Projections
Water
Supply
Additional Detail on
Water Supply
Projected Water Supply (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Purchased or
imported
water
Western/Metropolitan1 26,286 26,286 26,286 26,286 26,286
Purchased or
imported
water
Raw Imported Water
Western/Metropolitan1,2 0 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700
Groundwater Elsinore Valley
Subbasin3 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
Groundwater Coldwater Subbasin3 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Groundwater Bedford Subbasin3 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300
Groundwater Lee Lake Subbasin3 875 875 875 875 875
Groundwater Palomar Well
Replacement3 450 450 450 450 450
Groundwater Temecula-Pauba GW3 0 0 750 750 750
Surface
Water Canyon Lake/CLWTP4 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Other IPR at Regional WRF5 0 0 0 940 1,970
Recycled
Water
Temescal Wash & Lake
Elsinore
Replenishment5
7,270 8,027 8,863 8,960 8,960
Recycled
Water Metered Customers6 1,459 1,459 1,459 1,459 1,459
Recycled
Water
Canyon Lake and
Summerly Golf
Course6
378 378 378 378 378
Total Projected Supply7: 47,219 51,675 53,261 54,298 55,328
Total Projected Demand: 38,932 41,994 45,313 48,085 50,967
1Imported water will be used to fill the gaps will be based on the availability of local supplies. There is no total right or safe yield. EVMWD
can purchase more water at an additional charge.
2 Starting in 2026, EVMWD plans to start purchasing about 3,700 AFY of raw imported water from Western/Metropolitan for treatment at the
CLWTP.
3 The safe yield for the groundwater subbasins will be established with their respective GSPs.
4 In settlement of litigation, EVMWD agreed not to treat more than 8,000 AFY of San Jacinto River flows in any water year at EVMWD’s
CLWTP. This 8,000 AFY limit applies only to San Jacinto River runoff and excludes any imported water conveyed in the river channel.
5 In accordance with its NPDES permit, EVMWD is permitted to discharging 0.5 MGD to Temescal Wash and 7.5 MGD to Lake Elsinore.
EVMWD is planning to use excess wastewater collected at the Regional WRF to implement an IPR project. It is anticipated that this water will
be available between 2035 and 2040.
6 Includes recycled water produced by the three EVMWD WRFs and recycled water from SRRRA and Eastern.
7 The total right or safe yield were not calculated because the groundwater safe yields are being updated as part of the GSP projects.
Source: EVMWD 2020 UWMP
The EVMWD 2020 UWMP details the available supply, including groundwater, surface water, imported
water, and recycled water would meet the projected demand during normal, single dry and multiple dry
years. Therefore, no new impacts related to water supplies from the proposed project would occur.
(Sources: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District,
May 2021, https://www.evmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/2233/637571268195170000)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 175 of 184
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments? (No New Impact.)
EVMWD operates and maintains sewer collection pipes in the project area that feed into EVMWD’s trunk
sewers that convey wastewater to the Regional Water Reclamation Facility that has a regular capacity of
8.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and is going through an expansion to provide an additional 4 MGD of
treatment capacity.
Based on EVMWD’s wastewater generation rate of 878 gallons per day per acre for medium high density
residential (higher than 6 du/ac and below 12 du/ac), the proposed project would generate approximately
15,804 gallons per day over the 16.98-acre site. The project generated 15,804 gallons per day is within the
4 MGD of additional capacity that is being developed within the Regional Water Reclamation Facility.
Therefore, no new impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would occur.
(Sources: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District,
May 2021, https://www.evmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/2233/637571268195170000;
EVMWD, 2016 Sewer System Master Plan, August 2016,
https://www.evmwd.com/home/showdocument?id=1773)
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? (No New
Impact.)
In 2019, approximately 92 percent of the solid waste from the City of Lake Elsinore, which was disposed
of in landfills, went to the El Sobrante Landfill. The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to accept 16,054 tons
per day of solid waste and is permitted to operate through 2051. In May 2022, a maximum of 13,291 tons
in a day was disposed at the El Sobrante Landfill, which provides for a remaining capacity of 2,763 tons
per day.
Construction
Project construction would generate solid waste in the form of packaging and discarded materials. Section
5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction activities to
recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus,
the demolition and construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately
35 percent of the waste generated. As project construction does not require demolition of any structure,
solid waste generated would be limited in comparison to operation wastes. As described above, the El
Sobrante Landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,763 tons per day. Therefore, the facility
would be able to accommodate the limited construction waste generated by the project, and no new impacts
would occur.
Operation
The CalEEMod solid waste generation rate for single-family residential land use is 0.41 tons per resident
per year. As described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, full occupancy of the proposed project
would generate approximately 688 new residents. Thus, operation of the project would generate
approximately 282.08 tons per solid waste per year; or 5.43 tons per week.
However, at least 75 percent of the solid waste is required by AB 341 to be recycled, which would reduce
the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 1.4 tons per week. As the El Sobrante Landfill has
additional capacity of approximately 2,763 tons per day, the solid waste generated by the project would be
within the capacity of the landfill. Thus, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 176 of 184
permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs and the project would not
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. No new impacts related to landfill capacity would
occur.
(Sources: CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System Facility/Site Search. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/; CalRecycle Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative
Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility (ca.gov). Accessed:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste? No New Impact.
The proposed project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid
waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City is subject to the requirements set forth in Section
5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction
activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition
waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste.
Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through
the City’s development project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with all
solid waste statute and regulations; and no new impacts would not occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding utilities and service systems. There have
not been 1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major
revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of
substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not
known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures:
No new mitigation measures are required.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 177 of 184
XX. WILDFIRES
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR describes that wildfire susceptibility in the Specific Plan area is low, with some areas having
moderate susceptibility on the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area and some areas showing moderate
to very high susceptibility within and adjacent to the southern edge of the Specific Plan area. The Final EIR
included Mitigation Measure MM HAZ‐5 that requires development projects to implement, as necessary,
on‐going brush clearance, the establishment of low fuel landscaping policies to reduce combustible
vegetation along the urban/wildland interface boundary, create fuel modification zones around development
within high hazard areas by thinning or clearing combustible vegetation within 100 feet of buildings and
structures, and using fuel resistant building techniques. The Final EIR determined that with implementation
MM HAZ‐5, impacts would be less than significant.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-5. Listed previously in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Project Applicability: MM HAZ-5 is applicable to the proposed residential project and would be
implemented as part of the approval process.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The discussion below is based on CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping of the project site and
vicinity.
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (No New Impact.)
According to the CalFire Hazard Severity Zone map, the project site is not within a high fire hazard zone.
The project site is vacant and moderately covered with vegetation. The project site is adjacent to residences,
roadways, commercial uses, and developed areas within the urban environment. The project site is not
within or adjacent to any wildland areas. Also, as described previously, the proposed onsite street system
would meet City design standards for emergency access. Permitting of the onsite circulation would provide
adequate and safe circulation through the project area for emergency responders. Because the project is not
located within a high fire hazard zone and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified
by the City, no new impacts related to wildfire emergency response or evacuation would occur.
(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (No New Impact.)
The project site is generally flat and does not contain or adjacent to slopes. The project site is adjacent to a
roadway, residences, and developed areas. The project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas, and as
determined by the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, the project site is not within a high fire hazard
zone. There are no factors on or adjacent to the project site that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Thus, no
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 178 of 184
new impacts related to other factors that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would occur from the project.
(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (No Impact.)
As described previously, the project site is not within a wildfire hazard zone. The project does not include
any infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks. In addition, the project would provide internal streets
and fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) that conform to the California Fire Code
requirements, included as Municipal Code Chapter 8.16, as verified through the City’s permitting process.
Therefore, no new impacts related to infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risks would occur with the
proposed project.
(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes? (No Impact.)
As described previously, the project site is not within a wildfire hazard zone. In addition, the
project site is relatively flat and adjacent to flat areas. There are no slope or hillsides that would
become unstable. In addition, the project would install onsite drainage that would convey runoff
to a water quality basin on the project site. Therefore, no new impacts related to flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would not occur
from the proposed project.
(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding wildfires. There have not been 1) changes
related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 179 of 184
Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have
been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measure: MM HAZ-5. Listed previously in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.
No new mitigation measures are required.
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts from potential overlapping construction activities from various development projects
and from overlapping construction and operational activities after implementation of mitigation measures.
The Final EIR also determined that greenhouse gas emissions would be significant and unavoidable. The
Final EIR determined that temporary construction related noise may result in noise levels in excess of City
standards and/or a potential substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels resulting in a temporary
significant noise impact. The Final EIR also determined that traffic noise and action sports activities may
increase ambient noise levels resulting in a significant impact.
have limited potential to degrade the quality of the environment and would not significantly affect the
environment or result in individually limited but cumulatively considerable impacts with implementation
of the previously listed mitigation measures. In addition, the Final EIR determined that implementation of
the Specific Plan would not have the potential to significantly adversely affect humans, either directly or
indirectly with implementation of the previously listed mitigation measures. In addition, the Final EIR
determined that traffic generated from buildout of the Specific Plan would result in significant impacts to
intersections.
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM AES-1: Listed in Section I, Aesthetics.
MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-5: Listed in Section III, Air Quality.
MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-10: Listed in Section IV, Biological Resources.
MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-11: Listed in Section V, Cultural Resources.
MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-12: Listed in Section VII, Geology and soils.
MM GHG-1: Listed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-5: Listed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 180 of 184
MM HWQ-1 through MM HWQ-8: Listed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.
