HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 5 - Initial StudyCategorical Exemption CITY OF
LADE C01 ,LS1110KE
�d DREAM EXTREME
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:
ENVIRONMENT I PLANNING I DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS, INC.
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
September 2023
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 (1-15), as shown in Figure 1,Regional Location. Local access to the
site is provided by 1-15 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 9 of 184
Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning Designation
Designation
East Lake Specific Plan ELSP-Action Sports,Tourism,
North Vacant land (ELSP) Commercial and Recreation with
a Mixed Use Overlay
Lake Elsinore Motorsports East Lake Specific Plan ELSP-Action Sports,Tourism,
West Park (ELSP) Commercial and Recreation with
a Light Industrial Overlay
East Lake Specific Plan ELSP-Action Sports,Tourism,
South Vacant Land (ELSP) Commercial and Recreation with
a Mixed Use Overlay
Mission Trail followed by City of Wildomar
light industrial, General Commercial and City of Wildomar General
East Commercial and Single-Family
commercial,and Single-Family
residential Residential Residential
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 10 of 184
Regional Location
NGS VALLEY ,,
P
o`
�c
Menifee
Canyon Lake
Lake Elsinore
�I
._.Jco Hill,
c.
•
Project Site
Wildomar
Ae
Murrieta
J%
D S
'�. Vp adic Ada do
n m
1NA,
0 0.5 1 2 Miles L\
I I I I I I 1 I
Mission Trail Residential Figure 1
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 12 of 184
Local Vicinity
cr
3
J .
4 i
6
t sr t t
.a Olive St r
Vine St ^ .F
lake Flsmore
< Ganf
/ I1S
^ Victorian St
A Lewis St
Lemon St
t
sQo's� t 4
Waite St
Elsinore
Union High
School
00
x
e
P
ifs` 46 P t
N
D Project Site A
Mission Trail Residential Figure 2
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 14 of 184
Aerial View
' 4
> i tip_,-a!
;-14
s
ffi �'M
�-
- r—
4t. t .i
r -
n,: lY.il118AJ.1
it r% ' • " !*
�• �, - ,� � � �T ���: ems,:,
N
Project Site k
Mission Trail Residential Figure 3
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 16 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 1,779 square feet 2,146 square feet
3 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 5 Bedrooms
2.5 Bathrooms 2 Bathrooms 4 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage 2 Car Garage 2 Car Garage
Table 3: Proposed 8-Pack Residence Plan Options
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4
1,323 square feet 1,599 square feet 1,756 square feet 1,918 square feet
3 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms
2 Bathrooms 2.5 Bathrooms 2.5 Bathrooms 4 Bathrooms
2 Car Garage 2 Car Garage 2 Car Garage 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 17 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 18 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
Working
Construction Phase 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 19 of 184
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 20 of 184
�a.• ��! .:fir- � �+. P
, r
IN
�ic
i � i � 1a pi
,
���
40 i
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 22 of 184
6-Pack Plan 1 3D Perspectives
r � �I
PLAN 1 FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 1 MODERN FARMHOUSE
PLAN 1 SANTA BARBARA
Mission Trail Residential Figure 5
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 24 of 184
6-Pack Plan 2 3D Perspectives
PLAN 2 FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 2 MODERN FARMHOUSE
e
sr
PLAN 2 SANTA BARBARA
Mission Trail Residential Figure 6
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 26 of 184
6-Pack Plan 3 3D Perspectives
PLAN 3 FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 3 MODERN FARMHOUSE
000
PLAN 3 SANTA BARBARA
Mission Trail Residential Figure 7
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 28 of 184
8-Pack Plan 1 3D Perspectives
f.
R
PLAN 1 FRENCH
...._IIIIII � ►� /
�; �,iiliiii IIIII IIIIIIII � 0°� i I ►. ►, , �I I•.I . ��
4 y �
COUNTRY PLAN 1 MODERN •
��'�` � -�� �iir.�i �II�� fil��lllllll�I!! ' I' � I, ��_ •
PLAN 1
. ;. •; . -.
Mission Trail Residential
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 30 of 184
8-Pack Plan 2 3D Perspectives
J
- ®®
i
i
PLAN 2 FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 2 MODERN FARMHOUSE
PLAN 2 SANTA BARBARA
Mission Trail Residential Figure 9
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 32 of 184
8-Pack Plan - • -
PLAN 3 FRENCH COUNTRY PLANODFARMHOUSE
`R f.
