Attachment 5 - Initial StudyCategorical Exemption — Lake Elsinore City Council, December 12, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

accidental release into the environment near the school.

Additionally, the emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the projec t 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 potent ial 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 c ould require the temporary closure of

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 123 of 184 ends

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 re sponse 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 t o 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 C alFire Hazard Severity Zone map, the project site is not within a high fire hazard zone. As a result, the proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. In addition, Final EIR Mitigation Measure MM HAZ‐5 would ensure implementation of Policies 4.1 through 4.3 of the Wildfire Hazards section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter of the General Plan. Therefore, no new impacts related to wildland fires would occur.

(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore L ocal Responsibility A rea, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hazards and hazardous materials. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alter natives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 124 of 184 ends

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 m easures 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 m ost of the Specific Plan area is l ocated within the 100‐year floodplain and would be subject to a potential 100‐year flood event. Based on current site elevations, mitigation measures MM HWQ‐6 through MM HWQ‐8 would be required of all future development to ensure potential flood

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 125 of 184 ends

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 wit h 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 p roject site, measures shall be taken to prevent any release of hydrocarbons into the Lake during routine dredging operations a s well as uncontrolled accidental spillage of petroleum products into the Lake from dredging machinery. Such measures shall include the use of floating oil booms to collect any

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 126 of 184 ends

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 su stain the 365- acre Wetlands Mitigation Area and the Wetland Areas are maintained pursuant to the specification of the Lake Management Plan, as applicable.

Project Applicability: MM HWQ-7 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project site does not include areas below elevation 1,260 or any other areas within USACE jurisdiction.

MM HWQ-8
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for projects below elevation 1,260, approval shall be secured from the USACE that the proposed project complies with the conditions of Permit No. 88 -00215-RRS and amendments thereto. Project shall also comply with SARWQCB requirements as applicable.

Project Applicability: MM HWQ-8 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project site does not include areas below elevation 1,260 or any other areas within USACE jurisdiction.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The discussion below is based on the Preliminary H ydrology Report and Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, included as Appendix H and Appendix I.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 127 of 184 ends

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 prope r 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 binde rs for forecasted wind storms;
• Specifications for construction waste handling and disposal; • Contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas; • Erosion control measures including soil binders, hydro mulch, geotextiles, and hydro seeding of disturbed areas ahead of forecasted storms;
• Construction of stabilized construction entry/exits to prevent trucks from tracking sediment on City roadways;
• Construction timing to minimize soil exposure to storm events; and • Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 128 of 184 ends

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 vehi cles. If these pollutants discharge into surface waters, it could result in degradation of water quality. However, operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit and has prepared a project-specific WQMP (included as Appendix I) that describes the low-impact development (LID) infrastructure and non- structural, structural, and source control and treatment control BMPs that are included in the project’s design to protect surface water quality.

The Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit regulations are included in the City’s Municipal Code in Chapter

14.08. The MS4 Permit:
• Provides the framework for the program management activities and plan development; • Provides the legal authority for prohibiting unpermitted discharges into the storm drain system and for requiring BMPs in new development and significant redevelopment; • Ensures that all new development and significant redevelopment incorporates appropriate Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs to address specific water quality issues; and • Ensures that construction sites implement control practices that address construction related pollutants including erosion and sediment control and onsite hazardous materials and waste management.

The Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit requires that new development and significant redevelopment projects (or priority projects), such as the proposed project, develop and implement a WQMP that includes BMPs and LID design features that would provide onsite treatment of stormwater to prevent pollutants from onsite uses from leaving the site. A WQMP has been developed (included as Appendix I ) and is required to be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.

The proposed project would install
catch basins, a bio-treatment unit, and an underground detention basin, which have been sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour) from the project site. As described previously, the WQMP is required to be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. The project’s WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure it complies with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Permit regulations. In addition, the City’s permitting process would ensure that all BMPs in the WQMP would be implemented with the project. Overall, implementation of the WQMP pursuant to the existing regulations (included as PPP WQ-2) would ensure that operation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality; and no new impacts would occur.

(Sources: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix I)

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (No New Impact.)

The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) provides water services to the project area. The

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 129 of 184 ends

EVMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan describes that the E VMWD obtains water from local groundwater wells, surface water from Canyon Lake Reservoir and treated at the Can yon Lake Water Treatment Plant, and imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District . EVMWD pumps water from the Elsinore Valley Subbasin and the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. EVMWD actively manages the groundwater subbasins and serves as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Elsinore Valley Subbasin and is a member of the Bedford- Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Authority (BCGSA), which serves as the GSA for the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin. The EVMWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) shows that the anticipated production of groundwater would remain the same through 2045 and the supply would exceed demand in both normal years and multiple dry year conditions (shown in Table UT -1 in Section XIX , Utilities and Service Systems) . The project would not result in changes to the projected groundwater pumping that would decrease groundwater supplies, and the project would not otherwise impede the sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

The project site is undeveloped with pervious surfaces. After completion of project construction, a large portion of the site would be impervious. The project would convey stormwater drainage into landscaping areas, catch basins, a bio- treatment unit, and an underground detention basin, from which it would be discharged and drain into the Lake. Therefore, no new impacts related to interference with groundwater recharge would occur.

(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix I)

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i). Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (No New Impact.)

The project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a natural stream or river. T he 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 c ompliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. The SWPPP would be amended and BMPs revised, as determined necessary through field inspections, in order to protect against substantial soil erosion, the loss of topsoil, or alteration of the drainage pattern. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ -1) would prevent construction-related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or erosion from development activities. With implementation of the existing construction regulations that would be

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 130 of 184 ends

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 a n undeveloped site with a ruderal vegetation and soil surface, which has the potential for erosion and sedimentation. With development of the project, a large portion of the site would be covered by impervious surfaces, such as residential structures, roadways, sidewalks, and driveways, which would not be subject to erosion. Pervious areas of the site would be landscaped with groundcovers that would inhibit erosion and the water quality basin that is designed to filter in infiltrate stormwater and would not result in erosion or sedimentation.

The proposed project would maintain the existing drainage pattern. The runoff from the project area would be collected by roof drains, surface flow designed pavement, curbs, and area drains and conveyed to either landscaping areas or to the catch basins and bio- treatment units and be routed to an underground detention basin. Additionally, the MS4 permit requires new development projects to prepare a WQMP (included as Appendix I) that is required to include BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or sedimentation through site design and structural treatment control BMPs. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage and water quality design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division to ensure that the site-specific design limits the potential for erosion and siltation. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing regulations would ensure that no new impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern and erosion/siltation from operational activities would occur.

(Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix I)

ii). Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; (No New Impact.)

Construction
Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and grading. These activities could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and change runoff flow rates. However, as described previously, implementation of the project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction- related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding on or off -site from development activities. Therefore, no new construction impacts would occur.

Operation
As described previously, the proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces on the project site. However, the project would convey runoff to landscaped areas or to catch basins and bio- treatment units and be routed to an underground detention basin for treatment that have been designed to accommodate the stormwater volume pursuant to the MS4 permit requirements, as shown in the Preliminary Hydrology Report, Appendix H. Therefore, an increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite would not occur.

As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that the proposed drainage would

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 131 of 184 ends

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 prov ide 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 d rainage 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 poten tial 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 ha ve 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 06065C 2043G, the northwestern portion of the site is identified as an area inundated by the base elevation of 1,266 and the central portion of the site is identified an area with a 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard and an area with a 1 percent annual chance of flood with average depths less than one foot. As detailed in the previous responses, implementation of the project would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces on the site. However, the runoff from the project area would be accommodated by landscaping, catch basins, a bio-treatment unit and an underground detention basin that have been sized to accommodate the MS4 required design storm. Therefore, the project would not result in impeding or redirecting flood flows by the addition of the impervious surfaces. As detailed previously, the City’s permitting process

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 132 of 184 ends

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 a re required to implement a WQMP (per PPP WQ-2) that would comply with the MS4 permit requirements. The WQMP and applicable BMPs are verified as part of the City’s permitting approval process, and construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Water production from groundwater basins is managed by EVMWD, who is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Elsinore Valley Subbasin , and by the Bedford- Coldwater Groundwater

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 133 of 184 ends

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 obstr uct 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)

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 alternative s that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.

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 complianc e with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. The project applicant/proponent shall comply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site.

PPP WQ -2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department. The Final WQMP shall identify all Post- Construction, Site Design. Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 134 of 184 ends

Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measure for hydrology and water quality regarding drainage permitting (MM HWQ -5), which is listed previously , is applicable to the proposed project and would be included in the project MMRP to ensure implementation.

No new mitigation measures are required.

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR The Final EIR describes that buildout of the Specific Plan would decrease the number of planned residential units in the area and instead add more active recreation and associated uses to capitalize on the City’s growing reputation as a destination for extreme sports. The EIR also determined that the Specific Plan would not result in physical division of an established community, and no impacts would occur.

The Final EIR reveals that the Specific Plan is generally consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS performance measures. The Specific Plan would not conflict with any applicable policy documents. The proposed Project would also be generally consistent with goals and policies of the City General Plan. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community? (No New Impact.)

The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project site is located within Planning Area 2 of the East Lake Specific Plan and is planned for development. The site is adjacent and across the street from a mix of light industrial, commercial, and residential development. The proposed project would develop the site with 191 two-story residential units, onsite roadways, parking, and recreation areas in consistency with the allowable Specific Plan land uses. Because the site is bound by a roadway and vacant parcels exist to the north and south of the site, development of the area to a residential neighborhood would not physically divide an established community. Conversely, it would develop the community in consistency with land use plans. In addition, the proposed driveway/sidewalk system provides for circulation through the site and does not result in any physical division. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to physical division of an established community.