MM NOI-1 through MM NOI-6: Listed in Section XIII, Noise.
MM TC-1 and MM TC-2: Listed in Section XVII, Transportation.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA and
Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (No New
Impact.)
As described in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project site consists of disturbed, ruderal habitat and
disturbed areas that do not provide habitat for sensitive plant or animal species, including burrowing owl.
Because the project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP burrowing owl survey
area, a 30-day preconstruction survey is required prior to the commencement of project activities (e.g.
vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering) to ensure that no owls have
colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding project activities. This requirement is consistent with East
Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM BIO-5 and MM BIO-7. Therefore, no sensitive
species would be impacted by the project, and no new impacts would occur.
As described in Section V, Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any buildings or structures
that meet any of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) criteria or qualify as
“historical resources” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Also, due to previous ground-disturbance
activities and absence of bedrock and dependable water sources at the site no new impacts to important
examples of California prehistory would occur from the project.
(Sources: General Biological Assessment, Appendix B; Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix D)
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)? (No New Impact.)
The project would develop 191 single-family residences with recreation, open space, and associated
infrastructure and amenities on a site that was planned for such uses within an urban area. The cumulative
effect of the proposed project taken into consideration with other development projects in the area would
be limited, because the project would develop the site in consistency with the General Plan land use
designation, Specific Plan designation, and municipal code. As described by the City’s General Plan EIR
Section 6.1, Growth Inducement and Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts, which includes development of the
project site pursuant to the existing land use designations, buildout of the General Plan is anticipated to
provide direction for future growth and facilitate development. As described herein, the project site has a
General Plan land use designation of East Lake District Specific Plan and an East Lake Specific Plan
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 181 of 184
designation of Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation with a Mixed Use Overlay that allows
for a variety of residential types up to a density of 18 units per net acre. The project would result in 11.3
units per net acre, which is within the growth projections of the General Plan, and the cumulative impacts
of which have been identified in the General Plan EIR.
Also, as described above, all of the potential impacts related to implementation of the project would be less
than significant or reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the East Lake Specific
Plan Final EIR mitigation measures that would be imposed by the City and would effectively reduce
environmental impacts. The project would not result in any new substantial effects to any environmental
resource topic that could become cumulatively significant.
As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook methodology describes
that any projects that result in daily emissions that exceed any of these thresholds would have both an
individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant air quality impact. If estimated emissions are less
than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant. As shown in Tables AQ-2 and AQ-
4, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed project would not
exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project were
also modeled using CalEEMod and are summarized in Table AQ-3, which shows that the proposed project
would result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s
applicable thresholds. Therefore, the project’s operational emissions would not exceed the NAAQS and
CAAQS, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and
operational impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, global climate change occurs as the result of
global emissions of GHGs. An individual development project does not have the potential to result in direct
and significant global climate change effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs. The project’s
total annual GHG emissions at buildout would not exceed the annual GHG emissions threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e. As shown on Table GHG-2, the project would result in approximately 2,576 MTCO2e per year.
Therefore, the project would not result in cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions.
As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, the cumulative project VMT per service population would
be 22.8, which is 35.88 percent below the City’s baseline VMT per service population of 35.6. In addition,
the project would reduce citywide VMT (as shown in Table T-8). Therefore, cumulatively considerable
transportation related impacts would be less than significant. Overall, impacts to environmental resources
or issue areas would not be cumulatively considerable; and no new cumulative impacts would occur.
(Sources: Previous responses and associated studies)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No New Impact.)
The project proposes the construction and operation of 191 single-family residences and related park and
open space areas. The project would not consist of any use or any activities that would result in a substantial
negative affect on persons in the vicinity. All resource topics associated with humans the proposed project
have been analyzed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and were found to pose no
impacts or less-than-significant impacts, or less-than-significant impacts with implementation of East Lake
Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures. For impacts related to humans, the topic areas that require
implementation of Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures include exterior lighting, construction
related air quality emissions, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials,
noise, and transportation. The other subject areas that require implementation of mitigation measures are
related to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 182 of 184
which do not have an adverse effect on a living human being. Consequently, with implementation of
mitigation, no new impacts on human beings directly or indirectly would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when
compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding mandatory findings of significance. There
have not been 1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need
to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts,
State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is
consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures, which are listed
previously, are applicable to the proposed project and would be included in the Project MMRP to ensure
implementation.
No new mitigation measures are required.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 183 of 184
VI. DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This
section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Lead Agency:
City of Lake Elsinore
Carlos Serna, Associate Planner
Bradley Brophy, PE, Traffic Engineer
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
CEQA Document Preparer:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Konnie Dobreva, J.D.
Renee Escario
Meaghan Truman
Brooke Blandino
Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Alex Garber, Analyst
General Biological Assessment, Appendix B
Hernandez Environmental Services
Shawn Gatchel-Hernandez, Principal Regulatory Specialist
Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix D
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
Brian F. Smith, MA
Elena C. Goralogia
Jillian L.H. Conroy
Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Update, Appendix E
Sladden Engineering, Inc.
James W. Minor III, Senior Geologist
Brett L. Anderson, PG, Principal Engineer
Paleontological Assessment, Appendix F
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
Todd A. Wirths, M.S., Senior Paleontologist, California Professional Geologist No. 7588
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix G
Sladden Engineering, Inc.
James W. Minor, PG, Project Geologist
Brett L. Anderson, PG, Principal Engineer
Preliminary Hydrology Study, Appendix H
Wilson Mikami Corporation
Scott M. Wilson, PE, PLS, Principal
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 184 of 184
Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix I
Wilson Mikami Corporation
Scott M. Wilson, PE, PLS, Principal
Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J
LSA Associates, Inc.
J.T. Stephens | Principal / Noise and Vibration
Transportation Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, Appendix K and L
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Meghan Macias, T.E.
Abby Pal
Daji Yuan
LOT 1
B B
C C
D
D
D
D
E E E E
D D
D
D
E EEE
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
H H
G G
A
A
G G
E E
WILSON MIKAMICORPORATION
PREPARED BY:OWNER:SHEET
OF 1
DESCRIPTIONDATEREVISION APPROVED
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 38378
18 ACRE PROPERTY - LAKESHORE DRIVE
SUBDIVIDER:
CIVIL
Exp.FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
PROJECT LOCATION
VICINITY MAP
SECTION "D-D"
(TYPICAL STREET)
SECTION "C-C"
(ENTRY STREET)
SECTION "B-B"
(ENTRY STREET)
SECTION "E-E"
(TYP. MOTOR COURT)
WATER & SEWER
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT (EVMWD)