1
PLAN 3 SANTA BARBARA
Mission • Residential
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 34 of 184
8-Pack Plan 4 3D Perspectives
.t�
I�
PLAN 4 FRENCH COUNTRY PLAN 4 MODERN FARMHOUSE
I
I
PLAN 4 SANTA BARBARA
Mission Trail Residential Figure 11
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 36 of 184
Fence and Wall Plan
8'HIGH C.M.U.
SOUND ATTENUATION BLOCK WALL
(ALONG THE WESTERLY EDGE)
Q0
I l a _ l l
c o
BACK BASIN SETBACK
I i C
o
—71 o A A A A A A
I
= vv vvv vv Ovv 1 �( 1
1
I I I
-----J ---- — --- - — —
---------- ----------- ------------ -----------_ _ _ _ _ _ _
a Noss„ ---------------------,moo_--------
FENCE AND WALL LEGEND
INC
Z
Mission Trail Residential Figure 12
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 38 of 184
Recreation and Open Space Plan
71
1. PARK BENCH 2-C- i
2. OUTDOOR FITNESS EQUIPMENT
3. ACCENT BOULDERS
4. D.G.PAVING -
5. SPECIMEN TREEr._� 158
b. VEHICULAR GATE ENTRY
7. PEDESTRIAN GATE 3 _ LNl-A
S. CALL BOX
9. PROJECT MONUMENT SIGNAGE
10. ACCENT PILASTER AT ENTRY
11. ENTRY STREET TREE 1 L—
12. SECONDARY ENTRY STREET TREE
13. PLANTED MEDIAN AT ENTRY DRIVE
3
\ 2 2 2
FITNESS GARDEN
181 1 LNl-
1
I
f' I
182
Ni.�
J �
L �f
s f I. RESTROOM BUILDING
2. POOL/SPA
3. SPA ACCENT WALL
1 r- 6. POOL FENCING ENCLOSURE
."R A''. "'•l 5. OVERHEAD POOL CABANA
b. OVERHEAD DINING CABANA
�-4 — 7. BBO
B. POOL GATE
I OPEN LAWN 9. POOL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE
10. POOL SHOWERS
AREA I I. MIENS
1 - 12 WOMENS
I 1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN
le. BOCCE COURT
183 I TOT LOT I S. OPEN LAWN AREA
- 17. OVERHEAD 7RElUS
I S_ PARK BENCH
IS__ TOT-LOT AREA
-- 19. PLAY EQUIPMENT
F --- - - - --- --
20. TURF BERM
21. MAILBOX CENTER W/OVERHEAD
�z
Mission Trail Residential Figure 13
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 40 of 184
Conceptual . . . . - Plan
79
� �.��� �. ®7 !� ®7 •fir : a
�� � i Cam' i■`� � � �,� � � �►; �_ �a' � i� �_ i ��
V �
Mission —MISSION TRAIL
• Residential
City of • - Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 42 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 43 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 ❑ Air Quality
Resources
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy
❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards&Hazardous
Emissions 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 44 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 45 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Tdditions Impact
I.AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,would theproject:
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 theproject:
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 46 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Vilditions 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 ?
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 theproject:
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 47 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Vilditions 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
reservation 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
conservationplan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
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 theproject:
a) Result in potentially significant ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 48 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Vilditions 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 49 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Vilditions 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?
VIH.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the pro'ect:
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 greenhousegases?
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 50 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Vilditions Impact
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuationplan?
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 theproject:
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 51 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Vilditions Impact
control plan or sustainable
groundwater managementplan?
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 theproject:
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 useplan?
XIH.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
groundbome vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
roundbome 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 theproject:
a) Induce substantial unplanned ❑ El El ❑
population growth in an area,either
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 52 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Vilditions 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 theproject:
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 53 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Vilditions 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 ro'ect:
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 d ears?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
which serves or may serve the
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 54 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Vilditions 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
reductiongoals?
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 evacuationplan?
