Unanticipated Resources - In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods
Phase IV Report - A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe.
MM CUL-3 Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department:
1. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity.
3. Relocation shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request.
4. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in the culturally sensitive matter at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department of Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore upon completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment of finding.
MM CUL-4 Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, at least 30 days prior to the issuance, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the AB 52 and/or the SB 18 process (“Monitoring Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project’s approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist.
MM CUL-5 Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning Department's requirements for such reports for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of any feature relocation as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting. Once the report is determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Monitoring Tribes.
MM CUL-6 Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).
According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).
MM CUL-7 Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). (Sources: Cultural Resources Inventory [ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024c; Appendix C]) c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
The project site is not located on or adjacent to a known formal or informal cemetery. The archaeological records search identified one historical cemetery within a one-mile radius of the project. However, because disturbance is only anticipated on the project site, no impacts to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, are expected. Furthermore, the NAHC Sacred Lands File search was negative for recorded sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance. In the unlikely event that unknown human remains are uncovered during project construction, MM CUL-6 described above would be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 to ensure that the project’s impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: MM CUL-6
(Sources: Cultural Resources Inventory [ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024c; Appendix C]; Public Resources Code Section 5097.98)
VI. ENERGY
This section is partially based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared for the project by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (2024a; Appendix A). a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Energy use associated with a project typically includes fuel (gasoline and diesel), electricity, and natural gas during construction activities and operations. It typically includes the following sources: (1) construction-related vehicle and equipment energy use, (2) transportation energy use from people traveling Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
to and from the project area during operation, and (3) building and facility energy use of the project during operation.
Construction-related Energy Use
Energy use during construction would occur within two general categories: fuel use from vehicles used by workers commuting to and from the construction site, and fuel use by vehicles and other equipment to conduct construction activities. The maximum number of construction workers traveling to and from the project site at one time would not be expected to exceed 23 trips in total (21 construction worker trips and 2 vendor trips). Fuel consumption associated with construction worker and vendor commute would be similar to any other typical commute in Riverside County and would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of gasoline or diesel fuel.
Consistent with state requirements, construction equipment would meet CARB Tier 3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel Engine Standards. Engines are required to meet certain emission standards, and groups of standards are referred to as Tiers. A Tier 0 engine is unregulated with no emission controls, and each progression of standard level (i.e., Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, etc.) generates lower emissions, uses less energy, and is more advanced technologically than the previous tier. CARB’s Tier 3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel Engine Standards require that construction equipment fleets become cleaner and use less energy over time. There are no known conditions within the project site that would require non-standard equipment or construction practices that would increase fuel-energy consumption above typical equipment fuel consumption rates.
Additionally, construction activities would be temporary and short-term and would adhere to applicable construction best management practices (BMPs). Therefore, project construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation-related Energy Use
During operation, energy use would be associated with transportation-related fuel use (gasoline, diesel fuel, and electric vehicles) and building-related energy use (electricity and natural gas).
Transportation-related Energy Use
Buildout of the project and vehicle trips associated with the project would result in transportation energy use. Trips by individuals traveling to and from the project site would result from use of passenger vehicles.
Vehicles would be mostly powered by gasoline, with some fueled by diesel or electricity. The project would generate 119 daily trips. Project fuel consumption would decline over time beyond the initial operational year of the project as a result of continued implementation of increased federal and state vehicle efficiency standards. There is no component of the project that would result in unusually high vehicle fuel use during operation. Therefore, operation of the project would not create a land use pattern that would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.
Non-transportation-related Energy Use
Non-transportation energy use would be associated with electricity and natural gas. Electricity service to the project site is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). Once operational, the project would use electricity to run various appliances and equipment, including space and water heaters, air conditioners, ventilation equipment, lights, and numerous other devices. CalEEMod was used to estimate the total operational electricity and natural gas consumption associated with the project and includes 118,792 kilowatt hours per year for electricity and 387,152 kilo-British thermal units per year for natural gas.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
The project would be constructed in accordance with the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The 2022 Energy Code increases on-site renewable energy generation from solar, increases electric load flexibility to support grid reliability, reduces emissions from newly constructed buildings, reduces air pollution for improved public health, and encourages adoption of environmentally beneficial efficient electric technologies. CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of non-residential and residential structures. The project would, at a minimum, be required to comply with the mandatory measures included in the current Energy Code and the CALGreen standards at the time of building construction. Therefore, there are no project features that would support the use of excessive amounts of energy or would create unnecessary energy waste or conflict with any adopted plan for renewable energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment [ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024a; Appendix A])
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The applicable state plans that address renewable energy and energy efficiency include the California Green Building Standards Code, the California Energy Code, and the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), while the applicable local plan is the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). CALGreen and the California Energy Code institute mandatory minimum environmental performance and energy standards for new construction throughout California. RPS promotes diversification of the state’s electricity supply and decreased reliance on fossil fuel energy sources. As discussed in Item VI(a), the project would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of the current CALGreen and the Energy Code at the time of building construction. Similarly, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of CALGreen and the California Energy Code or with SCE’s implementation of RPS. Additionally, the project would not conflict with implementation of the City’s CAP, as discussed in detail in Item VIII(a). Consistent with state requirements, construction equipment would meet CARB Tier 3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel Engine Standards.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment [ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024a; Appendix A])
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project by SoCal Professional Engineers (SoCal-PE 2021; Appendix D) to document geologic conditions for the project site and develop design specifications for hazards such as seismic shaking and related effects. a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California, a seismically active region where several known earthquake faults occur. The geologic structure of the entire region is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system, including the San Andreas Fault, San Jacinto Fault, and Whittier-Elsinore Fault. However, the project site is not located within a State of California designated “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest known active fault is the Whittier-Elsinore fault located about two miles to the southeast. While the potential for ground rupture due to faulting at the site is considered low, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of a nearby seismic event is possible. Design and construction of proposed development within the project site would be required to comply with seismic-safety development requirements, including the Title 24 standards of the International Building Code (IBC) and the California Building Code (CBC). Conformance with applicable seismic-safety development requirements would minimize seismic fault rupture effects in the event of a major earthquake and ensure that the potential seismic or geologic hazard impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation [SoCal-PE 2021; Appendix D]) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact) As noted in Section VII(a)(i) although no faults are located within the project site, the Whittier-Elsinore fault is located approximately two miles to the southeast. A seismic event could cause significant ground shaking on the project site. The project would be required to conform to applicable seismic-safety development requirements to minimize seismic ground shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake.
Mandatory compliance with the Title 24 standards of the current IBC and CBC during the design and construction of the project would minimize seismic ground shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation [SoCal-PE 2021; Appendix D]) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant Impact) Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs during severe ground shaking whereby soils reduce greatly in strength and temporarily behave similarly to a fluid rather than a solid. Severe or extended liquefaction can result in significant effects to surface and subsurface facilities through the loss of support and/or foundation integrity. Liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily recently deposited sand and silt in areas with high groundwater levels. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the site is within an area mapped by the State of California for liquefaction potential and the County of Riverside has designated the site as having a “very high” potential for liquefaction. However, due to the absence of shallow groundwater, the medium dense to dense nature of the underlying alluvial materials, the shallow depth to bedrock, and the very moist to wet condition of the alluvial soils, the liquefaction risk is considered low. Moreover, the project would comply with applicable building and seismic design standards, including excavation and recompaction of the upper 10 feet of the building pad.
Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
(Sources: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation [SoCal-PE 2021; Appendix D]) iv) Landslides? (Less Than Significant Impact)
According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is generally flat and the potential for landslides or lateral spreading is considered very low. No landslides have been mapped in the project area. Development of the project site would require conformance with applicable regulations and standards for construction safety and landslide stability. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation [SoCal-PE 2021; Appendix D]) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project has the potential to result in soil erosion during grading and construction. However, potential short-term erosion impacts from construction activities would be addressed through the implementation of BMPs in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook to control erosion and protect the quality of surface water runoff (California Stormwater Quality Association 2003). Additionally, potential sedimentation and erosion impacts would be minimized or avoided with the implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures in compliance with NPDES permit requirements. Post construction, the project site would mostly be covered with impervious surfaces. Pervious areas, including the bioretention basin and landscaped areas, would be designed to minimize areas of exposed soils and treated with groundcover/vegetation such that substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur over the long term. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation [SoCal-PE 2021; Appendix D]) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above in VII(a)(iii) and VII(a)(iv), the project would not be subject to landslide-related risks and liquefaction-related risks are considered low according to the liquefaction analysis in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. However, the project would comply with the CBC to minimize risks associated with geologic hazards. Based on the incorporation of applicable design guidelines, potential impacts associated with a geologic unit or soil that is unstable would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation [SoCal-PE 2021; Appendix D]) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (No Impact) Expansive soils are attributable to the water holding capacity of clay materials. Such behavior can adversely affect structural integrity (including underground facilities) through shifting of support materials during the shrink-swell process. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation performed an index test on a sample of Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
the on-site soils and concluded that on-site soils have a very low potential for expansion (SoCal-PE 2021).
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation [SoCal-PE 2021; Appendix D]) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed as part of the project. The project would use the existing sewer system for the disposal of wastewater and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (No Impact)
The project site is vacant and does not include known unique geologic features. Underlying geologic formations on the project site include late Holocene-age young alluvial channel deposits and bedrock composed of Mesozoic-age Phyllite. According to Figure 3.2-3 of the General Plan EIR, the project site is in an area of Low paleontological sensitivity. As a result, no impact to paleontological resources would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation [SoCal-PE 2021; Appendix D]; General Plan EIR) VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared for the project by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (2024a; Appendix A).
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases. These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport; electricity generation; natural gas consumption; industrial activity; manufacturing; and other activities such as deforestation, agricultural activity, and solid waste decomposition.
The GHGs defined under California’s AB 32 include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere.
Estimates of GHG emissions are commonly presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weigh each gas by its global warming potential. Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the contribution of all Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. GHG emissions quantities in this analysis are presented in metric tons (MT) of CO2e.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that “the determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for careful judgment by the lead agency, consistent with the provisions in Section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” Section 15064.4(b) further states that a lead agency should consider the following nonexclusive factors when assessing the significance of GHG emissions:
1. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;
2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency applies to the project; and
3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
The local air quality agency regulating the SoCAB is the SCAQMD, the regional air pollution control officer for the basin. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in CEQA documents, SCAQMD staff convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. The Working Group was formed to assist the SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the SoCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the SoCAB, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations.
The City may set a project-specific threshold based on the context of each particular project, including using the SCAQMD Working Group expert recommendation. This standard is appropriate for this project because it is in the same air quality basin that the experts analyzed. For the project, the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT of CO2e per year threshold is used as the significance threshold. The 3,000 MT of CO2e per year threshold represents a 90 percent capture rate (i.e., this threshold captures projects that represent approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions from new sources). The 3,000 MT of CO2e per year value is typically used in defining small projects within the SoCAB that are considered less than significant because it represents less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target and the lead agency can provide more efficient implementation of CEQA by focusing its scarce resources on the top 90 percent.