31315 CHANEY STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
ELECTRIC
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
32815 FREESIA WAY
TEMECULA, CA 92592
GAS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
COMPANY
25620 JEFFERSON AVE.
MURRIETA, CA 92562
TELEPHONE / CABLE TELEVISION
VERIZON / GTE - (800) 483-1000
AT&T - (800) 310-2355
TIME WARNER - (888) 354-9622
STORMWATER
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
130 SOUTH MAIN ST.
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
WASTE MANAGEMENT
CR&R
1706 GOETZ RD.
PERRIS, CA 92570
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS
370-050-019
370-050-020
370-050-032
PROPOSED PHASING
SINGLE PHASE CONSTRUCTION
A. OFFSITE IMPROVMENTS
WITHIN LAKESHORE DRIVE
B. ROUGH GRADING
C.ONSITE & OFFSITE UTILITIES
D.PRECISE GRADING
F. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
F. SITEWORK & LANDSCAPING
’ ”
’ ”
C.1
ENGINEER'S NOTES
PUBLIC PARK DEDICATION
DATE OF FILING: 10/18/22
THE DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION TRAILS -
LAKE ELSINORE, LLC
LAKE ELSINORE MISSION TRAIL. LLC
VICTORIAN LANE
(TYPICAL STREET)
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
A
SUBDIVISION LOT SUMMARY
LOT 1:
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT LOT
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION
NET SITE AREA**
**NET SITE AREA INCLUDES COMMON OPEN
SPACE, PRIVATE STREETS, AND EASEMENTS
PER BELOW:
COMMON OPEN SPACE
PRIVATE STREETS
EASEMENTS
AREA (SF)
749,850
-
12,140
737,610
53,924
228,647
228,647
AREA (AC)
17.21
-
0.28
16.93
1.24
5.25
5.25
10/25/2022 10/25/2022
URBANARENA
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22 COVER SHEET | CS.01
URBANARENA
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22 SHEET INDEX | CS.02
Sheet Index
SHEET TITLE SHEET #SHEET TITLE SHEET #
Cover Sheet
Sheet Index
Illustrative Site Plan
Prototype Enlargements
Open Space Exhibit
Parking & Circulation Plan
Landscape: Overall Conceptual Landscape Plan
Landscape: Rec Center Enlargement Plan
Landscape: Fitness Garden & Entry Enlargement Plan
Landscape: Fence & Wall Plan
Landscape: Typical Front Planting Plan
Landscape: Fencing & Overhead Elevations
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 1 Floor Plans
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 2 Floor Plans
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 3 Floor Plans
Architecture: 6-Pack Cluster Site Plan
Architecture: 6-Pack Cluster Sections
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 1 Santa Barbara Elevations
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 1 Modern Farmhouse Elevations
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 1 French Country Elevations
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 1 3D Perspectives / Roof
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 2 Santa Barbara Elevations
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 2 Modern Farmhouse Elevations
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 2 French Country Elevations
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 2 3D Perspectives / Roof
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 3 Santa Barbara Elevations
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 3 Modern Farmhouse Elevations
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 3 French Country Elevations
Architecture: 6-Pack Plan 3 3D Perspectives / Roof
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 1 Floor Plans
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 2 Floor Plans
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 Floor Plans
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 4 Floor Plans
Architecture: 8-Pack Cluster Site Plan
Architecture: 8-Pack Cluster Sections Plan 1&2
Architecture: 8-Pack Cluster Sections Plan 3&4
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 1 Santa Barbara Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 1 Modern Farmhouse Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 1 French Country Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 1 3D Perspectives / Roof
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 2 Santa Barbara Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 2 Modern Farmhouse Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 2 French Country Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 2 3D Perspectives / Roof
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 Santa Barbara Opt.1 Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 Santa Barbara Opt.2 Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 Santa Barbara Opt.3 Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 Modern Farmhouse Opt.1 Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 Modern Farmhouse Opt.2 Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 Modern Farmhouse Opt.3 Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 French Country Opt.1 Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 French Country Opt.2 Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 French Country Opt.3 Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 3D Perspectives / Roof Opt.1
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 3D Perspectives / Roof Opt.2
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 3 3D Perspectives / Roof Opt.3
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 4 Santa Barbara Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 4 Modern Farmhouse Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 4 French Country Elevations
Architecture: 8-Pack Plan 4 3D Perspectives / Roof
Architecture: Restroom Building Floor Plan & Elevation
Civil: TTM
Civil: Grading & Drainage
Civil: Site Plan
Civil: Concept Utility Plan
Civil: Maintenance Plan
A5.0
A5.1
A5.2
A5.3
A5.4
A5.5
A5.6
A6.0
A6.1
A6.2
A6.3
A7.0
A7.1
A7.2
A7.3
A8.0a
A8.0b
A8.0c
A8.1a
A8.1b
A8.1c
A8.2a
A8.2b
A8.2c
A8.3a
A8.3b
A8.3c
A9.0
A9.1
A9.2
A9.3
A10.0
C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.5
CS.01
CS.02
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP4
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
A1.0
A1.1
A1.2
A1.3
A1.4
A2.0
A2.1
A2.2
A2.3
A3.0
A3.1
A3.2
A3.3
A4.0
A4.1
A4.2
A4.3
URBANARENA
NORTH
80400
1’= 40’ - 0” SCALELAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN | SP1
URBANARENA
NORTH
0
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22
2010
1’= 10’ - 0” SCALE
PROTOTYPE ENLARGEMENT | SP2
UP
UPREF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.
0 10 20
1"=10'-0"SCALE
PROTOTYPE ENLARGEMENTS | SP2
0 10 20
1"=10'-0"SCALE NORTH
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES |21-153
DATE 09 | 15 | 22
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
TYPICAL 8-PLEX CLUSTER TYPICAL 6-PLEX CLUSTER
24' ALLEY DRIVE
31'
(GARAGE
TO GARAGE)
PLAN 3
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 4
PLAN 3
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 4
10'10'10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'10'10'
10'
10'4'10'10'24' ALLEY DRIVE
18' DRIVEWAY
3'-6"3'-6"
3'-6"3'-6"
3'-6"3'-6"
PRIVATE STREET SHARED DRIVEWAYSHARED DRIVEWAYPLAN 1
5'5'
10'
10'
10'10' PORCH /BLDG (LIVING AREA)SETBACK10' PORCH /BLDG (LIVING AREA)SETBACKPRIVATE STREET
PLAN 2
PLAN 3PLAN 3
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
WHERE APPLICABLE
UNIT UTILITIES
(ELECTRICAL/GAS)4'8'8'4'4'8'10'14'10'14'10'10'4'4'8'8'4'4'8'4'4'8'4'4'8'4'4'8'4'4'8'Decorative
Stamped
Asphalt Paving
Decorative
Stamped
Asphalt Paving
URBANARENA
NORTH
80400
1’= 40’ - 0” SCALELAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22 OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN | L1
URBANARENA
NORTH
0
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22
3216
1/16” = 1’ - 0” SCALE
REC CENTER & COMMON OPEN SPACE ENLARGEMENT PLAN | L2
URBANARENA
NORTH
0
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22
2010
1’ = 10’ - 0” SCALE
FITNESS GARDEN & ENTRY ENLARGEMENT PLAN | L3
URBANARENA
NORTH
80400
1’= 40’ - 0” SCALELAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22 FENCE & WALL PLAN | L4UPUPREF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPREF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.UPREF.HC
91
PLN1-B
90
PLN2-C
89
PLN4-A
88
PLN4-C
87
PLN1-B
86
PLN2-A
85
PLN3-C
84
PLN3-B
83
PLN1-C
82
PLN2-A
81
PLN4-B
80
PLN4-A
79
PLN1-C
78
PLN2-B
77
PLN3-A
76
PLN3-B
75
PLN1-A
74
PLN2-B
73
PLN4-C
72
PLN4-B
71
PLN1-C
70
PLN2-A
69
PLN3-C
68
PLN3-A
67
PLN1-C
66
PLN2-B
65
PLN4-C
64
PLN4-A
63
PLN1-B
62
PLN2-C
61
PLN3-B
60
PLN3-A
59
PLN1-B
58
PLN2-C
57
PLN4-B
56
PLN4-A
55
PLN1-B
54
PLN2-C
53
PLN3-C
52
PLN3-A
51
PLN1-B
50
PLN2-A
49
PLN4-C
48
PLN4-B
47
PLN1-C
46
PLN2-A
45
PLN3-B
44
PLN3-A
43
PLN1-C
42
PLN2-B
41
PLN4-A
40
PLN4-C
39
PLN1-A
38
PLN2-B
37
PLN3-C
36
PLN3-B
35
PLN1-C
34
PLN2-B
33
PLN4-A
32
PLN4-B
31
PLN1-C
30
PLN2-A
29
PLN3-C
28
PLN3-B
27
PLN1-C
26
PLN2-A
25
PLN4-A
24
PLN4-B
23
PLN1-A
22
PLN2-B
21
PLN3-A
20
PLN3-C
19
PLN1-A
18
PLN2-B
17
PLN4-C
16
PLN4-A
15
PLN1-C
14
PLN2-B
13
PLN3-A
12
PLN3-C
11
PLN1-B
10
PLN2-A
09
PLN4-C
08
PLN4-A
07
PLN1-B
06
PLN2-C
05
PLN3-B
151
PLN2-A
152
PLN1-B 148
PLN3-C
149
PLN2-B
150
PLN1-A
145
PLN2-B
146
PLN1-C
147
PLN3-A 142
PLN3-B
143
PLN2-A
144
PLN1-C
139
PLN2-B
140
PLN1-C
141
PLN3-A 136
PLN3-C
137
PLN2-B
138
PLN1-A
135
PLN3-A
133
PLN2-B
134
PLN1-C
130
PLN3-B
131
PLN2-A
132
PLN1-C
127
PLN2-A
128
PLN1-C
129
PLN3-B 124
PLN3-C
125
PLN2-A
126
PLN1-B
121
PLN2-C
122
PLN1-B
123
PLN3-A 118
PLN3-B
119
PLN2-C
120
PLN1-A
115
PLN2-B
116
PLN1-A
117
PLN3-C 112
PLN3-B
113
PLN2-C
114
PLN1-A
109
PLN2-C
110
PLN1-B
111
PLN3-A 106
PLN3-B
107
PLN2-C
108
PLN1-A
103
PLN2-B
104
PLN1-A
105
PLN3-C 100
PLN3-A
101
PLN2-B
102
PLN1-C
97
PLN2-A
98
PLN1-C
99
PLN3-B
188
PLN2-A
187
PLN1-B
186
PLN2-C
185
PLN1-A
180
PLN3-A
183
PLN2-C
182
PLN1-A
181
PLN3-B
177
PLN2-C
178
PLN1-B
173
PLN2-B
174
PLN1-C
175
PLN3-B
170
PLN1-A
176
PLN1-A
169
PLN1-B
171
PLN2-C 172
PLN 1-A
159
PLN2-B
160
PLN1-A
161
PLN2-B
156
PLN1-B
157
PLN2-C
158
PLN1-A
162
PLN1-C
154
PLN1-A
155
PLN2-C
REF.UPUPREF.
94
PLN1-A
REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.
REF.UPREF.UPUPREF.UPREF.UP
UP
REF.REF.UP
UP
REF.UPREF.
REF.UPUPREF.UPREF.UPREF.
REF.UPREF.UPUPREF.REF.UP
01
PLN4-B
02
PLN1-C
03
PLN4-A
04
PLN1-C
92
PLN2-A
93
PLN1-C
95
PLN2-B
96
PLN2-C
179
PLN2-C
189
PLN2-C 190
PLN2-A
191
PLN1-B
167
PLN1-B
165
PLN1-A 166
PLN2-C
164
PLN2-B
UP
REF.REF.UP
184
PLN1-C
168
PLN1-C
163
PLN2-A
153
PLN1-B
F.E.W/HMAIL
MAILMAIL
MAILMAILMAIL
MAILMAILMAIL
MAIL
MAIL
MAIL
DOG PARKTOT LOT
BOCCE
OPEN LAWN
AREA
FENCE AND WALL LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
8' HIGH CMU WALL. WALL TO BE 1-SIDED SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL WITH PRECISION BLOCK CAP. BLOCK TO BE 6X8X16 ANGELUS .