(Sources: Project site plan , General Plan Land Use map, Accessed: http://www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24601; and City of Lake Elsinore Zoning map, Accessed:
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603)

b) C ause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No New Impact.)

As described previously, the project site is adjacent to residential, retail/service commercial, and roadways.

The project would develop the project site to provide 191 residential units, which is consistent with the allowable uses on the site.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 135 of 184 ends

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)

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 r equire additional environmental review and the project is consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 136 of 184 ends

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.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 137 of 184 ends

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 under taken 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.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

XIII. NOISE

Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR The Final EIR determined that construction of future development projects within the Specific Plan area would result in generation of noise due to use of heavy machinery and potential increases in traffic from construction trucks and employee vehicles. Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1 was included to require projects to reduce and/or minimize such temporary construction noise impacts through implementation of noise reduction measures; however, it cannot be guaranteed that such measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts were determined to be potentially significant and unavoidable.

The Final EIR also determined that the Specific Plan’s incremental contribution to traffic noise increases which, could result in a 3 dB increase in areas that exceed General Plan noise standards or result in a 5 dB increase in other areas; thus, exceeding significance thresholds at the future project‐level. Exterior areas of future noise‐sensitive land uses placed within these distances would be impacted significantly by traffic noise. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM NOI‐2 through MM NOI‐4 would reduce traffic noise impacts on existing and/or future sensitive uses to meet City standards; however, the Final EIR determined that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

In addition, the Final EIR described that the exist ing motorsports park that is adjacent to the project site generates substantial noise volume and estimates that motocross noise level from a motorbike pass‐by is near 95 dB at a distance of 50 feet. With a conservative assumption of 20 motorbikes racing at a typical event and a distance attenuation factor of 6 dB noise reduction per doubling of distance, maximum noise levels from a 20‐bike race at a distance of 1,000 feet from the racing facility would be near 82 dB. Noise levels from such an event at a distance of approximately 2,300 feet would be 75 dB. The Final EIR includes Mitigation Measures MM NOI‐2 through MM NOI‐5 to reduce noise impacts that include use of site design, setbacks, placement of sound walls or other shielding features to reduce impacts to below significant with implementation of mitigation measure. However, the Final EIR determined that it cannot be guaranteed that the measures would reduce noise impacts on existing and/or future sensitive uses to meet City standards.

Therefore, the Final EIR determined that noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 138 of 184 ends

The Final EIR described that n o heavy machinery or equipment would be operated that could lead to excessive groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, M itigation Measure MM NOI-6 is required to reduce construction related vibration.

East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit for a future implementing development project in the East Lake Specific Plan, the applicant will submit to the City for review and approval, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) that will include measures to reduce construction-related noise. The CMP shall include:

1. Estimated number of working days, days of the week to be worked, and daily working hours for site preparation, grading and construction activities consistent with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Additional allowable working time restrictions may be established by the City if activities will occur within 200 feet of sensi tive 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 poss ible, 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 sha ll be required to determine additional measures such as special activity scheduling and/or need for the erection of temporary sound barriers to reduce impacts.

5. Posted information onsite for contact in case of emergency or complaint.

6. If a hauling permit is required, the contractor will verify with the City prior to hauling activities that no conflict with other projects utilizing portions of the same route, also for hauling activities under another hauling permit, will occur.

Project Applicability: MM NOI-1 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part of the building permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed project.

MM NOI-2 As part of an application for a future implementing development project within the East Lake Specific Plan, a detailed acoustical study shall be submitted that evaluates existing and projected noise levels affecting the implementing development proposal. D esign 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 determi ned to occur within the 65 dBA noise contour, noise attenuation shall be required to reduce noise levels to 65 dBA CNEL or lower. This may include the use of architectural treatments, barriers, or other noise attenuating measures. Project specific measures shall provide sound level reductions so that future uses within the Project site are consistent with the CNEL levels identified in the Lake Elsinore General Plan and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 139 of 184 ends

Project Applicability: MM NOI-2 is applicable to the proposed project and has been completed as part of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, included as Appendix J.

MM NOI-3 Prior to the approval of each future implementing development project within the East Lake Specific Plan, the applicant/developer shall submit a detailed acoustical study demonstrating that all structures will meet applicable City interior noise levels and exterior living area noise levels, in accordance with applicable noise standards and zoning regulations.

1. The study shall be prepared by a City-approved acoustical expert, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; and,

2. The study shall document projected ultimate noise exposure for interior office, retail and residential space and shall demonstrate that the project specific design plans have incorporated adequate sound attenuation measures to achieve the applicable noise standards.

Project Applicability: MM NOI-3 is applicable to the proposed project and has been partially completed as part of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, included as Appendix J. Once final plans are available and a window manufacturer has been chosen, a Final Acoustical Report (FAR) would be required to confirm design reduction capability.

MM NOI-4 Prior to the issuance of any building permits for future implementing residential development projects, the applicant shall incorporate appropriate buffering and/or sound attenuation in the building siting and designs to limit potential incompatibilities with the nearby land uses. Noise levels for the residential units shall be reduced to 45 dBA for interior noise levels.

Project Applicability: MM NOI-4 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part of the building permitting process. Once final plans are available and a window manufacturer has been chosen, a Final Acoustical Report (FAR) would be required to confirm design reduction capability. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed project.

MM NOI-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for future implementing commercial development projects, the applicant shall incorporate measures to minimize hours of operation and reduce exterior noise levels on on- offsite sensitive receptors resulting from on -site noise sources, such as Action Sports 1 and 2 operations, Active Recreation 1 and 2 operations, loading docks, speakerphones, music/live entertainment to 65 dBA CNEL from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. These measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or modified for special events with issuance of a special event permit.

Project Applicability: MM NOI-5 is not applicable to the proposed project because the project does not include commercial development.

MM NOI-6 For future implementing develo pment projects in the East Lake Specific Plan with the potential to generate construction-related ground borne vibration (e.g., use of pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers) within 100 feet or less of sensitive buildings, the City shall require the project applicant to submit a construction- related vibration avoidance, minimization and mitigation plan to the City prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit. The mitigation plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and activities and how the vibration from equipment and activities would be mitigated to

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 140 of 184 ends

minimize human annoyance and avoid damage to buildings. The City shall require binding implementation measures for the approved plan.

Project Applicability: MM NOI-6 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part of the building permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed project.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project

A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project (Appendix J) to assess the project’s potential noise and vibration related impacts. The following analysis incorporates information from the study.

California Building Code
The State of California’s interior noise standards for all new construction with habitable spaces are codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Chapter 12, Section 1206. A habitable space in a building is defines as a space used for “living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. The acceptable interior noise limit is 45 CNEL in all habitable rooms.

General Plan
The City’s General Plan Public Safety and Welfare Element includes a compatibility matrix (Table 3-1) to determine if new land uses are compatible with the existing noise environment. The table identifies noise environments that are less than 70 dBA CNEL t o be normally compatible with residential uses.

Additionally, areas that have existing ambient noise levels above 75 dBA CNEL are considered clearly incompatible with residential uses.

Municipal Code
Section 17.176.060, Exterior Noise Limits, identifies the maximum permissible sound levels by receiving land use. For residential land use, the noise level limits for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours of 50 dBA L50 and 40 dBA L50 during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours for:
• a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any hour (L₅₀); or • the standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour (L₂₅); or • the standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour (L8); or • the standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour (L2); or • the standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (Lmax).

Municipal Code Section 17.176.060 for residential uses are detailed in Table N-1.

Table N-1: Municipal Code Residential Exterior Noise Level Standards Receiving Land Use Condition
Based Exterior Noise Level Standards (dBA)
L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax
(30 mins) (15 mins) (5 mins) (1 min) (Anytime)
Single-Family Residential Daytime 50 55 60 65 70
Nighttime 40 45 50 55 60
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.

Section 17.176.080.F, Construction/Demolition, states that the following is prohibited:

1. Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 141 of 184 ends

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 feasib le, construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum noise levels at affected residential properties will not exceed those listed in the following schedule:

Mobile Equipment: Maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short‐term operation (less than 10 days) of mobile equipment:

Type I Areas
Single‐Family
Residential
Type II Areas
Multifamily
Residential
Type III Areas
Semi‐Residential/
Commercial
Daily, except Sundays and Legal Holidays
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA
Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day
Sunday and Legal Holidays 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA

Stationary Equipment: Maximum noise levels for repetitively scheduled and relatively long‐term operation (period of 10 days or more) of stationary equipment:

Type I Areas
Single‐Family
Residential
Type II Areas
Multifamily
Residential
Type III Areas
Semi‐Residential/
Commercial
Daily, except Sundays and Legal Holidays
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Daily,7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day
Sunday and Legal Holidays 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA

Section 17.176.080.G, Vibration, states that it is prohibited to operate any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of any individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet (46 meters) from the source if on publi c space or public right-of-way. However, the Municipal code does not define a quantitative vibration threshold. The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual) is used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts. Table N-2 provides the criteria for assessing the potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building. Also, as shown in Table N-3, a vibration level of up to 0.5 in/sec in peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For non- engineered timber and masonry buildings, the construction building vibration damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV.

Table N-2: FTA Construction Vibration Annoyance Criteria Land Use Max Lv
(VdB) Description of Use
Workshop 90 Vibration that is distinctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.

Office 84 Vibration that can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.

Residential Day 78 Vibration that is barely felt. Adequate for computer equipment and low -power optical microscopes (up to 20×).

Residential Night
and Operating
Rooms
72 Vibration is not felt, but ground -borne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms.

Suitable for medium -power microscopes (100×) and other equipment of low sensitivity.

Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 142 of 184 ends

Table N-3: FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.

Existing Noise Levels
As detailed in the Noise Impact and Vibration Analysis (Appendix J), to identify the existing ambient noise level environment, long-term 72-hour noise level measurements were taken at the project site from August 19 through August 21, 2022 using four Larson Davis Spark 706RC Dosimeters.