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 55 of 184
New
Information
Identifying
Substantial New
Change in New Mitigation
Project or Information or
Circumstances Showing Alternative
Resulting in Greater to Reduce
New Significant Significant or,
Significant Effects than Effect is Vic is 1 No New
Effects Previous MND Declined Vilditions 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 56 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
rp eject.
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 57 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.aregis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d8O7c46cc8e8O57116fl aaca
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 58 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 Consistent
Policy 11.1 For new developments and redevelopment, Consistent. The proposed project does not contain
encourage the maintenance and incorporation of existing mature trees and other substantial vegetation on
existing mature trees and other substantial vegetation on the site. However, the project includes installation of
the site,whether naturally-occurring or planted,into the new ornamental trees and other landscaping throughout
landscape design. 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 Consistent. The proposed project includes installation
landscaping in parkways, parks, civic facilities, rights- of new landscaping throughout the project site, within
of-ways,and other public open areas. 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 Consistent. The proposed project includes installation
of native and/or non-invasive ornamental plants to of non-invasive ornamental plants to enhance the scenic
enhance the scenic setting of public and private lands. 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 59 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 5 ft. 5 ft.
Garage
• 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. 20 ft.
additional ft.for each additional story
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 60 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.
IL 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 61 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/CIFFO
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 62 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/CIFFO
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 63 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 64 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 65 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 buildings 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 66 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 Proiect
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 67 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?
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 Thresholds'
Pollutant Construction Operations
(lbs/da ) (lbs/da )
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PMIo 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,PMIo,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.
Regional thresholds are from the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds,March 2015.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 68 of 184
Table AQ-2: Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Summary(lbs/day)
Construction Activity Maximum Daily Regional Emissions(pounds/day)
ROG I NOx CO SOX PMio 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)
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
Operational Activity (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOX PMio 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 I 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,PMIo,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 69 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,PMIo, 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
Operating Acres Disturbed Acres
Equipment Hours per per piece of Disturbed per
Activity Equipment Type Quantity Da E ui mentper Day Da
Graders 1 8 0.5 0.5
Excavators 2 8 0 0
Grading Tractors/LoadersBackhoes 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 70 of 184
Table AQ-5: Localized Significance Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
Construction Activity (pounds/day)
NOX CO PMio 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 71 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 offowl 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 72 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 73 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 BI0-1 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 74 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 BI0-2 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
rp oject.
MM BI0-3 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 75 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 BI0-3a 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 BI0-4 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 BI0-4a 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 76 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 77 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 BI04a 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 BI0-5 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 (AWendix 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 BI0-6 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 BI0-7 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 78 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 79 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 BI0-9 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 BI0-9a 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 80 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 Proiect
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 BI0-5 and MM BI0-7. 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 81 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(USAGE)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 13I0-7 and PPP
13I0-1 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 82 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 13I0-2),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 83 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 84 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 Band 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 BI0-1: 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 85 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 13I0-2: Tree Regulations.The trees shrubs and plants installed on public property shall conform
to the regulations within Municipal Code Chapter 15.120.
PPP 13I0-3: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 Luiseno Indians (Pechanga Band) and
Soboba Band of Luiseno 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 86 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 Luisefio 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 87 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 Luiseno 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 Luiseno 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 88 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 89 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 Proiect
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 90 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 91 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 92 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 1I-
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
Horse- Load Total Fuel Rate Fuel
Equipment Number power Factor Days Horsepower- (gal/hp-hr) Use
hours (gallons)
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 367 0.4 10 35,232 0.020611684 726
Tractors/LoadersBackhoes 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/LoadersBackhoes 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 93 of 184
Total
Fuel
Equipment Number Horse- Load Days Horsepower- Fuel Rate Use
power Factor hours (gaUhp-hr) (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/LoadersBackhoes 1 46 0.45 300 49,680 1 0.033866729 1,682
Welder 3 84 0.37 300 195,804 1 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 1 0.48 1 30 1 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 94 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(gas line)Consumption
Annual VMT I Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
5,441,136 1 201,262
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 95 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 96 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
rp eject.
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 97 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 sprocess. 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 98 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 grgrading_permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed
rp oject.