COLOR TO BE CANYONBLUFF. CAP TO BE ANGELUS PRECISION CAP (8X2X16), COLOR: CANYONBLUFF
6' HIGH CMU WALL. WALL TO BE 1-SIDED SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL WITH PRECISION BLOCK CAP. BLOCK TO BE 6X8X16 ANGELUS .
COLOR TO BE CANYONBLUFF. CAP TO BE ANGELUS PRECISION CAP (8X2X16), COLOR: CANYONBLUFF
LOT FENCING. 6' HIGH PRIVACY STYLE VINYL FENCE - (DETAIL # V-001)- COLOR TO BE TAN - AVAILABLE THROUGH FENCEWORKS
INC. (1-800-350-5620). INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS
CMU BLOCK PILASTER
SIDEYARD WODDEN GATE
FENCE & WALL PLAN | L4
0
1"=40'-0"SCALE
40 80
NORTH
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES |21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
8' HIGH C.M.U.
SOUND ATTENUATION BLOCK WALL
(ALONG THE WESTERLY EDGE)
URBANARENA
NORTH
80400
1’= 40’ - 0” SCALELAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22 TYPICAL FRONT PLANTING PLAN | L5
UP
UPREF.UPUPREF.REF.UPUPREF.
TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 'COMPACTA' / COMPACT CAROLINA LAUREL CHERRY 24" BOX
RHUS LANCEA / AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX
SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE
AGAVE DESMETIANA / SMOOTH AGAVE 5 GAL
BOUGAINVILLEA X 'TORCH GLOW' / TORCH GLOW BOUGAINVILLEA 5 GAL
CEANOTHUS X 'JOYCE COULTER' / JOYCE COULTER WILD LILAC 5 GAL
FESTUCA MAIREI / ATLAS FESCUE 5 GAL
JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS 'BLUE POINT' / BLUE POINT JUNIPER 15 GAL
SALVIA GREGGII / AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL
SENECIO VITALIS / BLUE CHALK FINGERS 1 GAL
PLANT_SCHEDULE
SIZE
TYPICAL FRONT PLANTING PLAN | L5
0
1"=40'-0"SCALE
40 80
NORTH
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES |21-153
DATE 09 | 15 | 22
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
TYPICAL FRONT PLANTING PLAN
(8-PACK CLUSTER)
TYPICAL FRONT PLANTING PLAN
(6-PACK CLUSTER)
URBANARENA
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22 FENCING & OVERHEAD ELEVATIONS | L6FENCING & OVERHEAD ELEVATIONS | L6
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES |21-153
DATE 12 | 22 | 22
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
3
2
1
4
5
POOL CABANA - SIDE ELEVATIONMAILBOX TRELLIS - FRONT ELEVATION
OVERHEAD TRELLIS AT CENTRAL MAIL 1/2" = 1'-0"
1 16" SQ. CMU PILASTER WITH STUCCO FINISH.
STUCCO COLOR TO MATCH BLDG. GROUT AND
REINFORCEMENT PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
PILASTER TO HAVE PRECAST CONCRETE CAP.
CAP TO BE VALORI PRECAST
COLOR TO BE CAPPUCCINO SANDBLAST
2 6X6 WOOD POST. EMBED POST TO PILASTER PER
PLANS BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
3 (2) 2X8 WOOD LOWER BEAMS. ATTACH BEAMS
TO POST PER PLANS BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
4 (2) 2X8 WOOD UPPER BEAMS. ATTACH JOINTS TO
POST PER PLANS BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
5 4X4 WOOD LATTICE
6 CLUSTER MAIL BOX
1
POOL CABANA - FRONT ELEVATION POOL CABANA - SIDE ELEVATION
3
2
1
4
5
OVERHEAD TRELLIS CABANA AT POOL AREA 1/2" = 1'-0"
1 16" SQ. CMU PILASTER WITH STUCCO FINISH.
STUCCO COLOR TO MATCH BLDG. GROUT AND
REINFORCEMENT PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
PILASTER TO HAVE PRECAST CONCRETE CAP.
CAP TO BE VALORI PRECAST
COLOR TO BE CAPPUCCINO SANDBLAST
2 6X6 WOOD POST. EMBED POST TO PILASTER PER
PLANS BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
3 (2) 2X8 WOOD LOWER BEAMS. ATTACH BEAMS
TO POST PER PLANS BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
4 (2) 2X8 WOOD UPPER BEAMS. ATTACH JOINTS TO
POST PER PLANS BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
5 4X4 WOOD LATTICE
1/2" = 1'-0"T.S. POOL FENCE & GATE
3'8' MAX.6'-2"5'DOG PARK FENCE AND GATE 3/4" = 1'-0"3'-6"3" MAXCLR6' O.C. MAX
3'3'
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
4
8
1-1/2" TUBULAR STEEL POST1
1-1/2" TUBULAR STEEL MEMBER. TO BE WELDED TO POST2
2-3/4 GAUGE 3X3 SQUARE OPENING WIRE MESH -
85% OPEN AREA - ITEM #3629250041 - AVAILABLE THROUGH:
MCNICHOLS, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ATTACH TO U-EDGING PER
MANUFACTUER'S RECOMMENDATIONS
3
14 GAUGE U-EDGING - 1/2" OPENING - 1" WIDTH
- ITEM #4001445010 - AVAILABLE THROUGH:
MCNICHOLS, OR APPROVED EQUAL. TO BE WELDED TO STEEL
MEMBER/POST
4
POST ATTACHMENT TO SLAB PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
5
GATE HANDLE PER CONTRACTOR. SPECIFICATIONS AND
INSTALLATION TO ADHERE TO ADA STANDARDS
6
STEEL PLATE PER CONTRACTOR. SIZE TO FIT
WITH GATE HANDLE.
7
SELF-CLOSING GATE HINGE PER CONTRACTOR.8
7
3" MAXCLRNOTES:
·ALL STEEL MEMBERS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ARCH. RAILING.
·REFER TO METAL SECTION OF CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
·CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
FOR REVIEW.3'-6"3'3" MAXCLR.2
1
6
3
7
UP REF.DN
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
WasherDryerFENCEADJACENT
RESIDENCE
ADJACENT
RESIDENCE
ADJACENT
RESIDENCEFENCEGATE
PRIVATE
YARD
ALLEY MEDIASINK
RANGEPREP
ISLAND
STOR.
KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
PNTRY.
FENCE
20' -0" x 20' -0"
GARAGE PWDR.
2030 SH.4050 SH.3050 SH.3050 SH.5050 SL.5050 SL.
3080
2868
16080 ROLL-UP
GR DR
36' - 6"33' - 6"20' - 4"16' - 2"9' - 10"21' - 0"REAR YARD SETBACK10' - 0"8' - 0"(MIN.)60' -6"(MIN.)60' -6"(MIN.)
44' -6"
(MIN.)
44' -6"PARKWAY17' - 0"SIDE SETBACK
4' - 0"
8' - 0"
SIDE SETBACK
4' - 0"
VANITY
BED 2
13' -10" x 12' -0"
BATH
BED 3
11' -4" x 12' -2"
MSTR. BATH
MSTR. BED
14' -2" x 14' -9"
MSTR. W.I.C.
SERV.
2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.5050 SL.5050 SL.2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.
20x40 FX.2650 SH.2650 SH.4050 SL.2668
246824682468
2868286824682468
6068 CL.6068 CL.2868
2668
DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 6-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
1ST AND 2ND FLOORS7 | 01 | 2022 A1.0
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
6-PACK PLAN 1
PLAN 1
1631 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE
Name Area
First Floor 532 SF
Second Floor 1099 SF
Garage 431 SF
Grand total 2061 SF
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
0 4 8
1/4" = 1' -0" SCALE
REF.UP
WasherDryerDN18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
ADJACENT
RESIDENCE
ADJACENT
RESIDENCE
ALLEY
PRIVATE
YARD
PANTRYMEDIARANGESINKFENCE FENCEPORCH
GATE
12' -6" x 7' -0"
DINING
LIVING
13' -8" x 13' -0"
13' -8" x 13' -7"
KITCHEN
20' -8" x 20' -0"
GARAGE
4050 SH.2050 SH.
16080 ROLL-UP
GR DR
6050 SL.
3080
2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.30802468
2468
SEAT
TECH
TECH
PORCH
ROOF
BED 1
11' -4" x 10' -6"MSTR. BED
12' -4" x 15' -7"
MSTR.
BATH
MSTR.
W.I.C.
MSTR.
W.I.C.
LNDRY.W.I.C.
CL.
BATH
BED 2
13' -8" x 10' -6"
6050 SL.2650 SH. 2650 SH.
7050 SL.2650 SH.2650 SH.6050 SL.2050 SH.2050 SH.2050 SH.
2050 SH.2050 SH.5050 SL.2650 SH. 2650 SH.246824682468
246828682668
246824682668
2468
2668
6068 CL.DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 6-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
1ST AND 2ND FLOORS7 | 01 | 22 A1.1
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
6-PACK PLAN 2
PLAN 2
1779 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE
Name Area
First Floor 600 SF
Second Floor 1179 SF
Garage 444 SF
Porch 43 SF
Grand total 2265 SF
0 4 8
1/4" = 1' -0" SCALE
REF.UP
DN
1817161514131211109876543
WasherDryerADJACENT
RESIDENCE
PRIVATE
YARD
ALLEYADJACENT
RESIDENCE
FENCE GATEADJACENT
RESIDENCERANGESINKMEDIA
PANTRY
11' -0" x 9' -10"
BED 5
BATH/PWDR.