The background ambient noise levels in the project area are dominated by the transportation-related noise associated with Mission Trail and other local surface streets and the operation of the motorsport park to the west of the site. Specifically, ambient noise on the site is generated by an existing motorcycle track with jumps that is approximately 50 feet west of the western boundary of the project site.

Table N-4 provides a summary of the measured hourly and daily noise levels. As shown, measured hourly noise levels long the western property line ranges from 40.7 dBA Leq to 83.7 dBA Leq with daily noise levels ranging from 59.2 dBA CNEL to 76.2 dBA CNEL. Noise levels measured near the eastern portion of the project site range from 53.1 dBA Leq t o 66.8 dBA Leq and 65.9 dBA CNEL to 67.7 dBA CNEL .

Figure 15 shows the noise monitoring locations.

Table N-4: Summary of 72-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements Location
Date
Daytime
Noise
Levels
(dBA
Leq)
Evening
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Community
Noise
Equivalent
Level
(CNEL)
LT-1 Along the western edge of the
project site, approximately 440
feet north of the southern site
boundary.
8/19/2022 48.5-72.0 51.0-57.0 41.1-51.0 64.6
8/20/2022 47.0-77.4 53.0-58.8 40.7-51.0 69.2
8/21/2022 49.5-83.7 50.6-76.3 41.2-47.4 76.2
LT-2 Along the western edge of the
project site, approximately 120
feet north of the southern site
boundary.
8/19/2022 52.5-62.0 53.0-57.9 42.9-52.5 59.2
8/20/2022 50.4-63.6 52.7-61.1 42.3-52.8 60.2
8/21/2022 52.4-69.8 51.5-64.6 42.5-48.9 63.4
LT-3 Approximately 75 feet north of
the northwestern corner of the
project site boundary.
8/19/2022 49.0-59.4 53.8-56.8 45.8-55.1 59.2
8/20/2022 50.6-60.2 54.7-59.1 45.7-56.1 59.7
8/21/2022 51.8-66.7 52.8-63.0 45.3-51.5 61.1
LT-4 Approximately 100 feet west of
Mission Trail, north of the
Victorian Lane intersection.
8/19/2022 61.2-66.8 63.2-65.1 53.4-63.4 67.7
8/20/2022 62.4-65.6 63.1-65.6 53.1-65.3 67.7
8/21/2022 61.8-65.8 61.9-65.0 52.4-60.2 65.9
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.

In addition to the existing noise sources, future ambient noise within the southern portion of the project site would be generated by the proposed Corydon Gateway Development. Based on the Corydon Gateway Development Noise Impact Study (MD Acoustics, LLC September 2020), the proposed carwash would generate noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq within the southern portion of the project site.

Noise Monitoring Locations
Figure 15
Mission Trail Residential
City of Lake Elsinore
D:\_Data\Documents\Corel\Corel Content\Templates\LSA_8x11_Photo_x2.cdt (10/31/2016) SOURCE: Google Earth, 2021
FEET
4002000
LEGEND
- Project Site Boundary
- Long-term Noise Monitoring LocaƟonLLTT-1-1LT-1
Victorian LnVictorian Ln
Lewis StLewis St
Lemon StLemon St
Mission TrailMission Trail
Corydon RdCorydon Rd
Victorian Ln
Lewis St
Lemon St
Mission Trail
Corydon Rd
LLTT-2-2LT-2
LLTT-1-1LT-1
LLTT-3-3LT-3
LLTT-4-4LT-4
FIGURE 3
Noise Monitoring LocaƟons
Mission Trail ResidenƟal
D:\_Data\Documents\Corel\Corel Content\Templates\LSA_8x11_Photo_x2.cdt (10/31/2016) SOURCE: Google Earth, 2021
FEET
4002000
LEGEND
- Project Site Boundary
- Long-term Noise Monitoring LocaƟonLLTT-1-1LT-1
Victorian LnVictorian Ln
Lewis StLewis St
Lemon StLemon St
Mission TrailMission Trail
Corydon RdCorydon Rd
Victorian Ln
Lewis St
Lemon St
Mission Trail
Corydon Rd
LLTT-2-2LT-2
LLTT-1-1LT-1
LLTT-3-3LT-3
LLTT-4-4LT-4
FIGURE 3
Noise Monitoring LocaƟons
Mission Trail ResidenƟal

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 144 of 184 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 145 of 184 ends

Sensitive Receivers
Sensitive receivers are defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely af fect 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 n oise levels generated by heavy construction equipment range from approximately 74 dBA to 88 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source with the highest
noise levels occurring during the site preparation and grading phases, as shown on Table N-3.

Table N-3: Construction Reference Noise Levels
Equipment Acoustical Usage Factor
(%)
Maximum Noise Level
(Lmax) at 50 Feet
Auger Drill Rig 20 84
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Paver 50 77
Pickup Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Trencher 50 80
Welder 40 73
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.

However, per Municipal Code Section 17.176.080, included as PPP N -1, construction activities are prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on weekend or on holidays. The construction activities would be in compliance with the City’s construction related noise standards.

Therefore, the construction noise would be limited. In addition, construction noise would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 146 of 184 ends

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 residen tial areas per Municipal Code Section

17.167.080(f). In addition, the project would be required to implement the Final EIR Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1 that requires City review and approval of an applicant provided Construction Management Plan (CMP) that include measures to reduce construction related noise. Therefore, noise impacts related to construction activities would not occur.

Table N-4: Project Construction Noise Levels At Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location) Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at 50 feet1 Distance (feet) Composite Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Residences to the East 88 440 70
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J. 1 The composite construction noise level represents the grading/site preparation phases, which are expected to result in the greatest noise level compared to other phases.

Operation
Although CEQA analysis is to evaluate the project’s potential impact on the environment, the following evaluation related to consistency with residential noise standards is provided to show that development of the project would not result a new or increase impact related to inconsistency (or non-compliance) with noise standards related to residential uses.

Exterior Noise
Daily Exterior Noise Assessment. As detailed previously, the Final EIR Mitigation Measure MM NOI- 2 states that “An exterior level of 60 dB CNEL in usable outdoor space shall be the noise exposure goal for such maximally noise-sensitive uses. If such a level is not attainable with reasonably available noise control measures, the General Plan finds levels up to 65 dB CNEL are acceptable. In the event that patios and balconies are determined to occur within the 65 dBA noise contour, noise attenuation shall be required to reduce noise levels to 65 dBA CNEL or lower. This may include the use of architectural treatments, barriers, or other noise attenuating measures.”

Onsite Mission Trail Roadway Noise: As further detailed below in the traffic noise discussion, roadway noise within the rear yards of residences along Mission Trail is anticipated to approach 70.3 dBA CNEL at the project site. However, the noise would be reduced by 8 dBA to approximately 62.3 dBA CNEL with the proposed 6-foot-high concrete masonry unit walls along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines, which would meet the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. The proposed wall along the southern property line would also reduce noise from the carwash that is proposed to be located to the south of the site to below 65 dBA. Additionally, with the noise reduction provided by the proposed 6-foot-high walls and intervening buildings, noise levels at the proposed open space recreation pool area would not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL threshold.

Motorsports Park Noise: The project site is affected by operations at the Lake Elsinore Motorsports Park.

Daily noise levels along the western property line range from 59.2 dBA CNEL to 76.2 dBA CNEL which exceeds the City’s daily exterior noise level of 65 dBA. While the project proposes an 8-foot-high concrete masonry unit wall along the western property line, the reduction provided by the wall, of approximately 9

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 147 of 184 ends

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 L eq to 83.7 dBA Leq, which exceed the City’s daytime hourly exterior noise level standard of 50 dBA Leq by 16.7 dBA Leq to 33.7 dBA Leq. While the project proposes an 8-foot-high concrete masonry unit wall along the western property line, the reduction provided by the wall, of approximately 9 dBA, would not be enough to meet the City’s hourly exterior noise standard. The City’s hourly exterior noise level standard of 50 dBA L eq 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 L eq during operations of the adjacent Motorsports Park. This is consistent with the moto cross related noise levels and impacts that were identifi ed in the Final EIR. To ensure inclusion of the proposed walls that would reduce the offsite noise sources, they have been included as Condition of Approval COA N -1, which also provides compliance with Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM NOI-3 and MM NOI-4. Thus, no new or increased impacts related to exterior motocross noise would occur from implementation of the proposed project.

Interior Noise
To reduce the onsite residential interior noise from offsite uses, the project includes an 8-foot-high wall along the western property line that would reduce first story (ground level) noise levels by approximately 9 dBA, and 6-foot-high walls along the three other property lines that would reduce ground level noise by approximately 8 dBA. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Protective Noise Levels describe that a combination of exterior walls, doors, and windows, of standard construction for Southern California (warm climate) commercial or residential buildings , provide more than 24 dBA in exterior -to- interior noise reduction with windows closed and 12 dBA or more with windows open. Because the proposed residences would include mechanical ventilation, windows and doors could remain closed.

Based on standard construction , the residences along the western property line would require upgraded windows and doors with sound transmission class (STC) ratings of approximately 35, depending on the amount of glass-wall ratio of the façades with a view of the motocross park. For the residences along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines, noise levels would approach 71 dBA CNEL, requiring a reduction of 26 dBA. This can be achieved with installation of upgraded windows with STC ratings of 29, depending on the window-to-glass ratio. For all other residences, standard building construction along with standard windows, typically in the STC 25-28 range, would meet or exceed the interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL.