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 99 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 100 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 101 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 102 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 103 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 104 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 105 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 106 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 Proiect
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 107 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(MTCO2e)
Annual GHG Emissions
Activity (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 108 of 184
Table GHG-2: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Annual GHG Emissions
Activity (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
Responsible
Action Parties Consistency
Implement SB 350 by 2030
Consistent. The project area uses
energy from Southern California
Increase the Renewables Portfolio CPUC, Edison (SCE). SCE has committed to
Standard to 50%of retail sales by 2030 CEC, diversify its portfolio of energy sources
and ensure grid reliability. CARB 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 109 of 184
Responsible
Action Parties Consistency
Consistent. The new development
Establish annual targets for statewide implemented by the project would be
energy efficiency savings and demand designed and constructed to implement
reduction that will achieve a the energy efficiency measures. The
cumulative doubling of statewide project would not interfere with or
energy efficiency savings in electricity obstruct policies or strategies to
and natural gas end uses by 2030. 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 Consistent. The new development
planning targets in the IRP process. would be designed and constructed to
Load-serving entities and publicly- implement the Title 24 (CalGreen)
owned utilities meet GHG emissions Standards.
reductions planning targets through a
combination of measures as described
in IRPs.
Implement Mobile Source Strategy(Cleaner Technology and Fuels)
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
At least 1.5 million zero emission and Source Strategy. The project would not
plug-in hybrid light-duty EV by 2025. obstruct or interfere with CARB zero
emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty
EV 2025 targets.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
At least 4.2 million zero emission and CARB, Source Strategy. The project would not
plug-in hybrid light-duty EV by 2030. California State obstruct or interfere with CARB zero
Transportation emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty
Agency(CaISTA), EV 2030 targets.
Strategic Growth Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Further increase GHG stringency on Council (SGC), Source Strategy. The project would not
all light-duty vehicles beyond existing California obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
Advanced Clean cars regulations. Department of to further increase GHG stringency on
Transportation all light-duty vehicles beyond existing
(Caltrans), Advanced Clean cars regulations.
CEC, Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG OPR, Source Strategy. The project would not
Phase 2. Local Agencies obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
to implement Medium- and Heavy-
Duty GHG Phase 2.
Innovative Clean Transit: Transition Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
to a suite of to-be-determined Source Strategy. The project would not
innovative clean transit options. obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
Assumed 20% of new urban buses improve transit-source emissions.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 110 of 184
Responsible
Action 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 Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
last mile delivery trucks in California. Source Strategy. The project would not
This measure assumes ZEVs comprise obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
2.5% of new Class 3-7 truck sales in to improve last mile delivery emissions.
local fleets starting in 2020,increasing
to 10% in 2025 and remaining flat
through 2030.
Further reduce vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) through continued
implementation of SB 375 and
regional Sustainable Communities Consistent. The project would not
Strategies; forthcoming statewide
implementation of SB 743; and obstruct or interfere with
potential additional VMT reduction implementation of SB 375 and would
therefore, not conflict with this
strategies not specified in the Mobile
Source Strategy but included in the measure.
document "Potential VMT Reduction
Strategies for Discussion."
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile
Source Strategy. The project would not
Increase stringency of SB 375 obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts
Sustainable Communities Strategy CARB to Increase stringency of SB 375
(2035 targets). Sustainable Communities Strategy
(2035 targets).
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page III of 184
Responsible
Action Parties Consistency
CaISTA,
SGC,
OPR,
CARB,
Governor's Office
of Business and
Economic
Harmonize project performance with Development Consistent. The project would not
emissions reductions and increase (GO-Biz),California obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
competitiveness of transit and active to harmonize transportation facility
transportation modes (e.g. via Infrastructure and project performance with emissions
guideline documents, funding Economic reductions and increase
programs,project selection,etc.). Development competitiveness of transit and active
Bank(IBank), transportation modes.
Department of
Finance (DOF),
California
Transportation
Commission
(CTC),
Caltrans
By 2019, develop pricing policies to CaISTA,
support low-GHG transportation (e.g. Caltrans, Consistent. The project would not
low-emission vehicle zones for heavy CTC, obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
duty,road user,parking pricing,transit OPR, to develop pricing policies to support
discounts). SGC, low-GHG transportation.
CARB
Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan
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
Improve freight system efficiency. goods movement sector. The project
CaISTA, would not obstruct or interfere with
CalEPA, agency efforts to Improve freight
CNRA, system efficiency.