CL.
KITCHEN
13' -8" x 13' -6"
DINING
9' -8" x 13' -6"13' -6" x 12' -0"
LIVING
20' -8" x 20' -0"
GARAGE
PORCH
6050 SL.4050 SH.8080 SLIDING DR.26687068 CL.246824682868 30803050 SH.5050 SL.2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.2868
16080 ROLL-UPGR DR2050 SH.MEDIA
MEDIA
14' -6" x 13' -6"
MSTR. BED
SEAT
MSTR. BATH
BED 4
11' -0" x 13' -6"
11' -0" x 10' -10"
BED 2
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
BATH
BATH
SERV.
BED 3
11' -10" x 10' -10"
CL.
LOFT
11' -0" x 13' -6"
PORCH
ROOF
W.I.C.
2650 SH.2650 SH.8050 XOX4050 SL.2650 SH.2640 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.4050 SL.2050 SH.3050 SH.5050 SL.2650 SH.5050 SL.2650 SH.4050 SH.4050 SH.266824682468 24682868266824682468
24682468
2468
2468 5668 CL.26682668DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 6-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
1ST AND 2ND FLOORS7 | 01 | 2022 A1.2
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
6-PACK PLAN 3
PLAN 3
2146 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE
Name Area
First Floor 789 SF
Second Floor 1357 SF
Garage 444 SF
Porch 68 SF
Grand total 2658 SF
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
0 4 8
1/4" = 1' -0" SCALE
REF.REF.UPREF.UPUPREF.UP REF.UP
UPPLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 3
PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 1
PRIVATE YARDPRIVATE YARDPRIVATE YARD
FENCEFENCEPRIVATE YARDPRIVATE YARDPRIVATE YARD
FENCEFENCEFENCEFENCE24' - 0"DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 6-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
SITE PLAN07 | 01 | 2022 A1.3
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153 6-PACK CLUSTER048
1/4" = 1' -0" SCALE
URBANARENA
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 07 | 22 6-PLEX CLUSTER SECTIONS | A1.4
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"2266'' -- 66""..BB EE DD 33 MM SS TT RR .. BB EE DD
GG AA RR AA GG EE DD II NN II NN GG
HH AA LL LL
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"
MM SS TTRR .. WW ..II..CC ..MM SS TT RR .. BB EE DD
LL II VV II NN GG DD IINN IINN GG KK II TT CC HH EE NN 2266'' -- 66""..MM SS TT RR .. BB AA TT HH
PLAN 1 - SECTION 1 PLAN 2 - SECTION 1 PLAN 3 - SECTION 1
PLAN 1 - SECTION 2 PLAN 2 - SECTION 2 PLAN 3 - SECTION 2
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"
KK IITT CC HH EE NN LL II VV II NN GG DD IINN IINN GG
BB EE DD 11 BB EE DD 22 LL NN DD RR YY ..BB AA TT HH
2266'' -- 00""..1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"2266'' -- 00""..GG AA RR AA GG EELLIIVVIINNGG
MM SS TT RR .. BBAA TT HHBBEEDD 22 MM SS TT RR ..
WW ..II..CC ..
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"
LL II VV IINN GG DD II NN II NN GG KK II TT CC HH EE NN CC LL ..
MM SS TT RR .. BB EE DDBBEEDD 44BBAATTHH MM SS TT RR .. BBAA TTHH
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"
KK IITT CC HH EE NN GG AA RR AA GG EE
MM SS TT RR .. BB EE DD BB AA TT HH WW ..II ..CC ..2266'' -- 00""..
UP
DN
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
WasherDryer
ADJACENT
RESIDENCE
ADJACENT
RESIDENCE
PRIVATE
YARD
ALLEY
ADJACENT
RESIDENCE
HIGH WINDOWHIGH WINDOWKITCHEN
12' -0" x 16' -8"
GARAGE
20' -0" x 20' -0"
GATE FENCEFENCEGATE
OPEN TO
ABOVE
CANTILEVER2' - 0"SIDE SETBACK
8' - 0"
SIDE SETBACK
8' - 0"REAR YARD SETBACK10' - 0"2050 SH.8080 SLIDING DR.
16080 ROLL-UP
GR. DR.
3080
3020 SL.3020 SL.2050 SH.2650 SH.25' - 0"10' - 0"(MIN.)51.00'(MIN.)51.00'(MIN.)
33.00'
(MIN.)
33.00'
PANTRY
STORAGE
LIVING RM.
12' -0" x 16' -8"2868DESK
BED 2
10' -10" x 10' -0"11' -6" x 10' -0"
BED 1
DECK
OPEN TO
BELOW2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.6050 SL.6050 SL.4068 CL.4068 CL.266826682468
MEDIASEAT
246824685668
2468LINEN
2668
BATHHALL
W.I.C.
MSTR.
BATH
MSTR. BED
12' -4" x 12' -0"
8080 SLIDING DR.2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 8-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
1ST AND 2ND FLOORS7 | 01 | 2022 A5.0
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
8-PACK PLAN 1
PLAN 1
1323 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE
Name Area
First Floor 511 SF
Second Floor 811 SF
Garage 431 SF
Deck 84 SF
Grand total 1837 SF
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
0 4 8
1/4" = 1' -0" SCALE
DN
Refrigerator
UP WasherDryerDN
4
3
2
1
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
PARKWAY12' - 0"SIDE SETBACK
4' - 0"
SIDE SETBACK
4' - 0"3' - 0"16' -2" x 14' -6"
KITCHEN
20' -6" x 20' -0"
GARAGE
PWDR
PORCH
OPEN
TO
ABOVE
16' -2" x 13' -0"
LIVING
ENTRY
DINING
ADJACENT
RESIDENCE
ADJACENT
RESIDENCE
PRIVATE
YARD
GATE
GATE FENCEFENCEREAR YARD SETBACK10' - 0"6' - 0"21' - 0"7' - 6"CANTELIEVER2' - 0"3' - 0"28682468
16080 ROLL-UP
GR DR 30803050 SH.3050 SH.3050 SH.4050 SH.10080 SL GL DR 2
(MIN.)
36.50'
(MIN.)
36.50'(MIN.)51.00'(MIN.)51.00'MSTR
W.I.C.
BED 3
11' -0" x 11' -0"
W.I.C.
SERV.
MSTR
BATH 14' -0" x 11' -9"
MSTR. BED
BED 2
12' -4" x 11' -6"
BATH
HALL
OPEN
TO
ABOVE
VANITY
5050 SL.
6050 SL.
26x50 FX.26x50 FX.2650 SH.30x50 FX.30x50 FX.5050 SL.2640 SH.26682468
2668
2668
2468
246824686068 CL.266824682468DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 8-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
1ST AND 2ND FLOORS7 | 01 | 2022 A5.1
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153 8-PACK PLAN 2
PLAN 2
1599 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE
Name Area
First Floor 599 SF
Second Floor 1000 SF
Garage 439 SF
Porch 30 SF
Grand total 2068 SF
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
0 4 8
1/4" = 1' -0" SCALE
REF.UP
DN
WasherDryer
181716
15
14
13
12
11
10
987654
-
RANGE
SINK
MEDIAPANTRY
PORCH
ADJACENT
RESIDENCE
PRIVATE
YARD
FENCE
FENCEFENCE20' -4" x 20' -0"
GARAGE
15' -4" x 14' -6"
KITCHEN
15' -4" x 12' -0"
LIVING
DINING
9' -6" x 12' -2"
PWDR
PORCH ROOF / MASTER DECKMEDIATECH
MEDIA
VANITY
LOFT
15' -6" x 11' -5"
SERV.
BATH
W.I.C.
BED 3
10' -0" x 10' -7"
BED 2
10' -0" x 11' -11"
MSTR.
W.I.C.
MSTR. BATH
15' -8" x 12' -0"
MSTR. BED
DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 8-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
1ST AND 2ND FLOORS7 | 01 | 2022 A5.2
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
8-PACK PLAN 3
SQUARE FOOTAGE
Name Area
First Floor 696 SF
Second Floor 1060 SF
Garage 437 SF
Porch 63 SF
Grand total 2256 SFPLAN 3
1756 SF
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
0 4 8
1/4" = 1' -0" SCALE
UP
REF.181716151413121110987654321 DNWasherDryer181716151413121110987654321
RANGESINK
MEDIAMEDIA12' -10" x 10' -10"
BED 4
GATE
PRIVATE
YARD FENCEFENCE
FENCE
ADJACENT RESIDENCECL.
BATH
KITCHEN
16' -0" x 9' -8"
DINING
12' -2" x 9' -0"
LIVING
12' -2" x 12' -4"
20' -0" x 20' -0"
GARAGE
PORCH ADJACENT RESIDENCE'S YARD3046 SH.6050 SL.
6050 SL.
16080 ROLL-UP
GR DR6050 SL.6050 SL.6080 SLIDING DR.2650 SH.246824682668
2868
30806' - 0"MEDIA
15' -0" x 12' -10"
MSTR. BED
MSTR. BATH
LNDRY.
PORCH ROOF OR DECK 12' -0" x 10' -6"
BED 2
BED 3
12' -2" x 10' -6"
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
CL.CL.MEDIALOFT
BATH
BATH
2468
2468
2468
2868
26682468266826682468 246824682650 SH. 3050 SH. 6050 SL.4050 SL.2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.2650 SH.6050 SL.