Additionally, the project is assessed for consistency with the City’s CAP (City 2011). The CAP is the City’s long-range plan to reduce local GHG emissions in accordance with State law. The CAP is intended to be a reference document, and its implementation mitigates the City’s GHG emissions resulting from new development and redevelopment. The CAP establishes a quantitative target of 4.3 MT CO2e per service population by 2030. Therefore, project compliance with the CAP adequately establishes project compliance with statewide GHG reduction goals for the year 2030 associated with AB 32. The CAP is a strategy for the City to continue to grow in a sustainable way that meets GHG reduction targets while continuing to allow for public and private development and redevelopment that will uphold the City as a vibrant and livable community.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states that a lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
emissions resulting from a project. Therefore, GHG emissions as estimated by CalEEMod are provided for informational purposes. The project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation of the project, as discussed below.
Construction Emissions
GHG emissions would be released by equipment used for the project’s various construction activities. GHG emissions also would result from worker and vendor trips to and from the project site. Smaller amounts of GHGs would also be emitted through the energy use embodied in water use for fugitive dust control.
Emissions of GHGs related to the construction of the project would be temporary. The estimated construction GHG emissions for the project are shown in Table 5, Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For construction emissions, SCAQMD recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over 30 years and added to operational emissions since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. To account for the construction emissions, amortization of the total emissions generated during construction were based on the life of the development (residential—30 years) and added to the operational emissions.
Table 5
Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year Total Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Construction Year One 307
Construction Year Two 93
TOTAL 400
Amortized Emissions 13
Source: ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024a 1 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years.
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Operational Emissions
Once the project is constructed, GHG emissions would result from mobile, area, and other operational sources. Area sources, such as landscape maintenance equipment, would result primarily in emissions of CO2. Energy utilization (i.e., electricity and natural gas) and water consumption also would result primarily in emissions of CO2. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, wastewater treatment can directly emit both CH4 and N2O. Mobile sources, including vehicle trips to and from the project site, would result primarily in emissions of CO2, with minor emissions of CH4 and N2O. Disposal of solid waste would result in emissions of CH4 from the decomposition of waste at landfills, coupled with CO2 emission from the handling and transport of solid waste. These sources combine to define the longterm GHG emissions for the project. The total operational and amortized construction emissions for the project are identified in Table 6, Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
Table 6
Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Project GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Mobile 175
Energy 42
Area 0
Water/Wastewater 10
Solid Waste 7
Construction (Amortized over 30 Years) 13
Total 247
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 3,000
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No
Source: ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024a
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents; MT = metric tons; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
As shown in Table 6, operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year.
CAP Consistency
The CAP includes a CAP Consistency Checklist to demonstrate if new developments are consistent with reduction strategies from the City’s CAP. The purpose of the checklist is to streamline project-level CEQA requirements by identifying clear GHG reduction strategies that all new developments would need to implement for compliance with the GHG reduction strategies. The checklist considers consistency with the General Plan and CAP Measures. If a project meets the checklist criteria, then it would be considered to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. Table 7, Project Consistency with the City’s CAP, includes a project consistency analysis with the CAP Consistency Checklist criteria.
Table 7
Project Consistency with the City’s CAP
Goals, Targets, Policies Project Consistency
General Plan Consistency
Is the project consistent with the General Plan land use designation?
Inconsistent. The project proposes a General Plan
Amendment to change the site’s land use
designation from General Commercial to Limited
Industrial. The project would be inconsistent with
this measure.
Is the project consistent with the General Plan population and employment projections for the site, upon which the CAP modeling is based?
Consistent. The project does not involve residential
development that would induce population growth.
Additionally, the project would pull employees from
the local population at a similar rate as any potential commercial development under the site’s existing
General Plan designation. The project would be
consistent with this measure.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
Does the project incorporate CAP measures as binding
and enforceable components of the project? Until these
measures have been formally adopted by the City and
incorporated into applicable codes, the requirements must be incorporated as mitigation measures applicable to the project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5(b)(2))?
Consistent. The project would incorporate
applicable CAP measures as detailed below. The
project would be consistent with this measure.
CAP Measures Consistency
T-1.2 Pedestrian Infrastructure
• Does the project provide sidewalks along new and
reconstructed streets?
• Does the project provide sidewalks or paths to
internally link uses in a project where applicable?
• Does the project provide connections to
neighborhood activity centers, major destinations,
and transit contiguous to site?
Consistent. The project would install a new concrete
sidewalk along the project frontage on West
Minthorn Street. Additionally, the project would
include an accessible pedestrian path connecting the
West Minthorn Street sidewalk to the project
entrance. The project would be consistent with this
measure.
T-1.4 Bicycle Infrastructure
• Where applicable, does the project implement the
network of Class I, II and II bikeways, trails and
safety features identified in the General Plan, Bike
Lane Master Plan, Trails Master Plan and Western
Riverside County Non‐Motorized Transportation
plan?
• Does the project, where applicable, provide
connections to the network identified in those plans?
Inapplicable. The project is a low-VMT
development in a low-VMT area of the City that
lacks bike lane infrastructure. As a result, the
addition of bike lanes is inapplicable to the project.
T-1.5: Bicycle Parking
• Does new, non‐residential development that is
anticipated to generate visitor traffic provide
permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet
of the visitor entrance, readily visible to passers‐by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking
capacity, with a minimum of one two‐bike capacity
rack?
• Does the development propose a building with over
10 tenant spaces? If so, does it provide secure
bicycle parking for 5 percent of tenant‐occupied
motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum
of one space?
Inconsistent. Due to a lack of nearby bicycle
infrastructure, the project would not provide bike
racks. The project would be inconsistent with this
measure.
T-2.1 Designated Parking for Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
• Does a non‐residential development designate 10
percent of its total parking spaces for “Clean Air
Vehicles?”
Inconsistent. The project would not include Clean
Air Vehicle parking spaces. The project would be
inconsistent with this measure.
E-1.1: Tree Planting
• Does the developer provide a 15‐gallon non‐
deciduous, umbrella‐form tree per 30 linear feet of
boundary length, near buildings, or to shade
pavement in parking lots and streets?
Inconsistent. The project has a perimeter of
approximately 1,443 linear feet and 48 trees would
be required to meet this measure. The project
proposes 40 trees and would therefore be
inconsistent with this measure.
E-1.2: Cool Roof Requirements
• Does the new non‐residential development use
roofing materials having solar reflectance, thermal
emittance or Solar Reflectance Index 3 per
CALGreen Tier 1 values?
Inconsistent. The project proposes standing seam
metal roofs that would not explicitly meet the cool
roof requirements. The project is inconsistent with
this measure.
E-1.3: Energy Efficient Building Standards
• Does new construction achieve CALGreen Tier 1
energy efficiency standards?
Consistent. The project would achieve CALGreen
Tier 1 energy efficiency standards.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
E-1.2: Energy Efficient Street and Traffic Signal
Lights
• Does the project involve the installation of street or traffic signal lights? If so, are they Low Emitting
Diode (LED) lights?
Inapplicable. The project does not involve the
installation of street or traffic signal lights, and this measure does not apply.
E-4.1: Landscaping
• Does the development comply with the City’s
AB 1881 Landscaping Ordinance?
Consistent. The project’s landscape plan would be
reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning and
Public Works Department for compliance with AB
1881 and the City’s Landscaping Ordinance.
E-4.2: Indoor Water Conservation Requirements
• Does the development reduce indoor water
consumption by 30%, consistent with CALGreen
Tier 1, Section A5.303.2.3.1?
Consistent. The project would be consistent with
indoor water requirements specified by CALGreen.
S-1.4: Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion
• Is the project accompanied by a waste management
plan that demonstrates how 65% of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition debris
generated at the site will be recycled or salvaged?
Consistent. A waste management plan
demonstrating at least 65 percent diversion of
construction materials will be prepared for the
project.
Source: City 2011d
AB = Assembly Bill; CALGreen = California Green Building Standards Code; CAP = Climate Action Plan; CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; VMT = vehicle miles traveled Conclusion
Based on the consistency analysis performed in Table 7 above, the project would not be entirely consistent with the City’s CAP Checklist, and impacts would be potentially significant. Additional features must be incorporated into the project to bring the project into compliance with the City’s CAP. MM GHG-1 would be implemented to require GHG-reducing features to bring potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
MM GHG-1 Climate Action Plan Consistency
Prior to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy (whichever occurs first), the following measures shall be included in the project design:
• Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure D-2 T-1.5, the project shall provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitor entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack.
• Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure T-2.1, the project shall designate 10% of its total parking spaces for “Clean Air Vehicles”.
• Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure E-1.1, the project shall provide a 15- gallon non-deciduous, umbrella-form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary length, near buildings, or to shade pavement in parking lots and streets. • Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure E-1.2, the project shall use roofing materials having solar reflectance, thermal emittance or Solar Reflectance Index 3 per CALGreen Tier 1 values.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
(Sources: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment [ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024a; Appendix A], CAP [City 2011d])
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) There are numerous state, regional, and local plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Applicable plans and an evaluation of the project’s consistency with them are discussed below.
State Plans
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 established GHG emission reduction targets for the state, and AB 32 launched the CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan that outlined the reduction measures needed to reach the 2020 target. As discussed in Item VIII(a) above, the project would incorporate MM GHG-1 to be consistent with the City’s CAP, which is a qualified GHG reduction plan that is consistent with the Scoping Plan and emission reduction targets per Senate Bill (SB) 32. Because the project would be consistent with the CAP, it would not conflict with the Scoping Plan or SB 32.
Furthermore, project emissions would decline beyond the project buildout as a result of continued implementation of federal, state, and local reduction measures, such as increased federal and state vehicle efficiency standards and SCE’s increased renewable sources of energy in accordance with RPS goals. Based on currently available models and regulatory forecasting, project emissions would continue to decline through at least 2050. Given the reasonably anticipated decline in project emissions, once fully constructed and operational, the project is in line with the GHG reductions needed to achieve the 2050 GHG emission reduction targets identified by EO S-3-05. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable state plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Regional Plans
In addition to being consistent with the CAP, the project was evaluated for consistency with the Sustainable Communities Strategy strategies contained in Connect SoCal (SCAG 2024). As discussed in Table 8, Project Consistency with Applicable Connect SoCal Strategies, the project would be consistent with applicable Connect SoCal strategies. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable regional plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.
Local Plans
As discussed in Item VIII(a) above, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP with implementation of MM GHG-1. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable local plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
Table 8
Project Consistency with Applicable Connect SoCal Strategies Goals, Targets, Policies Project Consistency
Mobility: Build and maintain an integrated multimodal transportation network • Support investments that are well-maintained and
operated, coordinated, resilient and result in
improved safety, improved air quality and minimized
greenhouse gas emissions.