GARB, Consistent. The project would not
Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles Caltrans,CEC obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
and equipment capable of zero to deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles
emission operation and maximize both GO-Biz and equipment capable of zero emission
zero and near-zero emission freight operation and maximize both zero and
vehicles and equipment powered by near-zero emission freight vehicles and
renewable energy by 2030. equipment powered by renewable
energy by 2030.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 112 of 184
Responsible
Action Parties Consistency
Consistent. The project would not
Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
with a Carbon Intensity reduction of CARB to adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard
18% with a Carbon Intensity reduction of
Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy(SLPS)by 2030
40% reduction in methane and
hydrofluorocarbon emissions below CARB, Consistent. These are not emissions
2013 levels. CalRecycle, related to the proposed project. Hence,
CDFA, the proposed project would not obstruct
SWRCB or interfere agency efforts to reduce
50% reduction in black carbon Local Air Districts SLPS emissions.
emissions below 2013 levels.
Consistent. The new development
would be required through City
CARB, permitting to implement waste
By 2019, develop regulations and CalRecycle, reduction and recycling measures
programs to support organic waste CDFA consistent with state and City
landfill reduction goals in the SLCP SWRCB, requirements. The project would not
and SB 1383. Local Air Districts obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
support organic waste landfill reduction
goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.
Consistent. The project is not
applicable to implementation of Cap-
Implement the post-2020 Cap-and- and-Trade Program provisions. Thus,
Trade Program with declining annual CARB the project would not obstruct or
caps. 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
Consistent. The project includes 0.15
acre located below the CDFW
CNRA, jurisdictional elevation of 1,265 feet
Departments AMSL and is associated with the back
Within basin of Lake Elsinore. The project has
Protect land from conversion through CDFA, been designed to be setback from this
conservation easements and other CalEPA, area. Thus, the project would not
incentives. CARB obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other
incentives.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 113 of 184
Responsible
Action Parties Consistency
Consistent. The project provides for
residential development on a disturbed
site with ruderal vegetation that does
Increase the long-term resilience of not provide for carbon storage or
carbon storage in the land base and sequestration. The project would not
enhance sequestration capacity obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
increase the long-term resilience of
carbon storage in the land base and
enhance sequestration capacity.
Consistent. Where appropriate, the
new development would incorporate
Utilize wood and agricultural wood or wood products. The project
products to increase the amount of would not obstruct or interfere agency
carbon stored in the natural and built efforts to encourage use of wood and
environments agricultural products to increase the
amount of carbon stored in the natural
and built environments.
Consistent. The project would not
Establish scenario projections to serve obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
as the foundation for the establish scenario projections to serve
as the foundation for the
Implementation Plan Implementation Plan.
Consistent. The project would not
Establish a carbon accounting obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
framework for natural and working CARB establish a carbon accounting
lands as described in SB 859 by 2018 framework for natural and working
lands as described in SB 859.
CNRA,
California
Department of Consistent. The project would not
Implement Forest Carbon Plan Forestry and Fire obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
Protection implement the Forest Carbon Plan.
(CAL FIRE),
CalEPA and
Departments
Within
Consistent. The project would not
Identify and expand funding and State Agencies & obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
financing mechanisms to support Local Agencies identify and expand funding and
GHG reductions across all sectors. 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 114 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 Consistency
Proposed Project
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
Measure T-1.2: Applicable with the project site.
Pedestrian Infrastructure 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.
Consistent. This measure requires new development
to implement and connect to the network of Class 1,11
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.
Measure T-1.4: Bicycle Applicable
Infrastructure The General Plan identifies a planned Class 11 bicycle
lane along the project site frontage. The project
includes installation of sidewalks and a Class 11
bicycle lane along the project frontage. As such, the
proposed project would implement this measure and
would not conflict with this measure.
Not Applicable. This measure requires the City to
enforce short-term and long-term bicycle parking
Measure T-1.5: Bicycle standards for new non-residential developments.This
Parking Standards Not Applicable measure is not applicable to the residential project.As
such,the proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
Not Applicable. This measure requires new non-
residential developments to designate 10% of total
Measure T-2.1: parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient
Designated Parking for Not Applicable vehicles. This measure is not applicable to the
Fuel Efficient Vehicles residential project. As such, the proposed project
would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-4.1: Not Applicable. This measure requires the City to
Commute Trip Not Applicable institute a commute trip reduction program for
Reduction Program employers with fewer than 100 employees. This
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 115 of 184
CAP Measure Applicability to Consistency
Proposed Project
measure is not applicable to the residential
project. As such, the proposed project would not
conflict with this measure.