2650 SH. 6050 SL.
2650 SH. 2650 SH. 2050 SH.
DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 8-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
1ST AND 2ND FLOORS7 | 01 | 2022 A5.3
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153 8-PACK PLAN 4
PLAN 4
1918 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE
Name Area
First Floor 775 SF
Second Floor 1143 SF
Garage 423 SF
Porch 75 SF
Grand total 2416 SF
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
0 4 8
1/4" = 1' -0" SCALE
181716151413121110987654321UPUP DNUPDNUP181716151413121110987654321UPDNDN UPPLAN 4
PRIVATE YARD
PLAN 4
PLAN 1 PLAN 2
PLAN 2 PLAN 1
PRIVATE YARD
PLAN 3 PLAN 3
24' - 0"
20' - 0"
24' - 0"
DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 8-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
SITE PLAN7 | 01 | 2022 A5.4
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153 8-PACK CLUSTER048
1/4" = 1' -0" SCALE
URBANARENA
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 07 | 22 8-PLEX CLUSTER SECTIONS PLAN 1 & 2 | A5.5
PLAN 1 - SECTION 1 PLAN 2 - SECTION 1
PLAN 1 - SECTION 2 PLAN 2 - SECTION 2
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"2266'' -- 66""..BB AA TT HH
KK II TT CC HH EE NNLLIIVVIINNGG RR MM ..
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"
GG AA RR AA GG EE LL II VV IINN GG RR MM ..
BB EE DD 22HHAALLLLDDEECCKK
2266'' -- 00""..1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"2266'' -- 66""..LL IIVV IINN GG GG AA RR AA GG EE
MM SS TT RR .. BB EE DD HH AA LL LL BB EE DD 22
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"2266'' -- 66""..LL II VV II NN GG KK IITTCC HH EE NN
MM SS TT RR .. BB EE DD MM SS TTRR
BBAA TTHH
MM SS TT RR
WW ..II..CC ..
URBANARENA
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 07 | 22 8-PLEX CLUSTER SECTIONS PLAN 3 & 4 | A5.6
PLAN 3 - SECTION 1 PLAN 4 - SECTION 1
PLAN 3 - SECTION 2 PLAN 4 - SECTION 2
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"2255'' -- 66""..KK IITT CC HH EE NN DD II NN II NN GG
LL OO FF TTMMSSTTRR.. BB EE DD
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"2255'' -- 66""..DD IINN IINN GG GG AA RR AA GG EE
LLOO FF TT BB AA TT HH WW ..II..CC ..BB EE DD 33
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"2244'' -- 66""..GG AA RR AA GG EE KK IITT CC HH EE NN
MM SS TT RR .. BB EE DDLLOOFFTTBBEEDD 33BBAATTHH
1ST FLOOR F.F.0' -0"
2ND FLOOR F.F.10' -3 3/4"
ROOF18' -4 3/4"2255'' -- 66""..BB EE DD 44 DD II NN II NN GG
MM SS TT RR .. BB EE DDWW..II..CC ..MM SS TTRR .. BB AA TT HH
URBANARENA
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153
DATE 12 | 07 | 22 RESTROOM BUILDING FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATION | A10.0
FLOOR PLAN
MODERN FARMHOUSE ELEVATION
LOT 1BBCCDDDDEEEEDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFHHGGAAGGEEWILSON MIKAMICORPORATIONPREPARED BY:OWNER:SHEETOF1DESCRIPTIONDATEREVISIONAPPROVEDTENTATIVE TRACT NO. 3837818 ACRE PROPERTY - LAKESHORE DRIVESUBDIVIDER:CIVILExp.FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSESPROJECT LOCATIONVICINITY MAPSECTION "D-D"(TYPICAL STREET)SECTION "C-C"(ENTRY STREET)SECTION "B-B"(ENTRY STREET)SECTION "E-E"(TYP. MOTOR COURT)WATER & SEWERELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPALWATER DISTRICT (EVMWD)31315 CHANEY STREETLAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530ELECTRICSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON32815 FREESIA WAYTEMECULA, CA 92592GASSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GASCOMPANY25620 JEFFERSON AVE.MURRIETA, CA 92562TELEPHONE / CABLE TELEVISIONVERIZON / GTE - (800) 483-1000AT&T - (800) 310-2355TIME WARNER - (888) 354-9622STORMWATERCITY OF LAKE ELSINORE130 SOUTH MAIN ST.LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530WASTE MANAGEMENTCR&R1706 GOETZ RD.PERRIS, CA 92570ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS370-050-019370-050-020370-050-032PROPOSED PHASINGSINGLE PHASE CONSTRUCTIONA. OFFSITE IMPROVMENTSWITHIN LAKESHORE DRIVEB. ROUGH GRADINGC. ONSITE & OFFSITE UTILITIESD. PRECISE GRADINGF. BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONF. SITEWORK & LANDSCAPING’ ” ’ ” C.1ENGINEER'S NOTESPUBLIC PARK DEDICATIONDATE OF FILING: 10/18/22THE DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION TRAILS -LAKE ELSINORE, LLCLAKE ELSINORE MISSION TRAIL. LLCVICTORIAN LANE(TYPICAL STREET)FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSASUBDIVISION LOT SUMMARYLOT 1: CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT LOT EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION NET SITE AREA****NET SITE AREA INCLUDES COMMON OPENSPACE, PRIVATE STREETS, AND EASEMENTSPER BELOW:COMMON OPEN SPACEPRIVATE STREETSEASEMENTSAREA (SF)749,850-12,140737,61053,924228,647228,647AREA (AC)17.21-0.2816.931.245.255.2510/25/202210/25/2022
COMMON OPEN SPACELOT A LOT ALOT D
LOT 1STREET "A"STREET "A"STREET "A"STREET "A"STREET "A"CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMI03/04/2022 1st SUBMITTALJurisdiction #LAKE ELSINORE, CAWMC PROJECT NO. 10397.00LAKE ELSINORE MISSION TRAIL, LLC1020 Second St., Suite CEncinitas, CA 92024949.632.312218 ACRE PROPERTY - MISSION TRAILGRADING & DRAINAGEC.2EARTHWORK SUMMARYRAW CUT:24,000 CYRAW FILL: 21,690 CYSHRINKAGE (10%):(2,410) CYNET: 0 CYNOTE:EARTHWORK QUANTITIES DO NOT INCLUDEDREMEDIAL GRADING QUANTITIES ANDADJUSTMENTS FOR SUBSIDENCE.
F.E.LOT 1
CORPORATION
WILSON MIKAMI
03/04/2022 1st SUBMITTALJurisdiction #
LAKE ELSINORE, CA
WMC PROJECT NO. 10397.00
LAKE ELSINORE MISSION TRAIL, LLC
1020 Second St., Suite C
Encinitas, CA 92024
949.632.3122
18 ACRE PROPERTY - MISSION TRAIL SITE PLAN C.3CIVIL
Exp.
680'
SITE SUMMARYRESIDENTIAL PARKING SUMMARYGENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN MIXED USE OVERLAY
F.E.CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMILAKE ELSINORE, CAWMC PROJECT NO. 10397.00LAKE ELSINORE MISSION TRAIL, LLC1020 Second St., Suite CEncinitas, CA 92024949.632.312218 ACRE PROPERTY - MISSION TRAILCONCEPT UTILITY PLANC.476
F.E.CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMILAKE ELSINORE, CAWMC PROJECT NO. 10408.00LAKE ELSINORE MISSION TRAIL, LLC1020 Second St., Suite CEncinitas, CA 92024949.632.312218 ACRE PROPERTY - MISSION TRAILMAINTENANCE PLANC.5LEGENDMAINTENANCERESPONSIBILITY76
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, will hold
a Public Hearing on November 14, 2023, at the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 North Main
Street, Lake Elsinore, California, 92530, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, to consider the following:
Planning Application No. 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon): A request by Brett Crowder,
Coastal Commercial Properties, LP requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 38378 to
subdivide an approximately 17.21-acre site into one approximately 16.93-acre lot for condominium
purposes (0.28-acre right-of-way dedication) and Residential Design Review No. 2022-02 to
construct 191 detached condominium residences and associated improvements on a 17.21-acre
site within the East Lake Specific Plan. The project site located adjacent to and west of Mission
Trail, across from Lemon Street to the south, and Lewis Street and Victorian Lane to the north
within the East Lake Specific Plan (APNs: 370-050-019, 020, and 030).
The proposed project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c) (Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan), where a
public agency has prepared an EIR on a Specific Plan, a residential project undertaken pursuant
to and in conformity with that specific plan is exempt from CEQA. The City adopted the East Lake
Specific Plan, Amendment No. 11 (SPA 2016-02) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH
No. 2016111029 on November 11, 2017. The proposed project is consistent with the East Lake
Specific Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On October 17, 2023, at a duly noticed Public
Hearing, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission by a 5-0 vote recommended that the City
Council approve the proposed project.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to submit written information, express opinions or
otherwise submit written evidence by email to calvarez@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 City Clerk’s office at
(951) 674-3124 ext. 269. 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.
Candice Alvarez, MMC,
City Clerk
NOPH PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon) - 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:0011632082
Customer's Reference/PO Number:
Publication:The Press-Enterprise
Publication Dates:11/04/2023
Total Amount:$383.82
Payment Amount:$0.00
Amount Due:$383.82
Notice ID:Tf1IKvXx5QbZQlH1peLk
Invoice Text:[https://res.cloudinary.com/dgqq2xsfd/image/upload/enotice-
production/exports/1698875048197/image001.jpg] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, will hold a Public Hearing on November 14, 2023, at the Lake Elsinore
Cultural Center, 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California, 92530, at 7:00 p.m.,
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider the following: Planning
Application No. 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon): A request by Brett Crowder,
Coastal Commercial Properties, LP requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map No.