Therefore, in addition to the proposed 8-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the western project site boundary adjacent to the motocross park and the 6-foot-high walls along the other three sides of the site , the following noise abatement design features provide minimum requirements ( in compliance with Mitigation Measure MM NOI-4) to ensure that interior noise levels meet or exceed the 45 dBA CNEL requirement:
• Windows & Glass Doors : Windows and glass doors would be well -fitted, well -weather-stripped assemblies and shall have minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 35 for residences located along the western property line, and STC ratings of 29 for residences along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines.
• E xterior 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. • Wal ls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits would be caul ked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. All exterior wall assemblies facing the Motorsports Park shall have a minimum STC rating of 35 and all

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 148 of 184 ends

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.
• C eilings: Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or constructed of well -sealed gypsum board of at least one-half inch thick.
• V entilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system (e.g., air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g., fresh air supply) shall be provided which satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.

Once final plans are available and a window manufacturer has been chosen, a Final Acoustical Report (FAR) would be required per Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM NOI-3 and MM NOI-4 to confirm the reduction capability of the exterior façades to achieve an interior noise lev el 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 gener ated from these vehicular trips has been identified through utilization of the FHWA Roadway Noise Model, and a comparison of noise generated by traffic volumes with and without the project is provided in Table N-5. These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn.

Table N-5 shows that the increase in project-related traffic noise would be no greater than 1.9 dBA. Noise level increases above 3 .0 dBA may be perceptible to some people in an outdoor environment, but the expected increase is less than the readily perceptible threshold of 5.0 dBA. Therefore, traffic noise impacts from project-related traffic on off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant, and no new impacts related to operational traffic noise would occur.

Table N-5: Project Generated Traffic Noise in the Opening Year Condition Roadway Segment
Existing Condition Opening Year Opening Year With Project ADT
CNEL dBA
50 feet from
Centerline
of Nearest
Lane ADT
CNEL dBA
50 feet from
Centerline
of Nearest
Lane ADT
CNEL dBA
50 feet from
Centerline
of Nearest
Lane
Project
Increase
North of Mission Trail and
Project Driveway
17,110 68.8 29,680 71.2 29,830 71.2 0.0
Mission Trail between Project
Driveway and Corydon Road
17,560 68.9 29,650 71.2 31,130 71.4 0.2
Mission Trail between Corydon
Road and Bundy Canyon Road
13,800 67.9 14,350 68.0 21,810 69.9 1.9
Bundy Canyon Rd between
Mission Trail and Orange Street
11,550 65.0 15,000 66.2 16,160 66.5 0.3
East of Orange Street and Bundy
Canyon Road
16,890 66.3 20,560 67.2 21,720 67.4 0.2
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 149 of 184 ends

(Sources: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J)

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (No New Impact.)

Construction
Construction activities for development of the project would include demolition, excavation, and grading, which have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. People residing in close proximity to the construction could be exposed to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Site ground vibrations from construction a ctivities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can be perceived in the audible range and be felt in buildings very close to a construction site. The reference vibration levels provided by the FTA show that a large bulldozer results in a velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet, as shown in Table N-6.

Table N-6: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet LV (VdB) at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J.

Tables N-6 and N-7 provides the modeled construction equipment vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations. As shown on Table N-7, vibration levels are expected to be 50 VdB at the closest residential uses east of the project site, which is below the 78 VdB threshold for annoyance. Also, as shown on Table N-8, vibration levels are expected to be 0.016 PPV in/sec at the nearest surrounding structures and would be well below the 0.2 PPV in/sec damage threshold. Therefore, construction related vibration impacts would not occur.

Table N-7: Project Construction Equipment Annoyance Vibration at Receiver Locations Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (VdB) at 25 ft Distance (ft) Vibration Level
(VdB)
Residences (East) 87 440 50
Commercial (South) 1000 39
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J

Table N-8: Project Construction Equipment Damage Vibration at Receiver Locations Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (PPV) at 25 ft Distance (ft) Vibration Level
(PPV)
Residences (East) 0.089 80 0.016
Commercial (South) 460 0.001
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J

(Sources: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J)

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact.)

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 150 of 184 ends

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)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQ A 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 proj ect 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.

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 S pecific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures for noise, which are listed previously as applicable to the proposed project would be included in the project MMRP to ensure implementation.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 151 of 184 ends

No new mitigation measures are required.

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR The Final EIR describes that the Specific Plan substantially reduces the number of dwelling units planned for the area. The Final EIR describes that buildout would result in a maximum of 3,640 dwelling units within the Specific Plan area, including 1,236 existing dwelling units already constructed in Planning Areas 1, 4, and 8. The EIR describes that an average of 3.6 persons lived in a Lake Elsinore household, which under buildout conditions would be 13,104 persons. The Final EIR describes that this buildout is well below the previously allowable buildout for the area, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that the Specific Plan does not require the off‐site extension of roads or infrastructure to serve the site. As such, substantial population growth would not be created through extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated , and no mitigation measures are required.

The Specific Plan does not propose removal of existing housing so it would not displace housing or people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere as described in the Final EIR. As a result, no significant impacts to housing displacement would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No New Impact.)

The proposed project would construct 191 residential units and the associated amenities and infrastructure on the project site. The California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of Lake Elsinore has a residential population of 64,762 and 19,306 housing units in 2021. The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR details that the City has an average of 3.6 persons per household. Furthermore, the GPU EIR deta ils that by 2030 the population in the City is projected to be approximately 85,376 and the City would have approximately 28,704 housing units.

Based on the East Lake Specific Plan identified average of 3.6 persons per household, the proposed 191 single-family residences would result in a net increase of approximately 688 new residents. The addition of 688 new residents would represent a population increase of 1.1 percent and the new housing units would result in a 1.0 percent increase in residential units within the City. The population and housing unit increase would be within the projected population and housing stock as analyzed by the Final EIR. Furthermore, the proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City, is surrounded by roadway and urban uses, and is already served by the existing roadways and infrastructure systems. No infrastructure would be extended or constructed to serve areas beyond the project site, and indirect impacts related to growth would not occur from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no new impacts related to inducement of unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, would occur from the project.

(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.11, Population and Housing, 2017; Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR , August 2011; California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates, September 2021,

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 152 of 184 ends

https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/)

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No New Impact.)

The project site is undeveloped and vacant. The site does not include any existing housing and no people are located onsite. Therefore, the project would not displace any people or housing, and no impacts would occur.

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 exis t 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 previ ously 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.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Fire Protection. The Final EIR describes that the proposed Specific Plan’s residential, action sports, retail and other development would increase the population, traffic, and number of structures in the City of Lake Elsinore over the course of its 30‐year buildout. However, with implementation of measures listed in the Final EIR, the Specific Plan would not have a significant impact to fire protection services and no mitigation is required.

Police Protection. The Final EIR describes that the Specific Plan’s residential, action sports, retail and public use development would increase permanent and daily populations and vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the City of Lake Elsinore over the course of its 30‐year buildout. This is expected to increase the number of calls for service by the Lake Elsinore Police Department and create a need for additional patrol officers assigned to the area. This potential impact by the Specific Plan is accounted for within the General Plan. Therefore, the EIR determined that the Specific Plan would not have a significant impact to police protection services.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 153 of 184 ends

Schools. The Final EIR describes that school development fees, apply solely to residential construction within a school district. Payment of such compensatory fees would provide the necessary funding to offset the Project’s impacts to schools and school facilities that would serve the Specific Plan area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Libraries. The Final EIR describes that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an incremental increase in the demand for library facilities and services. To offset the incremental demand for library facilities, future implementing development projects within the Project site would be required to participate in the City’s impact fee program that would provide for library services, and a less than significant impact would occur.

East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project

According to the Final EIR, buildout of the Specific Plan land uses would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection? (No New Impact.)
The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection services throughout the City. The Fire Department has five fire stations within 4.7 roadway miles of the project site, as listed in Table PS-1. The closest station is Station 61 that is 2.6 miles from the site.

Table PS-1: Fire Stations Serving Project
Station Address Distance from Site
(roadway miles)
#61 32637 Gruwell St,
Wildomar, CA 92595

2.6 miles
#10 410 W. Graham Ave, Lake
Elsinore, CA 92530

4.0 miles
#94 22770 Railroad Canyon Rd,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532

4.1 miles
#11 33020 Maiden Lane, Lake
Elsinore, CA 92530

4.7 miles
#97 41725 Rosetta Canyon Dr,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532

4.0 miles

The proposed project would develop 191 single-family residences and the associated amenities and infrastructure within the site. Implementation of the project would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56. As part of the permitting process the project plans would be reviewed by the City’s Building and Safety Division to ensure that project plans meet the fire protection requirements.

Due to the increase in onsite people that would occur from implementation of the project, an incremental increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would occur. However, the increase in residents onsite is limited (688 residents) and would not increase demands such that the four fire stations

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 154 of 184 ends

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 l ocated approximately 3.9 roadway miles from the project site.

The City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Operating Budget describes that the City has 52.7399 sworn officers and 5 community service officers. The California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of Lake Elsinore has a residential population of 64,762 in 2021. Therefore, the City currently has approximately 1.2 officer per 1,000 residents.

Because the project site is currently vacant, development of the proposed 191 single -family residences would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services. However, the increase would not be significant when compared to current demand levels. As described previously, the residential population of the project site at full occupancy would be approximately 688 residents. Based on the current staffing ratio of 1.2 officers for every 1,000 residents, the proposed project would require 0.83 percent of an additional officer.

This additional staffing would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing policing facilities. Thus, no new impacts would occur.

In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, which requires a development impact fee (DIF) payment to the City for impacts to public services and facilities, including sheriff facilities and services. Payment of the DIF fee would ensure that funds are available for either the purchase of new equipment and/or the hiring of additional sheriff personnel to maintain the County’s desired level of service for sheriff protection. Therefore, no new impacts related to police services would occur.