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
Measure E-1.1: Tree Applicable Landscape Plan. This measure is implemented by the
Planting Requirements 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.
Not Applicable. This measure requires new non-
residential development to use roofing materials
having solar reflectance, thermal emittance, or Solar
Measure E-1.2: Cool Not Applicable Reflectance Index consistent with CALGreen Tier 1
Roof Requirements values. This measure is not applicable to the
residential project. As such, the proposed project
would not conflict with this measure.
Consistent. This measure requires that new
construction exceed the California Energy Code
requirements through either the performance-based or
Measure E-1.3: Energy prescriptive approach described in the California
Efficient Building Applicable Green Building Code. This measure is implemented
Standards 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.
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
Measure E-3.2: Energy owned traffic lights with LED lights;require any new
Efficient Street and Applicable street and traffic lights to be LED. This measure is
Traffic Signal Lights 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 116 of 184
CAP Measure Applicability to Consistency
Proposed Project
proposed project would not conflict with this
measure.
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
Measure E-4.1: Applicable landscaping and irrigation requirements. This
Landscaping Ordinance 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.
Consistent. This measure requires that development
projects reduce indoor water consumption. The
Measure E-4.2: Indoor proposed project is designed to be consistent with the
Water Conservation Applicable Title 24 water conservation requirements. This
Requirements 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.
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
Measure E-5.1: technical and financial assistance through the City
Renewable Energy Applicable website. This measure is implemented by the
Incentives 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.
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
Measure S-1.4: plan for the project. This measure is implemented by
Construction and the Departments of Planning and Building through
Demolition Waste Applicable City contracts, Municipal Code amendments,
Diversion 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 117 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 HA7_-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 118 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 119 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 Proiect
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 120 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 121 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 122 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:Hegis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https:Hosftn.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 123 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 fixture development to ensure potential flood
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 124 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 125 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 Proiect
The discussion below is based on the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Project Specific Water Quality
Management Plan,included as Appendix H and Appendix 1.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 126 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 127 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 1)
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 128 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 1)
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 129 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 1)
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 130 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 131 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 132 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 133 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 Proiect
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 134 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 135 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 136 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 N0I-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 N0I-2 through MM N0l4 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 N0I-2 through MM N0I-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 137 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 N0I-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 N0I-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 138 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 N0I4 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 N0I4 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 cgpabilily. 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 I 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 N0I-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 139 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 Proiect
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
Based Exterior Noise Level Standards dBA
Receiving Land Use Condition 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 17.176.080.17,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 140 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 Type 11 Areas Type III Areas
Single-Family Multifamily Semi-Residential/
Residential Residential Commercial
Daily,except Sundays and Legal Holidays 75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA
7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.
Daily, 7:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. and all day 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Sunday and Legal Holidays
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 Type 11 Areas Type III Areas
Single-Family Multifamily Semi-Residential/
Residential Residential Commercial
Daily,except Sundays and Legal Holidays 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.
Daily,7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA
Sunday and Legal Holidays
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
V 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 microsco es(up to 20X .
Residential Night 72 Vibration is not felt,but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms.
and Operating Suitable for medium-power microscopes (100x) and other equipment of low
Rooms sensitivity.
Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis,Appendix J.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 141 of 184
Table N-3: FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV(in/sec)
Reinforced concrete,steel,or timber noplaster) 0.50
Engineered concrete and mason noplaster) 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
Daytime Community
Noise Evening Nighttime Noise
Location Levels Noise Noise Equivalent
(dBA Levels Levels Level
Date Le dBA Le dBA Le CNEL
LT-1 Along the western edge of the 8/19/2022 48.5-72.0 51.0-57.0 41.1-51.0 64.6
project site,approximately 440 8/20/2022 47.0-77.4 53.0-58.8 40.7-51.0 69.2
feet north of the southern site 8/21/2022 49.5-83.7 50.6-76.3 41.2-47.4 76.2
boundary.