• Ensure that reliable, accessible, affordable and
appealing travel options are readily available, while
striving to enhance equity in the offerings in highneed communities. • Support planning for people of all ages, abilities and backgrounds.
Consistent. The project would be consistent with
Connect SoCal’s strategies to focus growth near
destinations and mobility options. The project site is
currently vacant. The project would construct an
office and warehouse near an existing transit route.
Riverside Transit Agency Route 8 is located along
Chaney Street approximately ¼ mile northwest of
the project site. The project site is also 1 mile from
large regional shopping centers located adjacent to
Central Avenue along the I-15 corridor. The project
would therefore be consistent with these strategies
by accommodating new employment growth near a
transit route that provides access to retail centers.
Communities: Develop, connect and sustain livable and thriving communities • Create human-centered communities in urban,
suburban and rural settings to increase mobility
options and reduce travel distances.
• Produce and preserve diverse housing types in an
effort to improve affordability, accessibility and
opportunities for all households.
Consistent. The project would install sidewalks
along the project frontage and a pedestrian access
path to the office building entrance.
Environment: Create a healthy region for the people of today and tomorrow • Develop communities that are resilient and can
mitigate, adapt to and respond to chronic and acute
stresses and disruptions, such as climate change.
• Integrate the region’s development pattern and
transportation network to improve air quality, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and enable more
sustainable use of energy and water.
• Conserve the region’s resources.
Consistent. The project would be constructed in
accordance with Title 24 energy efficiency
standards and CALGreen standards.
Economy: Support a sustainable, efficient and productive regional economic environment that provides opportunities for all people in the region
• Improve access to jobs and educational resources.
• Advance a resilient and efficient goods movement
system that supports the economic vitality of the
region, attainment of clean air and quality of life for our communities.
Consistent. The project would construct new office
and warehouse buildings on a vacant lot, expanding
employment opportunities on the project site.
Source: SCAG 2024
CALGreen = California Green Building Standards Code; I- = Interstate Mitigation Measures: MM GHG-1
(Sources: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment [ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024a; Appendix A], CAP [City 2011d])
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section is based in part on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project by S & S Commercial Environmental Services, Inc. (S & S 2024; Appendix E) to identify and evaluate actual and potential environmental conditions within the project site and vicinity. The assessment included site Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
reconnaissance, review of geologic and hydrogeologic settings, an environmental database search to identify documented “hazardous waste” facilities within one mile of the project site, and a review of historical records to assess historical land use and indications of potential contamination or sources of contamination within the project site.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less Than Significant Impact) Materials and waste are generally considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxicity); can be ignited by open flame (ignitability); corrode other materials (corrosivity); or react violently, explode, or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactivity). The term “hazardous material” is defined in the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Section 25501[o]) as any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment. Hazardous waste is defined as any hazardous material that is abandoned, discarded, or recycled, as defined in the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Section 25125). The transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as the potential releases of hazardous materials to the environment, are closely regulated through many state and federal laws.
The project entails an office building, warehouse, and vehicle storage yard. During construction, the project would involve the use and/or generation of materials including fuels (gasoline and diesel), equipment fluids (oils and antifreeze), concrete, cleaning solutions, paints, solvents, and adhesives. Applicable regulatory requirements associated with hazardous materials during construction-related activities would be met through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and related BMPs. As a result, hazardous material impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant.
Operation of the project would involve the use of materials common to all urban development that are labeled hazardous (e.g., solvents and commercial cleansers; petroleum products; and pesticides, fertilizers, and other landscape maintenance materials). It is possible that vendors may transport hazardous materials to and from the project; however, the drivers of the transport vehicles must comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Hazardous materials or wastes stored on-site are subject to requirements associated with accumulation time limits, amounts, and proper storage locations and containers, and proper labeling. The amount of materials that would be anticipated to be handled at any one time for the proposed warehouse operations would be relatively small. Additionally, for removal of hazardous waste from the site, hazardous waste generators are required to use a certified hazardous waste transportation company which must ship hazardous waste to a permitted facility for treatment, storage, recycling, or disposal.
Precise materials are not known, as the tenants of the proposed buildings are not yet defined. In the event that hazardous materials, other than those common materials described above, are associated with future warehouse operations, the hazardous materials would be transported, used, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. With compliance with applicable regulations, operation of the project would not generate a significant risk to the public or the environment through the potential routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Potential release of hazardous materials and/or wastes during project construction is discussed above in Item IX(a). As noted therein, potential impacts associated with construction-related hazardous materials would be less than significant based on compliance with regulatory requirements and standard construction Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
measures. Post-construction, the project may transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, but would do so in compliance with hazardous waste regulations. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [S & S 2024; Appendix E]) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is approximately 0.16 mile northeast of Ortega High School and Keith McCarthy Academy.
However, as previously discussed, future development within the project site would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous wastes during construction and operations. Impacts related to handling or emissions of hazardous materials near a school would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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 Impact)
Government Code 65962.5 stipulates that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Department of Health Services (DHS), the SWRCB, and any local enforcement agency, as designated by Section 18051, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), identify and update annually a list of sites that have been reported to have certain types of contamination. To determine if the project site is listed on any such site, an environmental information database search was performed for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The database review did not identify the project site on an environmental database maintained in accordance with Government Code 65962.5. In addition, there are no open hazardous waste sites within 1,000 feet of the project site per the DTSC’s EnviroStor database or the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database (DTSC 2025; SWRCB 2025).
No listed sites that would result in significant hazard to the public or the environment are located on the project site or immediate vicinity. No evidence was observed that the project site has been adversely impacted by contamination and no evidence of recognized environmental conditions exist on the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [S & S 2024; Appendix E]) 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 Impact) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The nearest public airports are Perris Valley Airport located approximately 8 miles to the northeast, Hemet-Ryan Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
Airport located approximately 18 miles to the east, and French Valley Airport located approximately 14 miles to the southeast. No impacts related to airport safety hazards would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) Emergency management services are overseen by the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Construction activities that would be reasonably foreseeable with implementation of the project would have the potential to temporarily restrict access for emergency vehicles; however, it is anticipated that construction would not result in the full closure of roadways or other means of emergency access. Compliance with the County of Riverside’s Emergency Operations Plan would be required during construction to ensure adequate emergency access.
Operations associated with the project would not impair or interfere with implementation of adopted emergency response plans or evacuation plans. As such, implementation of the project would not impair an emergency response or evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, County of Riverside’s Emergency Operations Plan [County of Riverside 2024]) g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less Than Significant Impact) Pursuant to Figure 3.10-2 of the General Plan EIR (City of Lake Elsinore 2011c), the project site is within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to CAL FIRE’s fire hazard severity zone mapping. Areas surrounding the project site support vegetation that serves as a prime fuel source for wildfire, and the wildfire susceptibility northeast of the project site is defined as very high. The project would be required to comply with CBC requirements for fire protection in areas prone to wildfires, in particular Section 701A that requires construction with fire resistant materials and methods to minimize property damage. In addition, the project would undergo a fire, life, and safety review by the City Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance with these requirements. Compliance with existing building code requirements and provision of adequate fire protection services would ensure that impacts related to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR)
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section is based on a Hydrology and Hydraulic Study and a Project Specific WQMP prepared for the project by NM Civil Engineering, Inc. (2023a and 2023b; Appendix F and Appendix G). a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the Lake Elsinore Sub-watershed of the Santa Ana Watershed region of Riverside County. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) sets water quality Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
standards for ground and surface waters within the region. Water quality standards are defined under the Clean Water Act to include both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of water quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses (water quality objectives).
Construction of the project would include grading, excavation, installation of subsurface infrastructure, and other earth-moving activities that have the potential to cause erosion that could degrade surface or ground water quality and/or violate water quality standards. The use of heavy construction equipment could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials (e.g., oils, fuels, and other water quality pollutants) that also could potentially affect surface and/or ground water quality. As required by the Clean Water Act, the project would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) NPDES Permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit Program, which is administered in the project area by Riverside County and is issued by the SARWQCB, regulates stormwater and urban runoff discharges from developments to natural and constructed storm drain systems in the City. Since the project would disturb one or more acres of soil, construction activities would be subject to the Construction General Permit (NPDES General Permit No.
CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, adopted September 2, 2009 and effective as of July 2, 2010) issued by the SWRCB. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP for site clearing, grading, and disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation.
The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, storm water collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways.
Development of the currently vacant project site would result in an increase in impervious surfaces associated with roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, and other hardscape features. This increase in on-site impervious surfaces would allow less water to percolate into the ground and would therefore generate more surface water during rainfall events. Impervious surfaces would collect sediments, oil and grease, trash and debris, and other impurities that would then be assimilated into surface runoff. A WQMP (NM Engineering, Inc. 2023b) has been prepared for the project to address the increase in polluted runoff that would occur from the project. The project would incorporate a bioretention basin in the southeastern corner of the property. The bioretention basin would be a shallow, vegetated basin with a ponding area underlain by an engineered soil media that would be incorporated into the site landscaping. The bioretention basin would collect runoff where it would be temporarily retained in the soil media. The plants and biological activity in the root zone would then function to take up pollutants and runoff, thus filtering the water before it is released into the storm drain system that eventually leads to Lake Elsinore. The project would not substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Hydrology and Hydraulic Study [NM Civil Engineering, Inc. 2023a; Appendix F], WQMP [NM Civil Engineering, Inc. 2023b; Appendix G])
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Since the City has a large amount of vacant land, substantial changes to recharge systems could occur from development of the vacant parcels. The increase in impervious surfaces that would occur for the project, as discussed above in Item X(a), would result in decreased on-site percolation capabilities; however, the project proposes pervious surfaces, including on-site landscaping and a bioretention basin that would collect stormwater runoff from the project site. Water collected in the bioretention basin would be treated and then released into the storm drain system for output into Lake Elsinore, where infiltration and groundwater recharge occur. This would be consistent with the City’s requirement that treated stormwater be directed to Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
Lake Elsinore and not infiltrated on site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, WQMP [NM Civil Engineering, Inc. 2023b; Appendix G]) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less Than Significant Impact) The existing on-site drainage pattern is generally overland from north to south toward West Minthorn Street. No existing drainage structures occur within the project site. While the project would maintain this same general drainage pattern, impervious surfaces would be constructed on currently vacant land, which would increase the amount and change the drainage flow of on-site runoff. A proposed bioretention in the southeast corner of the site would collect and convey off-site sheet flow from the north to prevent inundation of the project site and surrounding areas. The project would also incorporate landscaping and gravel areas to catch runoff from the project’s roof gutters, access road, and paved parking lot. With these features, stormwater runoff generated during project operation would be adequately captured on site and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. There is a potential for erosion and siltation to occur during project construction, specifically during site clearing, grading, and other earth-moving activities.