(Sources: East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Number 11 Project Final EIR, Section 5.12, Public Services, 2017; City of Lake Elsinore FY 2020- 2021 Annual Operating Budget , Accessed: http://www.lake- elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=27115; California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates, September 2021, https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e -5/; Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR (GPU EIR), August 2011; Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, https://www.riversidesheriff.org/743/Lake-Elsinore-Station)

c) Schools? (No New Impact.)

The project site is located within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) that is comprised of 13 elementary schools, 2 K-8 schools, 4 middle schools, and 3 high schools. The schools that serve the site are listed below:

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 155 of 184 ends

• Lakeland Village K8 located at 18730 Grand Avenue Lake Elsinore, approximately 3.1 miles from the project site. Lakeside Village K8 has a capacity of approximately 1,300 students. • Elsinore High School located at 21800 Canyon Dr, Wildomar, CA 92595, approximately 1.7 miles from the project site. Elsinore High School has a capacity of approximately 3,425 students.

The project would develop 191 single -family residences . The LEUSD student generation rate is 0.28 students per dwelling unit for elementary school; 0.15 students per dwelling unit for middle school; and

0.20 students per dwelling unit for high school. Based on the existing capacity of the schools serving the project site, both schools would be able to serve the project, as shown in Table PS-2.

Table PS-2: School Capacity and Project Generated Students School
School
Capacity
2021-2022
Enrollment
Existing
Remaining
Capacity
Students
Generated by
Project
Remaining
Capacity with
Project
Lakeland Village K8 1,300 864 436 83 353
Elsinore High School 3,425 2,194 1.231 39 1,192
Source: Lake Elsinore Unified School District, School Accountability Report Cards

Additionally, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for development projects. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants shall pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts. As a result, impacts related to school facilities would not occur with the Government Code required fee payments.

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 a t 20505 Palomar St, Wildomar, CA 92595, approximately 1.7 roadway miles from the project site. This park includes baseball fields, soccer fields, tot lot, picnic area, and pedestrian walkways.

The proposed project would develop 191 single -family residences and the associated amenities and

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 156 of 184 ends

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 (include d 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 t hree 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)

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 impact s 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 effect s; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 157 of 184 ends

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 Guideline s 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the project is consistent with the East Lake Specific Plan.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce impacts to school facilities from the proposed project:

PPP PS-1: Schools Development Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of building permit, the project shall pay applicable development fees levied by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.407).

PPP PS-2: Park Fees. As a condition of the approval of a tentative map, the project shall pay applicable park related fees pursuant to Municipal Code 19.12.170.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

XVI. RECREATION

Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR The Final EIR describes that implementation of the Specific Plan development would increase population and associated burden on parks in the area, but that residential developments would include open space and recreation areas, which would lessen the burden on existing recreational facilities in the City. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No New Impact.)

As described previously, the project would develop 191 single-family residences and a 48,301 square foot (1.1 acre) recreation area that would include playground equipment, swing set, barbeques, overhead trellis, turf areas, seating, sidewalks, pool and spa, , bocce ball court, fitness equipment , shade structure, lounge chairs, tables, and chairs. The City’s Municipal Code Section 17.84.120 provides park requirements that are based on the number of dwelling units. Based on the Code’s requirement of 250 square feet of common open space per unit, the project would require 47,750 square feet of common open space. Therefore, the project would provide the required amount of onsite recreational open space and a large majority of the project’s park demand would be met by the provision of the onsite recreation area. In addition, the project would be required to pay parkland fees pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.12.170, as a condition of the approval of a tentative map (included as PPP PS -2), which would be used by the City for public purposes and facilities to the benefit of the public and the residents of the City. Also, as described previously, the City currently has over 125.1 acres of park facilities, including three parks within 3.4 miles of the project site. Therefore, no new impacts related to the increas e in the use of existing parks and

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 158 of 184 ends

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 t he 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.

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 o r 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 159 of 184 ends

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 Ye ar 2040 Adopted Specific Plan conditions and/or acceptable conditions at ten of the eleven impacted locations. The EIR determined that improvements for the intersection of Diamond Drive at Casino Drive/Auto Center Drive and Diamond Drive at Lakeshore Drive/Mission Trail. The Final EIR also determined that the Specific Plan buildout may significantly impact the level of service along 4 freeway segments (i.e. I‐15 Northbound from Baxter Road to Bundy Canyon Road; I‐15 Northbound from Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road; I‐15 Southbound from Railroad Canyon Road to Bundy Canyon Road; I‐15 Southbound from Bundy Canyon Road to Baxter Road) if not improved. Thus, the Final EIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Final EIR describes that consistent with the City General Plan, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ‐4 would require the airport relocation or future development projects within the Project site and Skylark Airport Influence Area be evaluated for consistency with continued operations at the airport and/or compliance with applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding any encroachment into the airport’s navigable airspace in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77.

Implementation MM HAZ‐4 would ensure potential impacts related to Skylark Airport would be less than significant.

The Final EIR states that implementing development projects would be required to demonstrate consistency with City roadway requirements for their own internal traffic flow safety and for providing safe connections to the local roadway system. As part of the City’s plan check process, the final design and precise alignment of all roadways and intersections would be reviewed by a licensed professional civil engineer to ensure adequate safety to and from each new development. The Specific Plan does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections in its design. Adherence to applicable existing requirements of the City and other agencies would reduce impacts associated with this issue. In addition, the Specific Plan land uses are compatible with existing development in the vicinity; therefore, it was determined that the Specific Plan would not create a transportation hazard as a result of an incompatible use.

The Final EIR states that the Specific Plan area would continue to be served by RTA’s Route 8: Lake Elsinore, Wildomar Loop Route. In addition, dedicated shuttle drop‐off point(s) and/or bus stop(s) at new Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation facilities with connections to Malaga Drive, Lucerne Street or Cereal Street would be required per Mitigation Measure MM AQ‐5 (see section 5.2.9, Air Quality).

The EIR also describes that bicycle trails and pedestrian circulation would be included in development of parcels within the Specific Plan area. Thus, impacts related to transit were determined to be less than significant.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 160 of 184 ends

East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM TC-1: Construction Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit for each future implementing development project in the East Lake Specific Plan, the applicant/developer will submit to the City for review and approval, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) that will include measures to reduce construction-related traffic. The CMP shall include:

1. Control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation;

2. Routes that construction vehicles will utilize to access the site;

3. Hours of construction traffic (not to occur during AM or PM peak hour);

4. Off-site vehicles staging and parking areas;

5. Proposed construction staging plan for the Project;

6. Posted onsite information for contact in case of emergency or complaint; and,

7. Hours of construction and traffic control during construction shall not interfere with ingress/egress to and from the residential, commercial and other land uses from each phase built and to be built-out.

Project Applicability: MM TC-1 is applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented as part of the construction permitting process. This measure would be inc luded in the MMRP for the proposed project.

MM TC-2 Roadway Improvements. Future implementing development projects in the East Lake Specific Plan shall participate in the construction of on- and off-site intersection and street segment improvements through payment of City of Lake Elsinore fees, and participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) program. Improvements may include but not be limited to the construction of new intersection(s) and/or street segment(s), street widening, striping, and signalization. Where improvements listed below under Section ‘c.’, or other required improvements determined under Section ‘a.’ or ‘b.’, are not covered by these programs, mitigation shall be implemented through a fair -share contribution or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer. The future implementing development project’s responsibility for its portion of those improvements shall be in place prior to issuance of a building permit unless one or more of the following scenarios occurs:

1. A new traffic study is submitted and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer demonstrating that the identified intersection improvement is no longer needed to maintain an acceptable LOS as determined by the City’s Traffic Engineer. (The City’s General Plan Update allows LOS E within the Ballpark District).

2. If a programmed improvement is delayed, a new traffic study shall be submitted and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer identifying improvements that shall reduce the project’s contribution to the impacted intersection, street segment or interchange.

3. Improvements shall be based on specific details provided in the Project’s TIA or new traffic study per section “a.” and “b.” above. Planned and recommended improvements are anticipated for the following facilities:

Internal Roadway Intersections
• Diamond Drive at Olive Street – (TIA reference Intersection 25) • “A” Street at Olive Street – (TIA reference Intersection 26)

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 161 of 184 ends

• “A” Street at Victorian Lane – (TIA reference Intersection 27) • “A” Street at Cereal Street – (TIA reference Intersection 25) • Lucerne Street at Sylvester Street – (TIA reference Intersection 29) • Stoneman Street at Cereal Street – (TIA reference Intersection 30) Internal Roadway Segments
• Sylvester Street, between Lucerne Street and Diamond Drive – (TIA reference Segment 27)
• Lucerne Street, between Sylvester Street and Cereal Street – (TIA reference Segment 28)
• Cereal Street, between Lucerne Street and Stoneman Street – (TIA reference Segment 29)
• Cereal Street between Stoneman Street and Diamond Drive – (TIA reference Segment 30)
• Diamond Drive, between Olive Street and Cereal Street – (TIA reference Segment 31)
External Roadway Intersections
• Railroad Canyon Road at Summerhill Road/Grape Street – (TIA reference Intersection 1)
• Railroad Canyon Road at I-15 NB Ramps – (TIA reference Intersection 2) • Diamond Drive at I-15 SB Ramps – (TIA reference Intersection 3) • Diamond Drive at Auto Center Drive/Casino Drive – (TIA reference Intersection 4)
• Lucerne Street at Lakeshore Drive – (TIA reference Intersection 5) • Diamond Drive at Lakeshore Drive/Mission Trail – (TIA reference Intersection 6)
• Diamond Drive at Campbell Street – (TIA reference Intersection 7) • Mission Trail at Campbell Street – (TIA reference Intersection 8) • Diamond Drive at Malaga Road – (TIA reference Intersection 9) • Mission Trail at Malaga Road – (TIA reference Intersection 10) • Mission Trail at Olive Street – (TIA reference Intersection 11) • Mission Trail at Victorian Lane – (TIA reference Intersection 12) • Mission Trail at Lemon Street – (TIA reference Intersection 13) • Corydon Road at Cereal Street – (TIA reference Intersection 15) • Mission Trail at Bundy Canyon Road – (TIA reference Intersection 16) • Orange Street at Bundy Canyon Road – (TIA reference Intersection 17) • I-15 SB Ramps at Bundy Canyon Road – (TIA reference Intersection 18) • I-15 NB Ramps at Bundy Canyon Road – (TIA reference Intersection 19) • Corydon Road at Palomar Street – (TIA reference Intersection 20) • Mission Trail at Palomar Street – (TIA reference Intersection 21) • Stoneman Street at Grand Avenue – (TIA reference Intersection 22) • Corydon Road at Grand Avenue – (TIA reference Intersection 23) • Grape Street at I-15 NB Ramps – (TIA reference
Intersection 24)