LT-2 Along the western edge of the 8/19/2022 52.5-62.0 53.0-57.9 42.9-52.5 59.2
project site,approximately 120 8/20/2022 50.4-63.6 52.7-61.1 42.3-52.8 60.2
feet north of the southern site 8/21/2022 52.4-69.8 51.5-64.6 42.5-48.9 63.4
boundary.
LT-3 Approximately 75 feet north of 8/19/2022 49.0-59.4 53.8-56.8 45.8-55.1 59.2
the northwestern corner of the 8/20/2022 50.6-60.2 54.7-59.1 45.7-56.1 59.7
project site boundary. 8/21/2022 51.8-66.7 52.8-63.0 45.3-51.5 61.1
LT-4 Approximately 100 feet west of 8/19/2022 61.2-66.8 63.2-65.1 53.4-63.4 67.7
Mission Trail,north of the 8/20/2022 62.4-65.6 63.1-65.6 53.1-65.3 67.7
Victorian Lane intersection. 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.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 142 of 184
Noise Monitoring Locations
•• h .e�lp41P r •
40
AL
.40
� 'r�• ".. t R'1 sJ '
-44
J �
LEGEND N
Qo Project Site Boundary
L4Il Long-term Noise Monitoring Location
Mission Trail Residential Figure 15
City of Lake Elsinore
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 144 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
/o L. at 50 Feet
Auger Drill Rig 20 84
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor round 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 145 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 N0I-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
Composite Noise Level Distance(feet) Composite Noise
Receptor(Location) (dBA LeJ at 50 feed Level dBA Leq
Residences to the East 88 440 70
Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis,Appendix J.
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 146 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 Leg to 83.7 dBA Leg, 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 N0I-3 and MM N0I4. 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 fagades 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 N0I4) 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 147 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 N0I4 to confirm the
reduction capability of the exterior facades 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
Existing Condition O e ing Year O e ing Year With Project
CNEL dBA CNEL dBA CNEL dBA
Roadway Segment 50 feet from 50 feet from 50 feet from
Centerline Centerline Centerline
of Nearest of Nearest of Nearest Project
ADT Lane ADT Lane ADT Lane Increase
North of Mission Trail and 17,110 68.8 29,680 71.2 29,830 71.2 0.0
Project Driveway
Mission Trail between Project 17,560 68.9 29,650 71.2 31,130 71.4 0.2
Driveway and Corydon Road
Mission Trail between Corydon 13,800 67.9 14,350 68.0 21,810 69.9 1.9
Road and Bundy Canyon Road
Bundy Canyon Rd between 11,550 65.0 15,000 66.2 16,160 66.5 0.3
Mission Trail and Orange Street
East of Orange Street and Bundy 16,890 66.3 20,560 67.2 21,720 67.4 0.2
Canyon Road
Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis,Appendix J.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 148 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 groundbome 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 dB at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Large bulldozer 1 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
Reference Vibration Distance(ft) Vibration Level
Receptor(Location) Level(VdB)at 25 ft (VdB)
Residences East 440 50
Commercial South 87 1000 39
Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis,Appendix J
Table N-8: Project Construction Equipment Damage Vibration at Receiver Locations
Reference Vibration Distance(ft) Vibration Level
Receptor(Location) Level PPV at 25 ft 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?
Impact.)
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 149 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 150 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 Proiect
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 151 of 184
https://www.dofca.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 152 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 Proiect
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, 2.6 miles
Wildomar, CA 92595
#10 410 W. Graham Ave, Lake 4.0 miles
Elsinore, CA 92530
#94 22770 Railroad Canyon Rd, 4.1 miles
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
#11 33020 Maiden Lane, Lake 4.7 miles
Elsinore, CA 92530
#97 41725 Rosetta Canyon Dr, 4.0 miles
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
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 153 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 154 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
Existing Students Remaining
School 2021-2022 Remaining Generated by Capacity with
School Capacity Enrollment Capacity Project Project
Lakeland Village K8 1,300 864 436 83 353
Elsinore High School 1 3,425 1 2,194 1 1.231 1 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.kl2.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 155 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 156 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 Proiect
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 157 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 158 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. 1-15 Northbound from Baxter Road to Bundy Canyon
Road; I-15 Northbound from Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road; 1-15 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 HAZ4 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 159 of 184
East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM TC-I: 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 160 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 1-15 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)
• 1-15 SB Ramps at Bundy Canyon Road—(TIA reference Intersection 18)
• 1-15 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 161 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
• 1-15 Northbound Off-Ramp to Grape Street—(TIA reference 1)
• 1-15 Northbound On-Ramp from Grape Street—(TIA reference 2)
• 1-15 Southbound Off-Ramp to Railroad Canyon Road—(TIA reference 3)
• 1-15 Southbound On-Ramp from Railroad Canyon Road—(TIA reference 4)
• 1-15 Southbound from Railroad Canyon Road to Bundy Canyon Road—(TIA
reference 5)
• 1-15 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, I Ith Edition(Institute of Transportation
Engineers,2021).