Grading activities would be conducted in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Grading Ordinance Nos. 636, 801, and 882, and the standards outlined in the City’s Plan Preparation and Design Manual (City 2024). Implementation of the NPDES permit requirements and an erosion control plan would reduce potential erosion, siltation, and water quality impacts to receiving water bodies and adjacent property.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with erosion or siltation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Hydrology and Hydraulic Study [NM Civil Engineering, Inc. 2023a; Appendix F], WQMP [NM Civil Engineering, Inc. 2023b; Appendix G])
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above in Item X(c)(i), implementation of the project would alter the drainage pattern of the site through an increase in impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in surface runoff.
However, a proposed bioretention basin in the southeastern corner of the property and the on-site landscaping and gravel areas would be designed to adequately accommodate runoff and prevent flooding on- and off-site. Therefore, the project would not result in on- or off-site flooding and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Hydrology and Hydraulic Study [NM Civil Engineering, Inc. 2023a; Appendix F], WQMP [NM Civil Engineering, Inc. 2023b; Appendix G])
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or; (Less Than Significant Impact)
As discussed above in Item X(c)(i), implementation of the project would alter the drainage pattern of the site through an increase in impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in surface runoff; however, proposed drainage infrastructure would be designed to adequately accommodate runoff and result in the slow release of stormwater to the storm drain system. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Hydrology and Hydraulic Study [NM Civil Engineering, Inc. 2023a; Appendix F], WQMP [NM Civil Engineering, Inc. 2023b; Appendix G]).
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less Than Significant Impact) The southeastern corner of the project site is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood “Zone X” defined as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard, areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile (FEMA 2025). No portion of the site is mapped within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood. As such, the risk of flooding at the site is low and the project is not anticipated to substantially impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: FEMA Flood Map Service Center [FEMA 2025])
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (No Impact)
As discussed above in Item X(c)(iv), the project site is not within a special flood hazard area and risk of flood at the project site is considered low (FEMA 2025). A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partly enclosed body of water. Seiches are normally caused by earthquake activity, and can affect harbors, bays, lakes, rivers, and canals. The nearest enclosed body of water is Lake Elsinore, approximately one mile southwest of the project site, which is too far to result in inundation at the project site during a seiche event. Additionally, because the project site is located more than twenty miles inland, the project site would not be inundated by a tsunami. As such, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: FEMA Flood Map Service Center [FEMA 2025])
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the Santa Ana River watershed, which is regulated by the SARWQCB.
The SARWQCB has developed a “Water Quality Control Plan” for the Santa Ana River Basin (herein, “Basin Plan”) (SARWQCB 2019). The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
SARWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain water quality standards. The SARWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under several programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. The SARWQCB ensures compliance with the Basin Plan through its issuance of NPDES Permits, issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and Water Quality Certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In conformance with these requirements, the project prepared a WQMP (NM Engineering, Inc. 2023b; Appendix G) to meet applicable requirements of the Basin Plan, including requirements and conditions of approval associated with NPDES permits, issuance of WDRs, and Water Quality Certifications. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Basin Plan, and potential impacts associated with implementation of a water quality control plan would be less than significant.
As discussed above in Item X(b), substantial changes to recharge systems could occur from development of the vacant parcels. In order to reduce pollutants, the City has implemented policies to minimize pollutants in the local and regional waterways, which includes water that percolates into the groundwater through Water Resources Policies 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Water Resources Policies 4.1 and 4.2 require development projects to acquire a NPDES permit and implement BMPs to reduce pollutants. Water Resources Policy
4.3 requires the City to review future development project’s beneficial uses during the environmental review stage. Therefore, the project would not conflict with sustainable groundwater management plans, and potential impacts associated with implementation of a groundwater management plan would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Basin Plan [SARWQCB 2019]; General Plan EIR)
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or the removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. A significant impact would occur if the project were sufficiently large or configured in such a way so as to create a physical barrier within an established community. The project is surrounded by I-15 to the north, a tow yard to the east, an industrial storage yard to the south, and a stormwater detention basin to the west. The project site is not currently used for access between existing uses and implementation of the project would not create a physical barrier that would divide an established community. Moreover, project implementation would not provide for infrastructure systems such as new roadways that would divide or disrupt neighborhoods or other established community elements in a previously developed and urbanized area. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
The project site is zoned and has a General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial. The project proposes to change the site’s General Plan Land Use designation and zoning to Limited Industrial and M1, respectively. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would bring the project into compliance with Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
the General Plan. The project has been designed to meet the industrial development standards as identified in the LEMC, including but not limited to setbacks, building heights, parking spaces, drive aisles, and FAR, and to be consistent with the applicable land use policies and regulations of the General Plan. Review of the project for consistency with applicable zoning regulations as part of the approval process would ensure that the project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.
As discussed in the project’s Noise Impact Assessment (ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024d; Appendix H), the project would not exceed the City’s General Plan standards for construction or operational noise at nearby land uses, and construction would be limited to the hours of 7:00am to 7:00pm from Monday through Saturday.
As discussed in Item IV(f), with MM BIO-2, the project would not conflict with the MSHCP or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. Thus, with the implementation of MM BIO-2, land-use related impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in Item VIII(a), with MM GHG-1, the project would not conflict with the City’s CAP.
Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-2 and MM GHG-1
(Sources: Zoning Map, General Plan)
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
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 Impact)
Substantial mineral resources have been identified within the City and are noted within the City’s General Plan, in particular aggregate type mineral resources. These resource areas are primarily designated within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2 pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram based on available geological information. The designation of MRZ 2 indicates the area is underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data shows that significant measured or indicated resources are present. According to Figure 3.12-1 of the General Plan EIR (City of Lake Elsinore 2011c), the project site is located within 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. Further, the project involves office and warehouses uses, and the site is not planned or zoned for mineral extraction use. Implementation of the project therefore would not 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 impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR)
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 Impact) As discussed in Item XII(a), the General Plan does not identify the project site to be a significant mineral resource area as it is not located within one of the designated locally important mineral resource areas within Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
the City. Additionally, the project site is not used for mineral extraction and is not delineated on any plan for mineral resource recovery uses. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR)
XIII. NOISE
This section is based on the Noise Impact Assessment prepared for the project by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (2024d; Appendix H).
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? (Less Than Significant Impact) Noise-sensitive land uses are associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be subject to stress and/or substantial interference from noise, and often include residential dwellings, mobile homes, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, educational facilities, libraries, parks, and nature/wildlife preserves.
Surrounding land uses are comprised I-15 to the north; a tow yard to the east, and industrial storage yard to the south, and a stormwater detention basin to the west. The nearest residential use area is located approximately 700 feet to the northeast across Collier Avenue. An evaluation of potential construction and operational noise impacts is provided below.
Construction Noise
Equipment Noise
Section 17.176.080F of the LEMC specifies noise level limits for mobile and stationary construction equipment. Noise generated would primarily be associated with the operation of off-road equipment for onsite construction activities as well as construction vehicle traffic on area roadways. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, building construction, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustic disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). During construction, exterior noise levels could negatively affect sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction site.
LEMC Section 17.176.080 has mobile and stationary construction noise standards for residential and commercial land uses. It is noted that in the case of the project, all phases of construction would employ stationary equipment only, as the City defines mobile equipment standards as non-scheduled, intermittent, short-term operations (less than 10 days) while defining stationary equipment as repetitively scheduled and relatively long-term operation (period of 10 days or more). The project would require use of stationary equipment through all phases. The nearest residential land use is located to the northwest of the project Site boundary, fronting Collier Avenue. The nearest commercial land use is Steve’s Towing located directly east of the project site. It is acknowledged that the majority of construction equipment is not situated at any one location during construction activities but rather spread throughout the project site and at various distances from sensitive receptors. Therefore, this analysis employs the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance for calculating construction noise, which recommends measuring construction noise Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
produced by all construction equipment operating simultaneously from the center of the project site. The anticipated short term construction noise levels generated for the necessary equipment during each phase for the nearest residential and commercial land uses are summarized in Table 9, Construction Noise Levels at Off-site Receivers.
Table 9
Construction Noise Levels at Off-Site Receivers
Receiver Construction Phase
Estimated Exterior
Construction Noise
Level (dBA)
Daytime
Construction Noise
Standard (dBA Leq)
Exceed
Standards ?
Site Preparation 59.5 60 No
Residential Land Use Grading 59.3 60 No
Building Construction,
Paving, and Painting 59.6 60 No
Site Preparation 72.9 75 No
Commercial Land Use Grading 72.8 75 No
Building Construction,
Paving, and Painting 73.1 75 No
Source: ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024d; Appendix H
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound pressure level Construction activities would be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. from Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays. No nighttime, weekend, or holiday construction activities are anticipated. Construction activities would only occur during the hours permitted under LEMC Section 17.176. Therefore, on-site construction activities would not generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.
Traffic Noise
Project construction would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways over the period that construction occurs. According to CalEEMod, which is used to predict the number of worker commute trips, the maximum number of construction workers traveling to and from the project site at one time would not be expected to exceed 23 trips in total (21 construction worker trips and 2 vendor trips). According to the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Caltrans 2013), doubling of traffic on a roadway is required to result in an increase of 3 A-weighted decibels (dBA) (outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference). The project site is mainly accessible from Collier Avenue. According to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (City 2011b), Collier Avenue is a Major Roadway within the City and has a traffic volume capacity of 34,100 ADT. Thus, the project construction would not result in a doubling of traffic, and therefore its contribution to existing traffic noise would not be perceptible. Additionally, it is noted that construction is temporary, and these trips would cease upon completion of the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Noise
Noise generated by project operations would include mobile sources (i.e., traffic noise) and on-site noise sources such as people talking, car doors opening and closing, equipment loading, etc.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
Traffic Noise
The project would increase traffic volumes on local roadways but would not substantially alter the vehicle classifications mix on local or regional roadways, nor would the project alter the speed on an existing roadway or create a new roadway. Thus, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes. While changes in noise levels would occur along any roadway where project-related traffic occurs, for noise assessment purposes, noise level increases are assumed to be greatest nearest the project site, as this location would represent the greatest concentration of project-related traffic. As described above, substantial noise increase is defined as an increase of 3 dBA above existing conditions.
The project site is mainly accessible from Collier Avenue. According to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (City 2011b), Collier Avenue is a Major Roadway within the City and has a traffic volume capacity of 34,100 ADT. According to the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Caltrans 2013), doubling of traffic on a roadway would result in an increase of 3 dB (a barely perceptible increase). Per the Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memo (K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2022), the project is anticipated to generate 119 ADT. The project would not result in a doubling of traffic, thus its contribution to existing traffic noise would not be perceptible.