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 162 of 184 ends

External Roadway Segments
• Lucerne Street, south of Lakeshore Drive – (TIA reference Segment 3) • Mission Trail, between Diamond Drive and Campbell Street– (TIA reference Segment 7)
• Mission Trail, between Campbell Street and Malaga Road– (TIA reference Segment 8)
• Mission Trail, between Malaga Road and Olive Street– (TIA reference Segment 12)
• Olive Street, between Mission Trail and Grape Street– (TIA reference Segment 13)
• Mission Trail, between Olive Street and Victorian Lane– (TIA reference Segment 14)
• Mission Trail, between Victorian Lane and Lemon Street– (TIA reference Segment 15)
• Corydon Road, between Mission Trail and Cereal Street– (TIA reference Segment 17)
• Cereal Street, west of Corydon Road– (TIA reference Segment 18) • Bundy Canyon Road, between Mission Trail and I-15 SB Ramps– (TIA reference Segment 20)
• Corydon Road, between Cereal Street and Palomar Street– (TIA reference Segment 21)
• Stoneman Street, north of Grand Avenue– (TIA reference Segment 24) • Corydon Road, between Palomar Street and Grand Avenue – (TIA reference Segment 26)
• Bundy Canyon Road, between Corydon Road and Mission Trail– (TIA reference Segment 32)
Caltrans Facilities
• I-15 Northbound Off-Ramp to Grape Street – (TIA reference 1) • I-15 Northbound On-Ramp from Grape Street – (TIA reference 2) • I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp to Railroad Canyon Road – (TIA reference 3) • I-15 Southbound On-Ramp from Railroad Canyon Road – (TIA reference 4) • I-15 Southbound from Railroad Canyon Road to Bundy Canyon Road – (TIA reference 5)
• I-15 Southbound from Bundy Canyon Road to Baxter Road – (TIA reference 6)

Project Applicability: MM TC-2 is applicable to the proposed project and the applicable improvements would be implemented as part of the construction permitting process. This measure would be included in the MMRP for the proposed project.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis included in Appendix K. The project’s vehicular trips were calculated using the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021).

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 163 of 184 ends

Traffic Thresholds
City of Lake Elsinore. The City of Lake Elsinore requires that peak-hour intersections operate at LOS “D” or better to be considered acceptable. Therefore, any City intersection operating at LOS “E” or LOS “F” will be considered deficient. An addition of Project traffic that degrades operations from LOS D or better to LOS E or worse or increases delay on a facility operating at LOS D or worse will be considered deficient and would need to identify an improvement to return to LOS D or better. However, automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measure of traffic congestion, is no longer consi dered 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 Pl an Mobility Element identifies LOS D as the threshold for all Mobility Element roadways and intersections, with the exception of Clinton Keith Road, between Hidden Spring Road and I- 15 Northbound Ramps, where LOS E would be acceptable due to right-of-way constraints, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

Traffic Study Area and Existing Conditions
The following eight intersections, where the project has the potential to add 50-trips or more during any peak hour, were evaluated for impacts related to the project:

1. Mission Trail and Project Dwy (Proposed -TWSC) (City of Lake Elsinore/City of Wildomar)

2. Mission Trail and Lemon St (Existing – Signalized) (City of Lake Elsinore/City of Wildomar)

3. Mission Trail and Corydon Rd (Existing – Signalized) (City of Lake Elsinore/City of Wildomar)

4. Mission Trail and Bundy Canyon Rd (Existing – Signalized) (City of Wildomar)

5. Almond St and Bundy Canyon Rd (Existing – AWSC) (City of Wildomar)

6. Orange St and Bundy Canyon Rd (Existing – Signalized) (City of Wildomar)

7. I-15 SB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd (Existing – Signalized) (Caltrans)

8. I-15 NB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd (Existing – Signalized) (Caltrans)

As shown in Table T -1, the intersection of Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road currently operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour, which is considered an unsatisfactory condition per City criteria.

Table T-1: Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak PM Peak Threshold of
Significance Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Mission Trail and Project Dwy TWSC - - - - D

2. Mission Trail and Lemon St Signal 6.9 A 6.9 A D

3. Mission Trail and Corydon Rd Signal 18.7 B 17.8 B D

4. Mission Trail and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 20.2 C 24.1 C D

5. Almond St and Bundy Canyon Rd AWSC 10.8 B 12.3 B D

6. Orange St and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 94.1 F 60.6 E D

7. I-15 SB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 18.9 B 21.0 C D

8. I-15 NB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 15.3 B 17.5 B D = Unsatisfactory Level of Service
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control
AWSC = All-Way Stop Control
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 164 of 184 ends

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 1 91 residences and recreation /open space facilities. The trip generation for the project was calculated using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 11th Edition, 2021. As shown in Table T -2, the project would generate approximately 1,801 daily trips including 134 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 180 trips during the p.m. peak hour.

Table T-2: Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Single-Family Detached Housing1 DU 9.43 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 Project Trip Generation
Single-Family Detached Housing 191 DU 1,801 35 99 134 114 66 180 Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K

Opening Year Plus Project Conditions
An intersection operations analysis was conducted for the study area to evaluate the opening year a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions with operation of the proposed project. The opening year traffic forecasts were developed by applying an annual growth rate of 2% to 2022 traffic volumes. As the proposed project is expected to be complete by 2024, two years of growth was applied to existing counts, plus the project generated trips.

As shown in Table T -3, the Orange St reet and Bundy Canyon Road intersection would operate at unsatisfactory LOS F during and a.m. peak hour and an unsatisfactory LOS E during the p.m. peak hour.

The LOS at Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road delay would increase by 2.9 seconds in the a.m. peak hour and by 2.0 seconds in the p.m. peak hour.

Table T-3: Opening Year Plus Project Peak Hour Level of Service Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak PM Peak Threshold
of
Significance Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2

1. Mission Trail and Project Dwy TWSC 12.0 B 12.1 B D

2. Mission Trail and Lemon St Signal 8.2 A 8.1 A D

3. Mission Trail and Corydon Rd Signal 17.8 B 15.8 B D

4. Mission Trail and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 16.9 B 20.7 C D

5. Almond St and Bundy Canyon Rd AWSC 11.5 B 13.6 B D

6. Orange St and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 92.1 F 63.5 E D

7. I-15 SB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 23.7 C 31.7 C D

8. I-15 NB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 17.1 B 25.8 C D =Unsatisfactory Level of Service
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control
AWSC = All-Way Stop Control
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K

To improve operating conditions at the intersection of Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road, consistent with the Final EIR Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Section 9.3.2 and the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measure MM TC-2, the southbound approach of Orange Street would be widened and/or restriped to provide an exclusive left -turn lane and a shared through- right-turn lane. After the installation of the improvement, the intersection of Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road would operate at a

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 165 of 184 ends

satisfactory LOS C in the a.m. peak hours and a satisfactory LOS B during the p.m. peak hours, as shown in Table T-4.

Table T-4: Opening Year Plus Project with Improvement Peak Hour Level of Service Intersection
Existing Project Completion
Project Completion with
Improvement
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

6. Orange St and
Bundy Canyon Rd 94.1 F 60.6 E 92.1 F 63.5 E 20.2 C 18.5 B =Unsatisfactory
Level of Service

Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K

Opening Year Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions
The traffic volumes of opening year plus project and cumulative projects scenario were developed by applying an ambient growth rate of two percent per year to the existing (2022) traffic volumes and adding traffic generated by the proposed project and also by adding the traffic generated by 1 4 cumulative (approved and not yet built and those under review) development projects within the Cities of Lake Elsinore and Wildomar.

As shown in Table T -5, the intersection of Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road would operate at an unsatisfactory LOS F during the a.m. peak hour, unsatisfactory LOS E during the p.m. peak hour; and the intersection of I-15 Southbound Ramps and Bundy Canyon Road would operate at unsatisfactory LOS F during the p.m. peak hour in the Opening Year Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions.

Table T-5: Opening Year Plus Project Plus Cumulative Peak Hour Level of Service Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak PM Peak Threshold of
Significance Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2

1. Mission Trail and Project Dwy TWSC 14.1 B 17.6 C D

2. Mission Trail and Lemon St Signal 14.6 B 21.9 C D

3. Mission Trail and Corydon Rd Signal 19.8 B 18.5 B D

4. Mission Trail and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 18.3 B 24.5 C D

5. Almond St and Bundy Canyon Rd AWSC 13.1 B 19.5 C D

6. Orange St and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 86.2 F 59.9 E D

7. I-15 SB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 54.5 D 123.6 F D

8. I-15 NB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Rd Signal 21.5 C 40.4 D D =Unsatisfactory Level of Service
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control
AWSC = All-Way Stop Control
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K

As described previously, to improve the cumulative operating conditions at the intersection of Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road, consistent with the Final EIR Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Section 9.3.2 and the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measure MM TC-2, the southbound approach of Orange Street would be widened and/or restriped to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through-right- turn lane. After the installation of the improvement, Table T-6 shows that the intersection of Orange Street and Bundy Canyon Road would operate a t a satisfactory LOS C during the a.m. peak hours and a satisfactory LOS B during the p.m. peak hours.