38378 to subdivide an approximately 17.21-acre site into one approximately 16.93-
acre lot for condominium purposes (0.28-acre right-of-way dedication) and
Residential Design Review No. 2022-02 to construct 191 detached condominium
residences and associated improvements on a 17.21-acre site within the East Lake
Specific Plan . The project site located adjacent to and west of Mission Trail, across
from Lemon Street to the south, and Lewis Street and Victorian Lane to the north
within the East Lake Specific Plan (APNs: 370-050-019, 020, and 030). The proposed
project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c) (Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific
Plan), where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a Specific Plan, a residential
project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity with that specific plan is exempt
from CEQA. The City adopted the East Lake Specific Plan, Amendment No. 11 (SPA
2016-02) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2016111029 on
November 11, 2017. The proposed project is consistent with the East Lake Specific
NOPH PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail at Lemon) - 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: 0011632082
FILE NO. 0011632082
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:
11/04/2023
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Date: November 4, 2023.
At: Riverside, California
______________________________
Signature
Radius Report/Public Notice Package
Date Ordered
6/15/2023
Invoice #
9377
Prepared For:
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
BRETT CROWDER
1020 SECOND ST, STE C
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
Title Pro Information Systems
Project / PO / APN Number
370-050-019,020,032
Phone #
760.295.3951
E-mail Web Site
www.titleprois.comorders@titleprois.com
13520 Scarsdale Way
San Diego, CA 92128
DescriptionQuantity
1 RADIUS REPORT, APNS 370-050-019,020,032, EXTD 500FT, CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CA
RECORD OWNER: DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION TRAILS LAKE ELSINORE, 26500 W AGOURA RD, N0211, CALABASAS,
CA 91302
SITE: (VACANT) MISSION TRAIL, LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92595
SPLICED ASSESSOR'S RADIUS MAP SHOWING ALL PARCELS WITHIN SPECIFIED RADIUS1
PACKAGE CONTENT LIST
This radius report package contains the following items and
should not be removed by anyone but the Planning Department
(with the exception of the Cover Sheet and Invoice):
1. One vacant property notice
2. One summary of Owners list
3. Owner list hard copy and two sets of labels
4. Signed certification(s)
5. One set of maps
6. Vicinity/Area map
Removal of any item may delay your permit process.
Thank You,
Title Pro Information Systems
NOTE: The following information is not always publicly accessible from
the Assessor’s tax rolls: renter name, apartment/office suite numbers,
mobile home unit numbers, etc. If needed and not publicly available,
this information may have to be provided by the client or client’s
representative.
NOTICE
The labels that have no addresses on the Owners List may be
unimproved/vacant property or a public agency and have no
address to send the label.
SUMMARY OF OWNERS
#PARCEL NUMBER OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP USE DESCRIPTION
1 366-023-002 MADRIGAL SALVADOR 33170 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 13232 EARL AVE BALDWIN PARK CA 91706 RESID. MULTIPLE FAMILY
2 366-023-003 SANCHEZ FAMILY TRUST 10/23/13 33180 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 21430 DARBY ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES
3 366-023-004 CHAGOLLA NAPOLEON 33171 WILDOMAR RD WILDOMAR CA 92595 33171 WILDOMAR RD WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. SINGLE FAMILY
4 366-023-005 SANCHEZ FAMILY TRUST 10/23/13 33190 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 21430 DARBY ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES
5 366-023-006 CHAGOLLA NAPOLEON WILDOMAR CA 92595 33171 WILDOMAR RD WILDOMAR CA 92595 VACANT
6 366-023-007 MONTANO CECILIA E WILDOMAR CA 92595 19800 OLD COACH RD LAKE ELSINORE CA 92530 VACANT
7 366-023-008 ROMO MARIA SANCHEZ 33210 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 33210 MISSION TR WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES
8 366-023-009 RODRIGUEZ RICHARD L 33230 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 33230 MISSION TR WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES
9 366-024-010 LEPPER FAMILY SURVIVORS TRUST UA DATED 11/9/1999 33130 WILDOMAR RD WILDOMAR CA 92595 33220 WILDOMAR RD WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESIDENTIAL
10 366-024-011 LEPPER LUCIUS & JUDY TRUST DATED 11/19/2018 33220 WILDOMAR RD WILDOMAR CA 92595 33220 WILDOMAR RD WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES
11 366-031-001 NUTTER JOE & TIFF TRUST U/A DATED 03/03/2022 33260 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 918 ESCALANTE DR SAINT GEORGE UT 84790 RESID. SINGLE FAMILY
12 366-031-002 LINCOLN JOE 33276 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 1278 GLENNEYRE NO 299 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 RESID. SINGLE FAMILY
13 366-031-003 VOLLAN GARY L 33278 WILDOMAR TRL LAKE ELSINORE CA 92530 33320 MISSION TR WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES
14 366-032-001 NAVA ELSA OREGEL 33258 WILDOMAR RD WILDOMAR CA 92595 33258 WILDOMAR RD WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. SINGLE FAMILY
15 366-032-002 CASILLAS MIGUEL Jr 33270 WILDOMAR RD WILDOMAR CA 92595 33373 RED DAWN CT WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. SINGLE FAMILY
16 366-032-003 PEREZ RODOLFO J 21190 LEWIS ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 21190 LEWIS ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. SINGLE FAMILY
17 366-033-001 VOLLAN GARY L 33320 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 33320 MISSION TR WILDOMAR CA 92595 INDUSTRIAL
18 366-033-003 VOLLAN GARY L 21185 LEWIS ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 33320 MISSION TRAIL WILDOMAR CA 92595 VACANT
19 366-033-009 HERNANDEZ HERIBERTO 33362 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 22759 MONTANYA PL MURRIETA CA 92562 RESIDENTIAL
20 366-033-010 HERNANDEZ HERIBERTO 33366 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 22759 MONTANYA PL MURRIETA CA 92562 RESID. MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES
21 366-033-013 MORTON AUDREY T WILDOMAR CA 92595 29881 WEATHERWOOD LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 VACANT
22 366-033-020 OETGEN RON 33440 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 3394 NEEDLES HWY NEEDLES CA 92363 INDUSTRIAL
23 366-033-021 MEADOW PARK INV 33480 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 16802 CORAL REEF CIR CERRITOS CA 90703 RETAIL SALES
24 366-033-022 ROSALES RODOLFO 21190 LEMON ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 21190 LEMON ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES
25 366-033-023 MADRIGAL RICARDO 21180 LEMON ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 21180 LEMON ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES
26 366-033-026 CARDINAL SELF STORAGE III 33400 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 2925 BRISTOL ST COSTA MESA CA 92626 COMMERCIAL
27 366-033-027 VOLLAN GARY L 33340 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 33320 MISSION TR WILDOMAR CA 92595 COMMERCIAL
28 366-033-028 PAYNE JAMES MICHAEL 33370 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 33370 MISSION TR WILDOMAR CA 92595 COMMERCIAL
29 366-130-021 FERREE WILLIAM P 21179 LEMON ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 21179 LEMON ST WILDOMAR CA 92595 RESID. SINGLE FAMILY
30 366-130-038 WILDOMAR VALLEY WOOD PRODUCTS INC 33520 MISSION TRL WILDOMAR CA 92595 2498 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESID. SINGLE FAMILY
31 366-130-048 WILDOMAR VALLEY WOOD PRODUCTS INC WILDOMAR CA 92595 2498 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 VACANT
32 366-130-049 WILDOMAR VALLEY WOOD PRODUCTS INC WILDOMAR CA 92595 2498 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 VACANT
33 370-030-006 NP LAKE ELSINORE COMMERCE WILDOMAR CA 92595 4825 NW 41ST ST STE 500 RIVERSIDE MO 64150 VACANT
34 370-030-012 NP LAKE ELSINORE COMMERCE WILDOMAR CA 92595 4825 NW 41ST ST STE 500 RIVERSIDE MO 64150 AGRICULTURAL
35 370-040-007 SAYKR INC WILDOMAR CA 92595 31283 DEL REY RD TEMECULA CA 92591 VACANT
36 370-040-013 JLJ WILDOMAR CA 92595 2618 SAN MIGUEL DR NO 503 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 VACANT
37 370-040-036 ELSINORE COUNTRY CLUB HOLDINGS WILDOMAR CA 92595 1835 NEWPORT BLV NO A109 COSTA MESA CA 92627 RESIDENTIAL
38 370-040-037 ELSINORE COUNTRY CLUB HOLDINGS WILDOMAR CA 92595 1835 NEWPORT BLV NO A109 COSTA MESA CA 92627 RESIDENTIAL
39 370-040-038 ELSINORE COUNTRY CLUB HOLDINGS WILDOMAR CA 92595 1835 NEWPORT BLV NO A109 COSTA MESA CA 92627 RESIDENTIAL
40 370-040-039 FENG CHEN WILDOMAR CA 92595 280 MACHLIN CT CITY OF INDUSTRY CA 91789 RESIDENTIAL
41 370-040-042 SAYKR INC WILDOMAR CA 92595 31283 DEL REY RD TEMECULA CA 92591 VACANT