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 162 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 "B" 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 AM Peak PM Peak Threshold of
Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Significance
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 163 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 1 P 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 Housin i 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
Traffic AM Peak PM Peak Threshold
Intersection of
Control Delay' LOSZ Delay' LOSZ
Significance
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. Oran e 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 164 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
Existing Project Completion with
j Proect Com letion Improvement
Intersection 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 94.1 F 60.6 E 92.1 F 63.5 E 20.2 C 18.5 B
Bundy Canyon Rd
=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 AM Peak PM Peak Threshold of
Control Delay' LOS' Delay' LOS' Significance
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 1) 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 165 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
Cumulative Cumulative IMP
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
6. Oran e St/BundyCanyon Rd 86.2 F 59.9 E 20.2 C 18.5 B
7 I-15 SB Ramps/Bundy Canyon Rd 54.5 D 123.6 F 28.8 C 43.6 D
with General Plan EIR TIA Improvement
__.1L =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 166 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 167 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 Average Arrival Average Service Traffic Intensity'
Inbound Volume Rate Rate
Mission Trail Gate 17 133 0.13
Lemon Street Gate 97 133 0.73
'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 95t1i 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 95'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 168 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 Luiseiios.
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 169 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 170 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 171 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 172 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 173 of 184
is included in the UWMP demand projections listed in Table UT-1.
Table UT-1: Urban Water Management Plan Projections
Projected Water Suipp1 AFY
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Reasonably Reasonably Reasonably Reasonably Reasonably
Water Additional Detail on Available Available Available Available Available
Supply Water Supply Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Purchased or
imported Western/Metropolitan' 26,286 26,286 26,286 26,286 26,286
water
Purchased or Raw Imported Water
imported Western/Metropolitan'°2 0 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700
water
Groundwater Elsinore Valley 5 500 5 500 5 500 5 500 5 500
Subbasin3 '
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 Re lacement3 450 450 450 450 450
Groundwater Temecula-Pauba GW3 0 0 750 750 750
Surface Canyon Lake/CLWTP4 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Water
Other IPR at Regional WRF5 0 0 0 940 1,970
Recycled Temescal Wash&Lake
Water Elsinore 7,270 8,027 8,863 8,960 8,960
Replenishments
Recycled MeteredCustomers6 1,459 1,459 1,459 1,459 1,459
Water
Recycled Canyon Lake and
Water Summerly Golf 378 378 378 378 378
Course
Total Projected Su 1 7: 47,219 51,675 53,261 54,298 55,328
Total Projected Demand: 38,932 41,994 45,313 48,085 50,967
'Imported 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.
Z Starting in 2026,EVMWD plans to start purchasing about 3,700 AFY of raw imported water from Western/Metropolitan for treatment at the
CLWTP.
The safe yield for the groundwater subbasins will be established with their respective GSPs.
°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.
'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.
a 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 174 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 175 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 176 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://osfin.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 177 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:Hegis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osftn.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://osfin.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:Hegis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https:Hosfin.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 178 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 BI0-1 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 179 of 184
MM HWQ-1 through MM HWQ-8: Listed in Section X,Hydrology and Water Quality.
MM N0I-1 through MM N0I-6: Listed in Section XIII,Noise.
MM TC-1 and MM TC-2: Listed in Section XVII, Transportation.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Proiect
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 BI0-5 and MM BI0-7. 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 180 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 111,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 181 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 182 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 Ouality,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 111, 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 183 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 I 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
Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study
Page 184 of 184