For the intersection I -15 SB Ramps and Bundy Canyon Road, the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 166 of 184 ends

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 a fter the installation of the improvement, the intersection would operate at a satisfactory LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and a satisfactory LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. Thus, with implementation of the previously planned improvements, operation of the intersections would be within the City’s LOS thresholds.

Table T-6: Opening Year Plus Project Plus Cumulative with Improvements Peak Hour Level of Service
Intersection
Cumulative Cumulative IMP
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

6. Orange St / Bundy Canyon Rd 86.2 F 59.9 E 20.2 C 18.5 B

7. I-15 SB Ramps / Bundy Canyon Rd
with General Plan EIR TIA Improvement 54.5 D 123.6 F 28.8 C 43.6 D =Unsatisfactory Level of Service
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control
AWSC = All-Way Stop Control
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K

Transit Services. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides 36 local fixed-routes services that connect local communities, nine Commuter Link express bus routes, and a Rapid Link Gold Line for long-distance commuters traveling to Metrolink, Coaster and Sprinter stations, business parks, shopping malls and regional transit facilities. Bus routes that run through the City include RTA routes 8, 9, 22, 40, 205/206 that serve major destinations in the region.

RTA Route 8 is the closest to the project site and runs along Mission Trail with stops near the Lewis Street cross street. Route 8 runs from the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center south to Wildomar. It operates Monday through Friday from 4:40 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on weekends from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with one -hour headways. These existing transit services would serve project residents. The proposed 191 residences would not alter or conflict with existing transit stops and schedules, and impacts related to transit services would not occur.

Bicycle Circulation. Class II bicycle facilities are striped lanes that provide bike travel and can be located next to a curb or parking lane and vary between 4 and 5 feet wide. There are no existing Class II bicycle facilities on Mission Trail adjacent to the project site . The proposed project includes half-width roadway improvements to Mission Trail that would add a Class II bicycle lane. The proposed bicycle lane is consistent with the General Plan proposed bicycle facilities and would provide bicycle transportation opportunities for residents of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with, existing bicycle facilities. Thus, no new impacts related to bicycle facilities would occur from the project

Pedestrian Facilities. There is no existing sidewalk next to the project site along Mission Trail . The proposed project would provide onsite sidewalks throughout the project site and a new sidewalk along the project site frontage of Mission Trail as part of the half -width roadway i mprovements included in the proposed project . This would facilitate pedestrian use and walking to nearby locations. Therefore, the proposed project would improve, and not conflict with, pedestrian facilities. Thus, no new impacts related to pedestrian facilities would occur.

(Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K)

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (No New Impact.)

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 167 of 184 ends

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 vehic le trips (or 11 single -family residences) are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. Also, projects that generate less than 3,000 MTCO2e per year are considered to have a less than significant impact related to VMT. As shown previously on Table GHG-2, operation of 191 residences would generate approximately 2,640 MTCO2e per year, plus the amortized construction emissions of 24 MTCO2e would equal 2,663 MTCO2e per year, which would be below the screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on VMT , and the proposed project would not result in a new impact related to VMT.

(Sources: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, Appendix L)

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (No New Impact.)

The project includes development of residences and recreation facilities and open space. The project includes community type uses and does not include any incompatible uses, such as farm equipment. The proposed project would be accessed from Mission Trail through a gated driveway that has been designed to City standards that would be verified during construction permitting. To ensure that residential vehicle queues do not back up into the public right of way, a queuing analysis was prepared based on the arrival rate and the average service rate to determine the number of vehicles that would be queued behind the access gates.

The project would result in five passenger vehicles
entering the Mission Trail driveway and 30 passenger

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 168 of 184 ends

vehicles entering the Lemon Street driveway during the a.m. peak hour; and 17 passenger vehicles entering the Mission Trail driveway and 97 passenger vehicles entering the Lemon Street driveway during the p.m. peak hour. The specific gate to be used has not been confirmed; therefore, a conservative estimate of 25 seconds to open or close was used. A two second clearance time was assumed for the passenger vehicles to enter the gate , which brings the total entry time per vehicle to 27 seconds. Utilizing this information, a service rate of 133 passenger vehicles per hour would occur from the number of vehicles entering the site during the p.m. peak hour, which generates the most inbound trips. Table T-7 shows that this would result in a traffic intensity of 0.13 at the Mission Trail gate and a traffic intensity of 0.73 at the Lemon Street gate.

Table T-7: Gate Closed PM Peak Hour Traffic Intensity Calculation Hour of Highest
Inbound Volume
Average Arrival
Rate
Average Service
Rate
Traffic Intensity1
Mission Trail Gate 17 133 0.13
Lemon Street Gate 97 133 0.73
1 Traffic Intensity = Average Arrival Rate ÷ Average Service Rate.

Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix L

The traffic intensity of 0.13 for the Mission Trail gate would correspond to a negligible car reservoir queuing using the 95th percentile; therefore, one-car length would be expected. The traffic intensity of 0.73 for the Lemon Street gate would correspond to a three-car reservoir queuing at a given point of time during the peak hours using the 95th percentile.

The proposed Mission Trail driveway provides a storage length of 100 feet from the access gate to Mission Trail, and the proposed Lemon Street driveway provides a storage length of 120 feet (on the right-turn lane meant for the project driveway 2 entrance) between the driveway and the intersection of Mission Trail and Lemon Street. These storage lengths would be able to accommodate a queue of approximately four passenger vehicles and five passenger vehicles respectively . Therefore, the proposed driveway and gate design would be able to accommodate the queueing from the project , and no hazards related to a driveway/gate access feature would occur.

The proposed onsite roadway would provide access to each residence and would be developed in conformance with City design standards. The City’s construction permitting process includes review of project plans to ensure that no potentially hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the project. For example, the design of the project street and driveway would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, no new impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would occur.

(Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K)

d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (No New Impact.) Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the project site or adjacent areas. The installation of the driveway, and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed project could require the temporary closure of one lane of Mission Trail. However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergenc y access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and that no new impacts related to construction emergency access would occur.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 169 of 184 ends

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 t o inadequate emergency access would occur.

(Sources: Transportation Impact Analysis, Appendix K)

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 transpor tation. 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.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
The following existing requirements would reduce the potential for impacts related to transportation:

PPP HAZ-1: Fire Code. The project shall conform to the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.56, Fire Code .

Specifically, Section 503 of the California Fire Code provides regulations related to emergency access.

Mitigation Measures: East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM TC-1 and MM TC-2 for transportation, which are listed previously, are applicable to the proposed project and would be included in the project MMRP to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure MM TC-2 includes payment of fees for the previously identified/planned roadway improvements.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR The Final EIR describes that the quantity of known cultural resources and their mapped locations suggest intensive prehistoric occupation along past manifestations of the lake shoreline. Likewise, the lake and its immediate surroundings are within an area considered to be a Traditional Cultural Property to the Luiseños.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 170 of 184 ends

As a result, t he 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 t hat 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 Resourc es, 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 t o 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 i mpacts would occur from the project.

(Sources: Geotechnical Investigation, 2022, Appendix E and Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix D)

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (No New Impact.)

As described in the previous response, no known tribal cultural resources are known to exist on the project site. The records search for the project identified resources within 1 -mile of the project site that include prehistoric lithic scatter and isolates. The project site has been highly disturbed from past activities and the Geotechnical Investigation describes that the project site is underlain by three feet of artificial fill.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 171 of 184 ends

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 archaeol ogical 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)

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.

Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures for cultural resources, as detailed previously are applicable to the proposed project and would be included in the project MMRP to ensure implementation.

No new mitigation measures are required.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Summary of Impacts Identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR The Final EIR describes that compliance with conditions or permit requirements established by the City would ensure that discharges into the wastewater treatment facility system from the operation of the future implementing development projects would not exceed applicable Santa Ana RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, no significant impact related to wastewater treatment requirements would occur and no mitigation would be required.

The Final EIR describes that development within the Specific Plan area would result in the conversion of vacant land into developed land that would increase the amount of impervious surface area. Local drainage systems would be designed, sized for capacity, and constructed and/or connected to existing systems to

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 172 of 184 ends

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, i t 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 regulat ions 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 I II, Air Quality and VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section XIII, Noise. As the proposed project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, no new impacts would occur.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 173 of 184 ends

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 insta llation 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 constructi on 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 Co mmunications provides cable and internet to the project site. The proposed project would install onsite infrastructure that would connect to the existing service systems. The construction activities related to installation of onsite electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications that would serve the proposed project, is included as part of the proposed project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this CEQA Exemption Study. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the infrastructure is included in Section III, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section XIII, Noise. As the proposed project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new infrastructure facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, no new impacts would occur.

(Sources: Project Site Plans)

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (No New Impact.)

The proposed project would result in an increased demand for water supplies from the 140 residential units.

The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) details that in 2020 the water demand in the City for residential uses was 129 gallons per day per capita, which was below the water use target of 188.6 gallons per day per capita. To provide a conservative estimate of project water use, a generation rate of 188.6 gallons per capita per day was used to estimate water demand from the proposed project. As described in Section XIV , Population and Housing, the proposed project would result in 688 additional residents at full occupancy. Based on the City’s 2020 water use target of 188.6 gallons per capita per day, the 688 additional residents would generate a water demand of 129,757 gallons per day (145.35 acre-feet per year). The project would limit water demand by inclusion of low-flow plumbing and irrigation fixtures, pursuant to the California Title 24 requirements, and by reusing treated rainwater to irrigate the park area, as detailed in the Project Description.