On-site Sources
The primary on-site operational noise sources for the project would be activities occurring on the project site, such as the moving of vehicles, people talking, etc. On-site project operations have been calculated using the SoundPLAN 3D noise model. Table 10, Operational Noise Levels at Off-site Receivers, shows the predicted project noise levels at four locations in the project vicinity. These four locations represent the three nearest commercial/industrial land uses and nearest residence to the project site.
Table 10
Operational Noise Levels at Off-Site Receivers
Location Land Use Modeled Operational
Project Noise (dBA Leq)
City Noise Standard
Day/Night (dBA Leq)
Exceed
Standards?
Residential property north
of the project site.
Residential 39.4 50/40 No
Steve’s Towing south of the
project site.
Commercial 54.4 65/60 No
RightWay Temporary
Power north of the project
site
Commercial
41.0 65/60
No
DC Pantry across West
Minthorn Street
Commercial 51.3 65/60 No
Source: ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024d; Appendix H
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound pressure level As shown in Table 10, operational noise levels would not exceed the applicable limits as specified in Section
17.176.060 of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, operational noise would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of limits established in the LEMC, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Noise Impact Assessment [ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024d; Appendix H]) Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Construction would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. Vibration perception would occur at structures, as people do not perceive vibrations without vibrating structures.
Human reaction to vibration is dependent on the environment the receiver is in, as well as individual sensitivity. For example, vibration outdoors is rarely noticeable and generally not considered annoying.
Typically, humans must be inside a structure for vibrations to become noticeable and/or annoying. Based on several federal studies, the threshold of perception is 0.035 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV), with 0.24 in/sec PPV being distinctly perceptible (Caltrans 2020). Neither cosmetic nor structural damage of buildings occurs at levels below 0.1 in/sec PPV.
The nearest structure is Steve’s Towing located approximately 150 feet south of the project site center.
Construction equipment could include equipment such as bulldozers, loaded trucks, jackhammers, and vibratory rollers. Vibration levels from these pieces of equipment would generate vibration levels with a PPV ranging from 0.0002 to 0.0142 in/sec PPV at 150 feet. Vibration levels would not exceed 0.035 PPV at the nearest structure. Therefore, vibration due to construction would not be perceptible or cause structural damage. Once operational, the project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Noise Impact Assessment [ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024d; Appendix H]) c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)
The project site is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the Perris Valley Airport. According to the City of Perris General Plan Noise Element (2016), the airport is a center for skydiving. Aircraft traffic at the airport typically consist of Twin Otter Turbo Prop, 20-passenger planes equipped with jet engines and propellers. Due to the limited activities occurring at the airport, the lack of commercial flights and distance of more than three miles from the airport to the project site, it can be assumed that those working at the project would not be negatively impacted by airport operations. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
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)? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. Population growth is a complex interaction between immigration, emigration, birth, deaths, and economic factors. The project involves an office building, warehouse, and outdoor vehicle storage yard; no residences would be added to the project area. Although the project would result in an increase in temporary construction jobs and permanent commercial/industrial jobs, these jobs are expected to be filled by members of the existing population of the area. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to inducing substantial unplanned population growth.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
The project site is currently vacant. No existing housing or businesses would be displaced upon implementation of the project. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City Fire Department is comprised of contracted fire services with RCFD and CAL FIRE. The RCFD operates 106 fire stations in 15 battalions, providing fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services throughout Riverside County (RCFD 2025). Equipment used by RCFD has the ability to respond to both urban and wildland emergency conditions. Specifically, Battalion 2 of RCFD services the City. The nearest fire station is Station No. 10, located approximately 0.8 mile southeast of the project site.
Development of the project would be subject to the City’s policies and ordinances for hazard mitigation and fire prevention. The project would be required to comply with applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the site and as such, will be reviewed by the City Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance with these requirements. Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the benefit of the citizens whereby as a condition to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy by the City, the property owner or land developer is required to pay development impact fees or provide other consideration to the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which will benefit such new development. LEMC Section 16.74.049 includes a “fire facilities fee” to mitigate the additional burdens Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
created by new development for City fire facilities. Since the project includes new development, impacts must be offset through the payment of the appropriate development impact fees. As described above in Item XIV(a), the addition of an office building and warehouse on a vacant lot would result in an increase in the number of employees in the project vicinity. However, the increase in demand for fire protection services from this slight increase in daytime population is not anticipated to require the construction of new facilities or infrastructure. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to fire protection, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, LEMC; Riverside County Fire Stations [RCFD 2025]) b) Police protection? (Less Than Significant Impact)
As a contract service to the City provided by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, the Lake Elsinore Police Department is responsible for police protection within the City, including enforcement of local, state, and federal statutes; public safety; traffic enforcement; and maintaining public order. The California Highway Patrol provides traffic enforcement to the County with additional support from the local County Sheriff’s Department. The Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff’s Station is located at 333 Limited Avenue, approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the project site.
Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which would benefit such new development. The project would participate in this development impact fee program to mitigate potential impacts to police protection resources. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with applicable law enforcement requirements and standards to ensure adequate law enforcement protection is available to serve the project site. Potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the development impact fee and compliance with regulatory requirements. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to police protection. Therefore, potential impacts associated with police projection would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, LEMC)
c) Schools? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) covers a 144-square mile area within the City of Lake Elsinore, City of Canyon Lake, City of Wildomar, and a portion of the unincorporated County of Riverside.
LEUSD is composed of 25 schools including 13 elementary schools, 2 K-8 schools, 4 middle schools, 3 comprehensive high schools, a continuation school, and 2 alternative education centers. The project would not generate new housing that would directly increase the number of school-age children on the project site; however, the project would slightly increase the number of employees on the project site, some of whom may have school-age children. As a result, the project would be required to pay school development fees to offset potential impacts resulting from the increase in demand on school facilities and services. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC)
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
d) Parks? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City has 19 public parks with hundreds of acres of active and passive recreation opportunities. The project includes the development of an office building, warehouse, and vehicle storage yard, which are not uses that typically result in additional usage of the existing parks in the City. However, Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) of the LEMC requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner or developer must pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section. Paragraph D of LEMC Section 16.34.060 describes the City’s Park Capital Improvement Fund and describes that the City Council has the option to request dedication for park purposes or in lieu thereof, request that the property owner or developer pay a fee for the purpose of purchasing the land and developing and maintaining the City park system. The project would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining park land within the City. Potential impacts would be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical effects related to parks, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC)
e) Other public services/facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City is part of the Riverside County Library System. The closest library to the project site is the Lake Elsinore Library at 600 W Graham Drive, approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the project site. Section
16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) of the LEMC requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner or developer must pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section.
Paragraph B of LEMC Section 16.34.060 describes the City’s Library Mitigation Fee and states that an inlieu fee for future construction of library improvements shall be paid to the City to assure the necessary library facilities are provided to the community. While the project would not involve new housing that would substantially increase library demand, potential impacts must be offset through the payment of the appropriate library mitigation fees. Therefore, potential impacts associated with libraries would be less than significant.
Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which would benefit such new development. LEMC Section 16.74.048 includes an “Animal shelter facilities fee” to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for animal facilities. In addition, the property owner would be required to pay City Hall & Public Works fees, Community Center Fees, and Marina Facilities Fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, potential impacts associated with other public services and facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC)
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008 – 2030 (adopted July 14, 2009) establishes a goal of providing five acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The project involves an office park, warehouse, and vehicle storage yard, which would not result in substantially increased demand for neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Regardless, as described in Item XIV(d), the project applicant would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining parkland within the City. Potential project-related impacts would be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. Therefore, potential impacts associated with parks or recreational facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Parks and Recreation Master Plan [City of Lake Elsinore 2009]; LEMC) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact)
The project involves an office building, warehouse, and vehicle storage yard; it would not include new recreational facilities or require the construction of expansion of recreational facilities elsewhere.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
A Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memo (K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2022; Appendix I) was prepared for the project to assess the project’s potential to affect the circulation system and to generate VMT. Portions of the following analysis are based on the report. a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact) Section 2.4 of the Community Form Element of the City’s General Plan addresses circulation in Lake Elsinore. The following policies in Section 2.4.4, Circulation Goal, Policies, and Implementation Program, apply to the project:
• Policy 6.1: The interconnection and coordination of traffic signals shall be achieved through two processes, namely the requirements in the conditions of approval on development projects and/or through the implementation of Capital Improvement Program projects. • Policy 6.3: Maximize the use of shared driveways and on-site circulation to minimize conflicts at access points to the roadway network.
• Policy 6.4: Maintain the system of bike lanes and multi-use trails throughout the City.
Encourage the implementation of the network of Class I, II, and III bike lanes on all Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
development projects through construction of the facility as described in the Bike Lane Master Plan and/or the Trails Master Plan.
The project would include two full access driveways to facilitate adequate circulation throughout the project site. The project is a low-VMT development in a low-VMT area of the City that lacks bike lane infrastructure. As a result, the project is not required to install traffic signals, and the addition of bike lanes is infeasible. Accordingly, the project does not conflict with applicable General Plan policies regarding circulation.
In 2020, SCAG adopted the Connect SoCal Plan to increase mobility options in the region and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern (SCAG 2020). A major goal of the Connect SoCal Plan is to provide more diverse transportation options, including pedestrian infrastructure. The project would add new sidewalks along West Minthorn Street to improve pedestrian mobility in the area. As a result, the project would be consistent with the Connect SoCal Plan. Impacts related to circulation plan compliance would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memo [K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2022; Appendix I]) b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less Than Significant Impact)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) sets forth specific criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts as related to VMT. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) and SB 743, the City recently updated their Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide to include VMT analysis methodology. Land use projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population (compared to the City’s baseline threshold) are evaluated for potential impacts.
Per the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, adopted June 23, 2020 (City 2020), there are three types of Western Riverside Council of Governments screening criteria. If a project satisfies one or more of the three screening criteria, it can be presumed to not have a significant impact related to VMT and can be effectively screened from having to do additional project-level VMT analysis. The three types include the following:
1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: projects located within a TPA may be presumed to have a less than significant impact.
2. Low VMT Area Screening: projects in a low VMT traffic analysis zone (TAZ) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact.
3. Project Type Screening: local serving retail projects less than 50,000 sf may be presumed to have a less than significant impact.
The project is located in a low VMT-generating TAZ and would be consistent with screening criteria 2. As such, no additional VMT analysis is required. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memo [K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2022; Appendix I]) Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
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 Impact) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. The project does not propose a dangerous design feature, nor would the proposed access driveways connect to existing roadways in such a way that would pose a danger to increased traffic.