42 370-050-019 DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION TRAILS LAKE ELSINORE WILDOMAR CA 92595 26500 W AGOURA RD NO 211 CALABASAS CA 91302 VACANT
43 370-050-020 DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION TRAILS LAKE ELSINORE WILDOMAR CA 92595 26500 W AGOURA RD NO 211 CALABASAS CA 91302 VACANT
44 370-050-023 CASTELLON NOEL A 31885 CORYDON ST LAKE ELSINORE CA 92530 31855 CORYDON RD LAKE ELSINORE CA 92530 INDUSTRIAL
45 370-050-027 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONT & WATER CONV DI WILDOMAR CA 92595 1995 MARKET ST RIVERSIDE CA 92501
46 370-050-029 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONT & WATER CONV DI WILDOMAR CA 92595 1995 MARKET ST RIVERSIDE CA 92501
47 370-050-032 DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION TRAILS LAKE ELSINORE WILDOMAR CA 92595 26500 W AGOURA RD NO 211 CALABASAS CA 91302 VACANT
48 370-050-034 RED CORYDON WILDOMAR CA 92595 38122 STONE MEADOW DR MURRIETA CA 92562 VACANT
49 370-050-035 RED CORYDON WILDOMAR CA 92595 38122 STONE MEADOW DR MURRIETA CA 92562 VACANT
50 370-050-036 OLIVE TREE EAST WILDOMAR CA 92595 PO BOX 1175 SAN JUAN CAPISTRA CA 92693 MISCELLANEOUS
51 370-050-037 GAT HOSAKA HOLDINGS LLC WILDOMAR CA 92595 2510 PALISADES DR CORONA CA 92882 VACANT
52 370-050-040 RED CORYDON WILDOMAR CA 92595 38122 STONE MEADOW DR MURRIETA CA 92562 VACANT
53 370-050-041 ONPOINT COMMERCIAL LLC WILDOMAR CA 92595 2510 PALISADES DR CORONA CA 92882 VACANT
54 370-051-032 BLUE LAKE INDUSTRIAL CONDO OWNERS ASSN WILDOMAR CA 92595 21021 VENTURA BLV NO 300 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364
OWNER LIST
TWO SETS OF LABELS
366-023-002
MADRIGAL SALVADOR
13232 EARL AVE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
366-023-003 & 005
SANCHEZ FAMILY TRUST 10/23/13
21430 DARBY ST
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-023-004 & 006
CHAGOLLA NAPOLEON
33171 WILDOMAR RD
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-023-007
MONTANO CECILIA E
19800 OLD COACH RD
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
366-023-008
ROMO MARIA SANCHEZ
33210 MISSION TR
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-023-009
RODRIGUEZ RICHARD L
33230 MISSION TR
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-024-010 & 011
LEPPER FAMILY SURVIVORS TRUST
UA DATED 11/9/1999
33220 WILDOMAR RD
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-031-001
NUTTER JOE & TIFF TRUST U/A
DATED 03/03/2022
918 ESCALANTE DR
SAINT GEORGE, UT 84790
366-031-002
LINCOLN JOE
1278 GLENNEYRE NO 299
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
366-031-003, (ET AL)
VOLLAN GARY L
33320 MISSION TR
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-032-001
NAVA ELSA OREGEL
33258 WILDOMAR RD
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-032-002
CASILLAS MIGUEL Jr
33373 RED DAWN CT
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-032-003
PEREZ RODOLFO J
21190 LEWIS ST
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-033-003
VOLLAN GARY L
33320 MISSION TRAIL
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-033-009 & 010
HERNANDEZ HERIBERTO
22759 MONTANYA PL
MURRIETA, CA 92562
366-033-013
MORTON AUDREY T
29881 WEATHERWOOD
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677
366-033-020
OETGEN RON
3394 NEEDLES HWY
NEEDLES, CA 92363
366-033-021
MEADOW PARK INV
16802 CORAL REEF CIR
CERRITOS, CA 90703
366-033-022
ROSALES RODOLFO
21190 LEMON ST
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-033-023
MADRIGAL RICARDO
21180 LEMON ST
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-033-026
CARDINAL SELF STORAGE III
2925 BRISTOL ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
366-033-028
PAYNE JAMES MICHAEL
33370 MISSION TR
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-130-021
FERREE WILLIAM P
21179 LEMON ST
WILDOMAR, CA 92595
366-130-038, 048 & 049
WILDOMAR VALLEY WOOD PRODUCTS
INC
2498 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
370-030-006 & 012
NP LAKE ELSINORE COMMERCE
4825 NW 41ST ST STE 500
RIVERSIDE, MO 64150
370-040-007 & 042
SAYKR INC
31283 DEL REY RD
TEMECULA, CA 92591
370-040-013
JLJ
2618 SAN MIGUEL DR NO 503
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
370-040-036, 037 & 038
ELSINORE COUNTRY CLUB
HOLDINGS
1835 NEWPORT BLV NO A109
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
370-040-039
FENG CHEN
280 MACHLIN CT
CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91789
370-050-019, 020 & 032
DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION TRAILS
LAKE ELSINORE
26500 W AGOURA RD NO 211
CALABASAS, CA 91302
370-050-023
CASTELLON NOEL A
31855 CORYDON RD
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
370-050-027 & 029
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONT &
WATER CONV DI
1995 MARKET ST
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
370-050-034, 035 & 040
RED CORYDON
38122 STONE MEADOW DR
MURRIETA, CA 92562
370-050-036
OLIVE TREE EAST
PO BOX 1175
SAN JUAN CAPISTRA, CA 92693
370-050-037
GAT HOSAKA HOLDINGS LLC
2510 PALISADES DR
CORONA, CA 92882
370-050-041
ONPOINT COMMERCIAL LLC
2510 PALISADES DR
CORONA, CA 92882
370-051-032
BLUE LAKE INDUSTRIAL CONDO
OWNERS ASSN
21021 VENTURA BLV NO 300
WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364
- 37 PRINTED -
* DUPLICATE OWNERS COMBINED
INTO A SINGLE LABEL
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
BRETT CROWDER
1020 SECOND ST, STE C
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION TRAILS
LAKE ELSINORE
26500 W AGOURA RD, N0211,
CALABASAS, CA 91302
(760) 295-3951SEAN WILSONTITLE PRO INFORMATION SYSTEMSSEAN WILSONVICE PRESIDENT - TITLE PRO INFORMATION SYSTEMS13520 SCARSDALE WAY, SAN DIEGO CA 9212810/03/202310/03/2023500
ONE SET OF MAPS
VICINITY/AREA MAP
1
Carlos Serna
From:Carlos Serna
Sent:Thursday, November 9, 2023 9:24 AM
To:lleichnitz@gmail.com
Cc:Yu Tagai
Subject:PA 2022-03 (Mission Trail At Lemon)
Hello,
Thank you for reaching out concerning the Mission Trail at Lemon Project.
The project was not required to construct Victoria Lane and the Traffic Signal at the intersection as a part of the project’s
mitigation, however the project will be dedicating right of way for future alignment of Victoria Lane.
The applicant has also been conditions to obtain all necessary off-site easements and/or permits for off-site grading and
the applicant (Condition 109) prior to the issuance of a grading permit. If you have additional questions concerning the
right-of-way improvements or the Engineering Department’s Conditions of Approval please contact Yu Tagai, Assistant
City Engineer at ytagai@lake-elsinore.org or ext. 246. I have included him in this email as well.
Best Regards,
Carlos I. Serna, MPP
Associate Planner
cserna@Lake-Elsinore.org
951.674.3124 ext.916
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Leonard Leichnitz <lleichnitz@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 12:50 PM
2
Subject: Planning App #2022-03
To: <calvarez@lakeelsinore.org>
I represent Elsinore Country Club Holdings, which owns the 8.5 acre parcels immediately to the north of this project
along Mission Trail, just on the other side of future Victoria Lane.
I have two concerns about how this project impacts Victoria Lane.
First, it appears that this developer has no obligation to build or assist in the construction of Victoria Lane, although their
property line extends in portions to the centerline of this future road, requiring a 33.9' dedication along Victoria Lane
from Mission Trail. It has been my understanding that when a project is constructed along a future road, it typically
builds a half-width of the road. But here, I see no conditions related to the construction of Victoria Lane at all. I see
from the TTM elevations that the project would not access Victoria Lane, but in my view that should not excuse its
obligation to ensure the construction of a future street which it abuts, especially for such a large project.
Second, it is not clear to me from the elevations on the TTM whether this development will require the encroachment
upon my property to grade its property line along Victoria Lane and build retaining walls. I suspect it will, yet I have
never heard from this developer and have certainly not committed to any encroachment.
Lastly, I also have concerns about the future traffic signal at Victoria Lane. Again, looking at the proposed conditions of
approval, I do not see any obligation to build or even contribute to the construction of this future signal, although this
very large project would be the obvious major contributor to traffic at that intersection. I might desire to develop my
8.5AC parcel at some point, but due to flood rules only about 4 acres would be developable. It certainly would not be
fair if I were conditioned to build that signal, where this much larger project contributes nothing. However, if Staff
believes I also would not be conditioned to build such a signal if I were to move forward, this would alleviate my
concerns.
In closing, I want to emphasize that I have no objections to the project as designed, and would welcome these future
homeowners as good neighbors. I only raise issues of infrastructure equity.
I hope to hear from you on my concerns. I am happy to talk to you at the number below.
--
Leonard Leichnitz
3
Lumos Communities LLC
2618 San Miguel Dr. #503
Newport Beach, CA 92660
951 505-1502