The EVMWD’s 2020 UWMP estimates water supply increase to 47,219 AFY and total water demand of 38,932 AFY in 2025, as shown in Table UT -1. The project’s demand of 145.35 acre-feet equates to 0. 4 percent of projected water demand in 2025, and 1.8 percent of the projected difference in supply and demand in 2025. Therefore, the City would have water supplies available to serve the project. Furthermore, because the project’s residential uses are consistent with the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for the site, which are used to project future water demands, the demand from the project

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 174 of 184 ends

is included in the UWMP demand projections listed in Table UT-1.

Table UT-1: Urban Water Management Plan Projections
Water
Supply
Additional Detail on
Water Supply
Projected Water Supply (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Purchased or
imported
water
Western/Metropolitan1 26,286 26,286 26,286 26,286 26,286 Purchased or
imported
water
Raw Imported Water
Western/Metropolitan1,2 0 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700
Groundwater Elsinore Valley
Subbasin3 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
Groundwater Coldwater Subbasin3 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Groundwater Bedford Subbasin3 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 Groundwater Lee Lake Subbasin3 875 875 875 875 875
Groundwater Palomar Well
Replacement3 450 450 450 450 450
Groundwater Temecula-Pauba GW3 0 0 750 750 750
Surface
Water Canyon Lake/CLWTP4 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Other IPR at Regional WRF5 0 0 0 940 1,970
Recycled
Water
Temescal Wash & Lake
Elsinore
Replenishment5
7,270 8,027 8,863 8,960 8,960
Recycled
Water Metered Customers6 1,459 1,459 1,459 1,459 1,459
Recycled
Water
Canyon Lake and
Summerly Golf
Course6
378 378 378 378 378
Total Projected Supply7: 47,219 51,675 53,261 54,298 55,328 Total Projected Demand: 38,932 41,994 45,313 48,085 50,967 1Imported water will be used to fill the gaps will be based on the availability of local supplies. There is no total right or safe yield. EVMWD can purchase more water at an additional charge.
2 Starting in 2026, EVMWD plans to start purchasing about 3,700 AFY of raw imported water from Western/Metropolitan for treatment at the CLWTP.
3 The safe yield for the groundwater subbasins will be established with their respective GSPs. 4 In settlement of litigation, EVMWD agreed not to treat more than 8,000 AFY of San Jacinto River flows in any water year at EVMWD’s CLWTP. This 8,000 AFY limit applies only to San Jacinto River runoff and excludes any imported water conveyed in the river channel. 5 In accordance with its NPDES permit, EVMWD is permitted to discharging 0.5 MGD to Temescal Wash and 7.5 MGD to Lake Elsinore.

EVMWD is planning to use excess wastewater collected at the Regional WRF to implement an IPR project. It is anticipated that this water will be available between 2035 and 2040.
6 Includes recycled water produced by the three EVMWD WRFs and recycled water from SRRRA and Eastern. 7 The total right or safe yield were not calculated because the groundwater safe yields are being updated as part of the GSP projects.

Source: EVMWD 2020 UWMP

The EVMWD 2020 UWMP details the available supply, including groundwater, surface water, imported water, and recycled water would meet the projected demand during normal, single dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, no new impacts related to water supplies from the proposed project would occur.

(Sources: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, May 2021, https://www.evmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/2233/637571268195170000)

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 175 of 184 ends

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has ad equate 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. T hus, 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 limite d in comparison to operation wastes. As described above, the El Sobrante Landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,763 tons per day. Therefore, the facility would be able to accommodate the limited construction waste generated by the project, and no new impacts would occur.

Operation
The CalEEMod solid waste generation rate for single -family residential land use is 0.41 tons per resident per year. As described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, full occupancy of the proposed project would generate approximately 688 new residents. Thus, operation of the project would generate approximately 282.08 tons per solid waste per year; or 5.43 tons per week.

However, at least 75 percent of the solid waste is required by AB 341 to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 1.4 tons per week. As the El Sobrante Landfill has additional capacity of approximately 2,763 tons per day, the solid waste generated by the project would be within the capacity of the landfill. Thus, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 176 of 184 ends

permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s sol id 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 a nd 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.

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 alterna tives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.

Mitigation Measures:

No new mitigation measures are required.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 177 of 184 ends

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 Appl icability: 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 Elsinor e Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)

b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (No New Impact.)

The project site is generally flat and does not contain or adjacent to slopes. The project site is adjacent to a roadway, residences, and developed areas. The proj ect site is not adjacent to any wildland areas, and as determined by the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, the project site is not within a high fire hazard zone. There are no factors on or adjacent to the project site that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Thus, no

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 178 of 184 ends

new impacts related to other factors that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would occur from the project.

(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)

c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (No Impact.)

As described previously, the project site is not within a wildfire hazard zone. The project does not include any infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks. In addit ion, 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 S everity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)

d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (No Impact.)

As described previously, the project site is not within a wildfire hazard zone. In addition, the project site is relatively flat and adjacent to flat areas. There are no slope or hillsides that would become unstable. In addition, the project would install onsite drainage that would convey runoff to a water qualit y basin on the project site. Therefore, no new impacts related to flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes would not occur from the proposed project.

(Sources: CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, Accessed: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/; and CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Lake Elsinore Local Responsibility Area, Accessed:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5915/lake_elsinore.pdf)

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur wi th 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

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 179 of 184 ends

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.

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, eit her directly or indirectly with implementation of the previously listed mitigation measures . In addition, the Final EIR determined that traffic generated from buildout of the Specific Plan would result in significant impacts to intersections.

East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
MM AES-1: Listed in Section I, Aesthetics.

MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-5: Listed in Section III, Air Quality.

MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-10: Listed in Section IV, Biological Resources.

MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-11: Listed in Section V, Cultural Resources.

MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-12: Listed in Section VII, Geology and soils.

MM GHG-1: Listed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-5: Listed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 180 of 184 ends

MM HWQ-1 through MM HWQ-8: Listed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality.

MM NOI-1 through MM NOI-6: Listed in Section XIII, Noise.

MM TC-1 and MM TC-2: Listed in Section XVII, Transportation.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (No New Impact.)

As described in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project site consists of disturbed, ruderal habitat and disturbed areas that do not provide habitat for sensitive plant or animal species, including burrowing owl.

Because the project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP burrowing owl survey area, a 30 -day preconstruction survey is required prior to the commencement of project activities (e.g. vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding project activities. This requirement is consistent with East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM BIO-5 and MM BIO-7. Therefore, no sensitive species would be impacted by the project, and no new impacts would occur.

As described in Section V, Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any buildings or structures that meet any of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) criteria or qualify as “historical resources” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Also, due to previous ground- disturbance activities and absence of bedrock and dependable water sources at the site no new impacts to important examples of California prehistory would occur from the project.

(Sources: General Biological Assessment, Appendix B; Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix D)

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (No New Impact.)

The project would develop 191 single -family residences with recreation, open space, and associated infrastructure and amenities on a site that was planned for such uses within an urban area. The cumulative effect of the proposed project taken into consideration with other development projects in the area would be limited, because the project would develop the site in consistency with the General Plan land use designation, Specific Plan designation, and municipal code. As described by the C ity’s General Plan EIR Section 6.1, Growth Inducement and Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts, which includes development of the project site pursuant to the existing land use designations, buildout of the General Plan is anticipated to provide direction for future growth and facilitate development . As described herein, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of East Lake District Specific Plan and an East Lake Specific Plan

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 181 of 184 ends

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. Th e 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 C ity and would effectively reduce environmental impacts. The project would not result in any new substantial effects to any environmental resource topic that could become cumulatively significant.

As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook methodology describes that any projects that result in daily emissions that exceed any of these thresholds would have both an individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant air quality impact. If estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant. As shown in Tables AQ-2 and AQ- 4, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Operational emissions asso ciated 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 V III, 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 Sp ecific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures include exterior lighting, construction related air quality emissions, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation. The other subject areas that require implementation of mitigation measures are related to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 182 of 184 ends

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.

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 inv olvement 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 alte rnatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was adopted as completed.

Mitigation Measures: The East Lake Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures, which are listed previously, are applicable to the proposed project and would be included in the Project MMRP to ensure
implementation.

No new mitigation measures are required.

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 183 of 184 ends

VI. DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED

This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Lead Agency:

City of Lake Elsinore
Carlos Serna, Associate Planner
Bradley Brophy, PE, Traffic Engineer
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530

CEQA Document Preparer:

EPD Solutions, Inc.

Konnie Dobreva, J.D.

Renee Escario
Meaghan Truman
Brooke Blandino

Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Appendix A EPD Solutions, Inc.

Alex Garber, Analyst

General Biological Assessment, Appendix B
Hernandez Environmental Services
Shawn Gatchel-Hernandez, Principal Regulatory Specialist

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix D
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.

Brian F. Smith, MA
Elena C. Goralogia
Jillian L.H. Conroy

Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Update, Appendix E Sladden Engineering, Inc.

James W. Minor III, Senior Geologist
Brett L. Anderson, PG, Principal Engineer

Paleontological Assessment, Appendix F
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.

Todd A. Wirths, M.S., Senior Paleontologist, California Professional Geologist No. 7588

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix G
Sladden Engineering, Inc.

James W. Minor, PG, Project Geologist
Brett L. Anderson, PG, Principal Engineer

Preliminary Hydrology Study, Appendix H
Wilson Mikami Corporation
Scott M. Wilson, PE, PLS, Principal

Mission Trail Residential Project - CEQA Exemption Study

Page 184 of 184 ends

Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix I Wilson Mikami Corporation
Scott M. Wilson, PE, PLS, Principal

Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J
LSA Associates, Inc.

J.T. Stephens | Principal / Noise and Vibration

Transportation Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, Appendix K and L EPD Solutions, Inc.

Meghan Macias, T.E.

Abby Pal
Daji Yuan

Lake Elsinore City CouncilDecember 12, 2023

Lake Elsinore City Council
December 12, 2023