Sight distance and project access would be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that project circulation and access has been designed per City regulations. Therefore, no impact associated with hazardous geometric design features would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project would be constructed on a vacant site along West Minthorn Street. The site would be accessed via two driveways along West Minthorn Street that would be 40 feet wide to allow adequate circulation for emergency vehicles and evacuation. Similarly, internal drive aisles would be 26 feet wide to allow adequate circulation for emergency vehicles and evacuation. In conjunction with the review and approval of building permits, the City’s Fire and Police Departments would review plans to ensure compliance with applicable emergency access and safety requirements. With application of project review procedures, impacts involving emergency access would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) As previously discussed in Item V(a), no recorded historical or archaeological resources are located within the project site, and no new resources were identified during the field survey conducted at the project site.
To identify potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) at the project site, a Sacred Lands File Search was conducted with the NAHC. The results of Sacred Lands File Search were negative, and no resources have been previously identified in the immediate project area.
AB 52, signed into law in 2014, amended CEQA and established new requirements for tribal notification and consultation. AB 52 applies to projects for which a notice of preparation or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is issued after July 1, 2015. AB 52 also broadly defines a new resource category of tribal cultural resources and establishes a more robust process for meaningful consultation that includes:
Prescribed notification and response timelines;
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
Consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact evaluation, and mitigation measures; and
Documentation of consultation efforts to support CEQA findings.
A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. AB 52 also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c).
In accordance with the requirements of AB 52, the City sent notification to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Pechanga Band of Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Tribes on January 26, 2023. The Pechanga, Rincon, and Soboba tribes requested to be consulted. Meetings were held with the Soboba Tribe on November 7, 2023, December 17, 2024, April 17, 2025, and July 2, 2025. Meetings were held with the Pechanga Tribe on November 30, 2023, December 19, 2024, April 22, 2025, and June 24, 2025. Meetings were held with the Rincon Tribe on April 3, 2025. The City concluded consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on June 25, 2025, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians on July 2, 2025, and with the Pechanga Band of Indians on July 28, 2025. The tribes indicated that incorporation of the City’s standard cultural mitigation measures, included in this document as MM CUL-1 through MM CUL7, would sufficiently mitigate potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Based on the absence of recorded resources within or adjacent to the project site, no adverse changes in the significance of TCRs are anticipated; however, it is possible that unknown TCRs may be discovered during grading and other ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-7, identified in Item V, Cultural Resources, would be implemented to ensure that potential impacts to TCRs pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-7
(Sources: Cultural Resources Inventory [ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024c; Appendix C]) XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
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? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Proposed utilities would include construction of water, sewer, and storm drain laterals and pipelines, as well as connections to existing electric, natural gas, and telecommunication lines. The project site is within the service boundary for EVMWD. The project would be served by existing water and wastewater treatment facilities and would not require the construction of new or expanded facilities. Water service would be provided by the EVMWD through a lateral to an existing line in West Minthorn Street. Sewer service would be provided by connections to an existing 8-inch sewer line in West Minthorn Street.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
In addition, the project would provide on-site storm water drainage facilities that would connect to the existing municipal storm drain system. The project would incorporate a bioretention basin in the southeastern corner of the property to filter stormwater runoff before it is released into the storm drain system that eventually leads to Lake Elsinore. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications services would be provided by utility service providers (Southern California Gas Company, SCE, and Frontier) via connections to existing lines. Therefore, the project would not require the construction of new or expanded facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Grading Plan)
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction activities associated with the project would require the use of water for dust control during grading activities. The amount of water used during construction would, however, be minimal. During operation, the anticipated water use for the project would generate increased demand for water supplies.
EVMWD, which obtains its potable water supplies from imported water from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, local surface water from Canyon Lake, and local groundwater from the Elsinore Basin, would provide water service to the project site.
According to EVMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), EVMWD has determined that current and anticipated future supplies are sufficient to meet the projected dry-year and multiple dry-year demand. However, the UWMP uses existing and planned land uses to estimate water demand. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, and its water usage is therefore unaccounted for in the UWMP. According to CalEEMod defaults for industrial and commercial water usage, the project is anticipated to require 8.5 acre-feet of water per year (afy; ECORP 2024a; Appendix A), while a retail project of the same size under the site’s existing land use designation and zoning would require 2.1 afy (Pacific Institute 2003). Thus, the project has a demand of 6.4 afy that is unaccounted for in the UWMP.
The 2020 UWMP includes a comparison of water supply and demand under normal and dry conditions for the years 2025 through 2045. EVMWD is anticipated to have its smallest normal and dry condition water surpluses – 4,361 afy and 2,039 afy, respectively – in 2045. The project’s unaccounted-for demand of 6.4 afy is approximately 0.15% and 0.31% of EVMWD’s normal and dry year surpluses, respectively. The project’s unaccounted-for demand would be a negligible percentage of EVMWD’s surplus, even under dry conditions. Thus, there are sufficient water supplies as well as water shortage contingency plans to protect existing and future water needs within the EVMWD service area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: EVMWD Urban Water Management Plan)
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less Than Significant Impact) EVMWD would provide wastewater service to the project site. The project would result in increased demand for wastewater treatment, given the project would be constructed on a vacant site. Wastewater would be treated at EVMWD’s Regional Reclamation Facility, which has a current treatment capacity of 8 million gallons of wastewater per day (EVMWD 2023). By 2026, the Regional Reclamation Facility Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
expansion project is expected to be completed, which would increase the facility’s treatment capacity to 12 million gallons per day. As a result, EVMWD has sufficient capacity to service the project site. Required improvements include the construction of additional water and sewer mains and utility easements.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: EVMWD Website; EVMWD 2023)
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Riverside County Waste Management facilitates solid waste disposal services for Riverside County, and the City contracts with CR&R, Inc. Environmental Services for trash pickup. Lake Elsinore is served by a number of landfills, including El Sobrante Landfill, Badlands Landfill, and Lamb Canyon Landfill. El Sobrante Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2051. Badlands Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2059 and Lamb Canyon Landfill by 2032 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2025).
Solid waste disposal is managed at the regional level; therefore, generation of solid waste within the City, including by the project, is one part of a regional issue. The project would be required to comply with applicable state and local regulations, including Section 40050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code, to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC requires that project construction divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris. The project is anticipated to meet or exceed this requirement during construction. The amount of solid waste generated by the project is anticipated to be accommodated by the existing landfills, and recycling and green waste collection would reduce the overall solid waste generated. Therefore, potential impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, CalRecycle 2025, LEMC)
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989 as amended) under the Public Resource Code requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated by January 1, 2000, and 50 percent diversion each year following. As of 2006, the City achieved a 50 percent waste diversion rate. In addition, Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC requires that project applicants divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris; the project would meet or exceed this requirement. The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC, Public Resources Code) Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
XX. WILDFIRE
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Refer to Item IX(f). Potential impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan; County of Riverside’s Emergency Operations Plan [County of Riverside Emergency Management Department 2024])
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Less Than Significant Impact)
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Less Than Significant Impact)
According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone mapping for Riverside County and Figure 3.10-2 of the General Plan EIR (City of Lake Elsinore 2011c), the project site is within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Emergency management services are overseen by the RCFD and CAL FIRE. The project site is flat and is not located within an area that would be subject to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, slope instability, or drainage changes in post-fire conditions. Additionally, the project would comply with CBC requirements for fire protection in areas prone to wildfires, in particular Section 701A that requires construction with fire resistant materials and methods to minimize property damage.
The project would utilize existing roadways and utilities and would not require the installation of additional infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk. With the implementation of existing building code requirements and adequate fire protection services, impacts from wildfire on the proposed development would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR)
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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, Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
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? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
Potentially significant impacts to the environment resulting from the project have been identified for biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions, land use and planning, and tribal cultural resources. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources related to sensitive wildlife species, burrowing owl, nesting birds, and wildlife corridors would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3. The project is not expected to impact resources related to major periods of California history or prehistory. Based on the presence of cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site and the cultural sensitivity of the area, however, the project would have the potential to impact unknown subsurface cultural resources and/or TCRs. With implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-7, however, impacts to unknown subsurface cultural and tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the project would not 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.
Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 and MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-7. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual project effects that, when considered together or in concert with other projects, combine to result in a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355).
As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the project would result in potentially significant project-specific impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions, land use and planning, and tribal cultural resources; however, project-related effects either would be avoided by incorporation of project design measures or mitigated to levels below significance.
As discussed in Item III, Air Quality, the project would not result in air pollutant emissions during construction or operation that would exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds; the project would therefore not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions for which the region in non-attainment (O3, PM10, and PM2.5).
As described in Item IV, Biological Resources, project construction could result in potentially significant direct and/or indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, burrowing owl, nesting birds and raptors, and migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant through compliance with applicable permits (pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, MBTA, federal ESA, and California ESA) and implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3. Other development in the project area also would be required to comply with applicable environmental laws and mitigation requirements. The Western Riverside County MSHCP, which has been adopted by local jurisdictions and approved by the wildlife agencies, is largely designed to address potential cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from development in the western portion of the County through assembly of a comprehensive reserve system. Based on the project-specific mitigation measures that would be implemented and on the existence of an approved region-wide conservation plan, the project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative biological resources impact.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
As discussed in Items V, Cultural Resources, and XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources, the project would not adversely affect known cultural resources. Potentially significant impacts could occur if archaeological resources, TCRs, and/or human remains are disturbed during ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction. While it is possible that unknown cultural resources may be encountered during construction, mitigation measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-7 have been included that would reduce impacts to these resources to below a level of significance. Accordingly, the project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative cultural resources impact.
As discussed in Item VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, mitigation measure MM GHG-1 would be required to bring the project into compliance with the City’s CAP. With implementation of MM GHG-1, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative GHG impact.
The project would sufficiently mitigate potentially significant impacts through mitigation measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3, MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-7, and MM GHG-1. When considering potential environmental impacts of the project, including impacts identified as less than significant in the Initial Study, together with the impacts of other present, past, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, there would not be a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment.
Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3, MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-7, and MM GHG-1.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project would not result in substantial fugitive dust emissions or expose individuals to excessive noise, nor would it expose individuals to hazardous materials or hazardous sites. There would be no other potentially significant impacts that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The project would also adhere to regulatory codes, ordinances, regulations, standards, and guidelines applicable to each of the environmental issue areas analyzed herein. As evidenced by the Initial Study, no other substantial adverse effects on human beings, either indirectly or directly, would occur as a result of project implementation.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines.
HELIX Environmental Planning
Tim Belzman, Principal Planner
Molly Ryan, Environmental Planner
Rebecca Kress, Senior GIS Specialist
City of Lake Elsinore
Damaris Abraham, Community Development Director
Nancy Huynh, Principal Planner
Carlos Serna, Associate Planner
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
VII. REFERENCES
The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document. Except as noted, they are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674-3124.
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resourcesboard-air-quality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-healthperspective.pdf?sfvrsn=e5c21761_0.
California Department of Conservation (DOC)
2025 California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed January 29.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline=true.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
2023 Survey and Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (California ESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2025 SWIS Facility/Site Search. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed January 29.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2025 California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed January 29.
2020 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. 2013 Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September.
Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf.
California Stormwater Quality Association
2003 Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook. January. Available at:
https://www.casqa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/BMP_Municipal_Complete.pdf.
City of Lake Elsinore (City)
2025 City of Lake Elsinore GIS Zoning Map. Available at http://davis.lakeelsinore.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d78b8d4d4fd24df1b864fd0538e83 019. Accessed January 29.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
2024 Design Manual & Plan Preparation. September. Available at: https://www.lakeelsinore.org/DocumentCenter/View/4216/Engineering-Design-Manual?bidId=. 2020 Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide. June 23. Available at: https://www.lakeelsinore.org/DocumentCenter/View/2373/Traffic-Impact-Analysis-Preparation-GuidePDF?bidId=. 2011a City of Lake Elsinore Business District Plan. Available at: https://www.lakeelsinore.org/DocumentCenter/View/2227/30-Business-District-PDF. 2011b City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. Available at: https://www.lakeelsinore.org/465/Lake-Elsinore-General-Plan. Accessed January 29, 2025. 2011c City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report. Available at: https://www.lake-elsinore.org/467/General-Plan---CertifiedEIR. Accessed January 29, 2025. 2011d City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan. Available at: https://www.lakeelsinore.org/469/Lake-Elsinore-Climate-Action-Plan. Accessed January 29, 2025. 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Available at: https://www.lakeelsinore.org/DocumentCenter/View/3149/2009ParksandRecreationMast?bidId=.
County of Riverside
2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. March. Available at: https://www.wrcrca.org/species/survey_protocols/burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf.
County of Riverside Emergency Management Department
2024 Emergency Operations Plan. Available at: https://rivcoready.org/about-emd/plans.
Accessed January 29.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
2025 EnviroStor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed January 29, 2025.
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2024a Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Collier Commercial Properties Project, Lake Elsinore, California, ECORP Consulting, Inc., revised December 2024. 2024b Biological Technical Report and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the Collier Commercial Properties. revised December 2024. 2024c Cultural Resources Inventory for the Collier Commercial Properties Project, City of Lake Elsinore, California, ECORP Consulting, Inc., revised August 2024. 2024d Noise Impact Assessment, Collier Commercial Properties, Lake Elsinore, California, ECORP Consulting, Inc., revised August 2024.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
2023 EVMWD Undergoes Regional Water Reclamation Facility Expansion. June 30.
Available at: https://evmwd.com/evmwd-undergoes-regional-water-reclamation-facilityexpansion/. Accessed January 29, 2025. 2020 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: https://evmwd.com/who-weare/water-resources/. Accessed January 29, 2025.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
2025 National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Available at: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5 529aa9cd. Accessed January 29.
Institute of Transportation Engineers
2008. Building Area per Employee by Business Type. Available at:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/legacy.usgbc.org/usgbc/docs/Archive/General/Docs4111.pdf.
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
2022 Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memo, Construction Equipment Rental Facility, 29400 Enterprise Way, Lake Elsinore. March.
Natural Resource Conservation Service
2025 Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed January 29.
NM Civil Engineering
2023a Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations, Collier Commercial Properties, City of Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, NM Civil Engineering, Inc., January 16, 2023. 2023b Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Collier Commercial Properties (Collier Ave. & West Minthorn St.), NM Civil Engineering, Inc. January 16, 2023.
Pacific Institute
2003 Appendix E: Details of Commercial and Industrial Assumptions, by End Use. November.
Available at: https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/appendix_e3.pdf.
Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD)
2025 Riverside County Fire Stations. Available at: https://www.rvcfire.org/resources/firestations. Accessed January 29.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
2019 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. June. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/. Accessed January 29.
S & S Commercial Environmental Services, Inc. (S & S)
2024 Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, APNS 377-190-002, 377-190-003, 377-190- 004 Collier Avenue, Lake Elsinore, California 92530, S & S Commercial Environmental Services, Inc., October 28, 2024.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
SoCal Professional Engineers (SoCal-PE)
2021 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, Collier Avenue, APN’s 377-190-002, 377-190-003, 377-190-004, Lake Elsinore, California 92530, April 25, 2021.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
2024 Connect SoCal 2024. April. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal. Accessed January 29.
2020 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/post/2020-2045-rtpscs-connectsocal-transportation-conformity-determination. Accessed January 29, 2025.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
2022 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. December. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-managementplans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022- aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16.
2009 Localized Significance Thresholds Mass Rate Lookup Tables. Revised October 21.
Available from: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 2008 Final Localized Significance Methodology. July. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
2025 GeoTracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed January 29.
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census
2023 QuickFacts, Lake Elsinore city, California; Wildomar city, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lakeelsinorecitycalifornia,wildomarcitycalif ornia/PST045219. Accessed January 29, 2025.
Collier Commercial Properties Project – IS/MND
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment, Collier Commercial
Properties Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment
Collier Commercial Properties Project
Lake Elsinore, California
Prepared For:
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Prepared By:
April 2022
(Revised December 2024)
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description..................................................................................................................1
2.0 AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Air Quality Setting............................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 South Coast Air Basin........................................................................................................................2
2.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants ........................................................................................................................3
2.1.3 Toxic Air Contaminants ....................................................................................................................6
2.1.4 Ambient Air Quality...........................................................................................................................6
2.1.5 Sensitive Receptors............................................................................................................................8
2.2 Regulatory Framework...................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Federal .................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 State......................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Local...................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Air Quality Emissions Impact Assessment.............................................................................................. 14
2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................... 14
2.3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.3 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................................. 16
3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 28
3.1 Greenhouse Gas Setting................................................................................................................................ 28
3.1.1 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 29
3.2 Regulatory Framework................................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.1 State...................................................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.2 Local...................................................................................................................................................... 32
3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Assessment.................................................................................. 35
3.3.1 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................... 35
3.3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 37
3.3.3 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................................. 38
4.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................................ 43
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Criteria Air Pollutants- Summary of Common Sources and Effects............................................................4 Table 2-2. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Data...................................................................................................................7 Table 2-3. Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the Riverside County Portion of the SoCAB ...................8 ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) i Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Table 2-4. SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds – Pounds per Day ................................................................ 15 Table 2-5. Local Significance Thresholds at 200 Meters of a Sensitive Receptor.................................................... 16 Table 2-6. Construction-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis) ........................................................... 17 Table 2-7. Equipment-Specific Grading Rates ....................................................................................................................... 18 Table 2-8. Maximum Construction-Related Emissions (Localized Significance Analysis)..................................... 19 Table 2-9. Operational-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis) ............................................................. 20 Table 3-1. Greenhouse Gases ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 3-2. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................................... 38 Table 3-3. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................ 39
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – CalEEMod Output File for Air Quality Emissions Attachment B – CalEEMod Output File for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million 1992 CO Plan 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide AB Assembly Bill
AQMD Air Quality Management District
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 Methane
City City of Lake Elsinore
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
County Riverside County
DPM Diesel particulate matter
EO Executive Order
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWP Global warming potential
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) ii Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
LOS Level of service
LSTs Localized significance threshold
MT Metric Ton
N2O Nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitric oxides
O3 Ozone
PM Particulate matter
PM10 Coarse particulate matter
PM2.5 Fine particulate matter
ppb Parts per billion
Project Collier Commercial Properties Project
RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
ROGs Reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCE Southern California Edison
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SOx Sulfur oxides
SR State Route
SRA Source receptor area
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
TACs Toxic air contaminants
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VOCs Volatile organic compounds
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) iii Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
1.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment completed for the Collier Commercial Properties Project (Project), which proposes the construction of two new buildings to accommodate a construction equipment rental facility in Lake Elsinore, California. This assessment was prepared using methodologies and assumptions recommended in the rules and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Regional and local existing conditions are presented, along with pertinent emissions standards and regulations. The purpose of this assessment is to estimate Project-generated criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions attributable to the Project and to determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Project Site is located in the City of Lake Elsinore (City), located in western Riverside County. The irregular shaped site positioned between Collier Avenue and Minthorn Street spans three parcels and totals
2.8 acres. It is currently vacant, undeveloped land and is generally bound by undeveloped land to the north with Collier Avenue and Interstate 15 beyond, Steve’s Towing Services to the east with Collier Avenue beyond, West Minthorn Street to the south with a corporation yard beyond, and West Minthorn Street to the west with the City Department of Public Social Services beyond.
The Project is proposing the construction and operation of two new buildings totaling 11,975 square feet to accommodate a construction rental facility with associated features. “Building A” is proposed to span 3,000 square feet and “Building B” would span 8,975 square feet. The Project also proposes to construct 24 parking spaces and a block wall along the southern and western Project Site boundary.
The Proposed Project Site has a General Plan land use designation of Limited Industrial and a zoning classification of Limited Manufacturing. The intent of the Limited Industrial designation is to reserve appropriate locations for certain categories of light industrial uses that are relatively free of nuisance or hazardous characteristics (Lake Elsinore 2021). Land uses such as heavy equipment sales and rental are subject to a conditional use permit.
The rental facility would be able to be accessed from both Collier Avenue and West Minthorn Street via 50- foot powered gates. Main access would be achieved from West Minthorn Street.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 1 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
2.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
AIR QUALITY
2.1 Air Quality Setting
Air quality in a region is determined by its topography, meteorology, and existing air pollutant sources.
These factors are discussed below, along with the current regulatory structure that applies to the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which encompasses the Project Site, pursuant to the regulatory authority of the SCAQMD.
Ambient air quality is commonly characterized by climate conditions, the meteorological influences on air quality, and the quantity and type of pollutants released. The air basin is subject to a combination of topographical and climatic factors that reduce the potential for high levels of regional and local air pollutants. The following section describes the pertinent characteristics of the air basin and provides an overview of the physical conditions affecting pollutant dispersion in the Project Area.
2.1.1 South Coast Air Basin
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the State into air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Project Site lies in the SoCAB, which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. The air basin is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter (SCAQMD 1993).
Temperature and Precipitation
The air basin is part of a semi-permanent high-pressure zone in the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature varies little throughout the 6,645-square-mile SoCAB, ranging from the low 60s to the high 80s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas (SCAQMD 1993).
In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rains fall between November and April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains.
Humidity
Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coast, are frequent, and low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB (SCAQMD 1993).
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 2 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Wind
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is higher during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter.
Between periods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall, surface high-pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.
The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (SCAQMD 1993).
Inversion
In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions is a critical determinant leading to highly degraded air quality in the summer and generally good air quality in the winter in Lake Elsinore (SCAQMD 1993).
2.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health with a determined margin of safety. Ozone (O3), coarse particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are generally considered to be regional pollutants because they or their precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are considered to be local pollutants because they tend to accumulate in the air locally. PM is also considered a local pollutant. Health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 2-1.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 3 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Table 2-1. Criteria Air Pollutants- Summary of Common Sources and Effects Pollutant Major Manmade Sources Human Health & Welfare Effects CO An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon
in fuel is not burned completely; a component
of motor vehicle exhaust.
Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to
vital tissues, effecting the cardiovascular and
nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness,
and can lead to unconsciousness or death.
NO2 A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles, energy utilities
and industrial sources.
Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to ozone and acid rain. Causes
brown discoloration of the atmosphere.
O3 Formed by a chemical reaction between reactive
organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. Common
sources of these precursor pollutants include
motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions,
solvents, paints and landfills.
Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous
membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing,
coughing and pain when inhaling deeply; decreases
lung capacity; aggravates lung and heart problems.
Damages plants; reduces crop yield.
PM10 & PM2.5 Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants, unpaved roads and parking lots, wood-burning
stoves and fireplaces, automobiles and others.
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation
of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing;
aggravated asthma; development of chronic
bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart
attacks; and premature death in people with heart
or lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze).
SO2 A colorless, nonflammable gas formed when Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart fuel containing sulfur is burned. Examples are problems. Can damage crops and natural refineries, cement manufacturing, and vegetation. Impairs visibility. locomotives.
Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA 2013) Carbon Monoxide
CO in the urban environment is associated primarily with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. CO combines with hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduces the amount of oxygen that can be circulated through the body. High CO concentrations can cause headaches, aggravate cardiovascular disease and impair central nervous system functions. CO concentrations can vary greatly over comparatively short distances. Relatively high concentrations of CO are typically found near crowded intersections and along heavy roadways with slow moving traffic. Even under the most severe meteorological and traffic conditions, high concentrations of CO are limited to locations within relatively short distances of the source.
Overall CO emissions are decreasing as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which has mandated increasingly lower emission levels for vehicles manufactured since 1973. CO levels in the SoCAB are in compliance with the state and federal one- and eight-hour standards.
Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen gas comprises about 80 percent of the air and is naturally occurring. At high temperatures and under certain conditions, nitrogen can combine with oxygen to form several different gaseous compounds ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 4 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
collectively called nitric oxides (NOx). Motor vehicle emissions are the main source of NOx in urban areas.
NOx is very toxic to animals and humans because of its ability to form nitric acid with water in the eyes, lungs, mucus membrane, and skin. In animals, long-term exposure to NOx increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, and lowering resistance to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show that susceptible humans, such as asthmatics, who are exposed to high concentrations can suffer from lung irritation or possible lung damage. Precursors of NOx, such as NO and NO2, attribute to the formation of O3 and PM2.5. Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO2 concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes and with hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.
Ozone
O3 is a secondary pollutant, meaning it is not directly emitted. It is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or ROGs and NOx undergo photochemical reactions that occur only in the presence of sunlight. The primary source of ROG emissions is unburned hydrocarbons in motor vehicle and other internal combustion engine exhaust. NOx forms as a result of the combustion process, most notably due to the operation of motor vehicles. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level O3 to form. Ground-level O3 is the primary constituent of smog. Because O3 formation occurs over extended periods of time, both O3 and its precursors are transported by wind and high O3 concentrations can occur in areas well away from sources of its constituent pollutants.
People with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are active can be affected when O3 levels exceed ambient air quality standards. Numerous scientific studies have linked ground-level O3 exposure to a variety of problems including lung irritation, difficult breathing, permanent lung damage to those with repeated exposure, and respiratory illnesses.
Particulate Matter
PM includes both aerosols and solid particulates of a wide range of sizes and composition. Of concern are those particles smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter size (PM10) and smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Smaller particulates are of greater concern because they can penetrate deeper into the lungs than larger particles. PM10 is generally emitted directly as a result of mechanical processes that crush or grind larger particles or form the resuspension of dust, typically through construction activities and vehicular travel. PM10 generally settles out of the atmosphere rapidly and is not readily transported over large distances. PM2.5 is directly emitted in combustion exhaust and is formed in atmospheric reactions between various gaseous pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx) and VOCs. PM2.5 can remain suspended in the atmosphere for days and/or weeks and can be transported long distances.
The principal health effects of airborne PM are on the respiratory system. Short-term exposure of high PM2.5 and PM10 levels are associated with premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Long-term exposure is associated with premature mortality and chronic respiratory disease.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing PM10 and PM2.5. People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worse illnesses; people with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms; and ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 5 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive include smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive because many breathe through their mouths.
2.1.3 Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogenic TACs are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur, and cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.
There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as from accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset conditions. The health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.
Most recently, CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine (USEPA 2002). Some shortterm (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs; due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.
2.1.4 Ambient Air Quality
Ambient air quality at the Project Site can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at nearby air quality monitoring stations. CARB maintains more than 60 monitoring stations throughout California. O3, PM10 and PM2.5 are the pollutant species most potently affecting the Project region. As described in detail below, the region is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM2.5 and PM10 (CARB 2019). The Lake Elsinore air quality monitoring station (506 W Flint St, Lake Elsinore), located approximately 2.5 miles south of the Project Site, monitors ambient concentrations of O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Ambient emission concentrations will vary due to localized variations in emission sources and climate and should be considered “generally” representative of ambient concentrations in the Project Area.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 6 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Table 2-2 summarizes the published data concerning O3, PM2.5 and PM10 from the Lake Elsinore monitoring station. O3, PM10 and PM2.5 are the pollutant species most potently affecting the Project region.
Table 2-2. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant Standards 2021 2022 2023
O3 – Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station
Max 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.118 0.121 0.120
Max 8-hour concentration (ppm) (State/federal) 0.098 / 0.097 0.092 / 0.091 0.103 / 0.103 Number of days above 1-hour standard
(State/federal) 18 / 0 17 / 0 10 / 1
Number of days above 8-hour standard
(State/federal) 46 / 44 37 / 37 35 / 31
PM10 – Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station
Max 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) (State/federal) * / 90.0 * / 91.8 * / 187.0 Number of days above 24-hour standard
(State/federal) * / 0 * / 0 * / 1.0
PM2.5 – Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station
Max 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) (State/federal) 28.8 / * 16.2 / * 19.9 / * Number of days above federal 24-hour standard * * *
Source: CARB 2024
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million * = Insufficient (or no) data available
The USEPA and CARB designate air basins or portions of air basins and counties as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each of the criteria pollutants. Areas that do not meet the standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (other than O3, PM10 and PM2.5 and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year.
The NAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical calculations over one- to three-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are not to be exceeded during a three-year period. The attainment status for the Riverside County portion of the SoCAB, which encompasses the Project Site, is included in Table 2-3.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 7 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Table 2-3. Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the Riverside County Portion of the SoCAB Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
O3 Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
SO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Source: CARB 2022
The determination of whether an area meets the state and federal standards is based on air quality monitoring data. Some areas are unclassified, which means there is insufficient monitoring data for determining attainment or nonattainment. Unclassified areas are typically treated as being in attainment.
Because the attainment/nonattainment designation is pollutant-specific, an area may be classified as nonattainment for one pollutant and attainment for another. Similarly, because the state and federal standards differ, an area could be classified as attainment for the federal standards of a pollutant and as nonattainment for the state standards of the same pollutant. The region is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM2.5 and PM10 (CARB 2019).
2.1.5 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population who are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.
Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site is a residence located approximately 700 feet (approximately 213 meters) distant from the northeastern Project Site boundary, fronting Collier Avenue.
2.2 Regulatory Framework
2.2.1 Federal
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1971 required the USEPA to establish the NAAQS, with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 8 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.
The USEPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. If an area is designated unclassified, it is because inadequate air quality data were available as a basis for a nonattainment or attainment designation. Table 2-3 lists the federal attainment status of the SoCAB for the criteria pollutants.
2.2.2 State
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) allows the State to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided that they are at least as stringent as federal standards. CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California, including setting the CAAQS. CARB also conducts research, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. CARB also has primary responsibility for the development of California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), for which it works closely with the federal government and the local air districts.
California State Implementation Plan
The federal CAA (and its subsequent amendments) requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the SIP. The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The CAA Amendments dictate that states containing areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA. The USEPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA. State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) is the SIP for the SoCAB. The 2022 AQMP is a regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards and healthful air in the SoCAB and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin that are under SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. The 2022 AQMP includes aggressive new ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 9 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
regulations and the development of incentive programs to support early deployment of advanced technologies. The two key areas for incentive programs are (1) promoting widespread deployment of available zero emission and low NOx technologies and (2) developing new zero emission and ultralow NOx technologies for use in cases where the technology is not currently available. The 2022 AQMP prioritizes distribution of incentive funding in “environmental justice” areas and seek opportunities to focus benefits on the most disadvantaged communities. The 2022 AQMP focuses on available, proven, and cost-effective alternatives to traditional strategies, while seeking to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting reductions in GHGs and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The AQMP relies on a regional and multi-level partnership of governmental agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local level.
These agencies (USEPA, CARB, local governments, Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG] and the SCAQMD) are the primary agencies that implement the AQMP programs. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s latest Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG's latest growth forecasts.
The 2022 AQMP includes integrated strategies and measures to meet the NAAQS. The current status of the SIPs for the SoCAB’s nonattainment pollutants are shown below:
On November 28, 2007, CARB submitted a SIP revision to the USEPA for O3, PM2.5 (1997 Standard), CO, and NO2 in the SoCAB. This revision is identified as the “2007 South Coast SIP”. The 2007 South Coast SIP demonstrates attainment of the federal PM2.5 standard in the SoCAB by 2014 and attainment of the federal eight-hour O3 standard by 2023. This SIP also includes a request to reclassify the O3 attainment designation from “severe” to “extreme”. The USEPA approved the redesignation effective June 4, 2010. The “extreme” designation requires the attainment of the eight-hour O3 standard in the SoCAB by June 2024. CARB approved PM2.5 SIP revisions in April 2011 and the O3 SIP revisions in July 2011. The USEPA approved the PM2.5 SIP in 2013 and has approved 46 of the 61, 1997 eight-hour O3 SIP requirements. In 2014, the USEPA proposed a finding that the SoCAB has attained the 1997 PM2.5 standards. In 2016, the USEPA determined that the SoCAB had attained the 1997 PM2.5 standards; however, the SoCAB was not redesignated as an attainment area because the USEPA had not approved a maintenance plan and additional requirements under the CAA had not been met.
In 2012, the SCAQMD adopted the 2012 AQMP, which was a regional and multiagency effort (the SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and the USEPA). The primary purposes of the 2012 AQMP were to demonstrate attainment of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014 and to update the USEPAapproved eight-hour Ozone Control Plan. In 2012, the 2012 AQMP was submitted to CARB and the USEPA for concurrent review and approval for inclusion in the SIP. The 2012 AQMP was approved by CARB on January 25, 2013.
In 2017, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP includes strategies and measures to meet the following NAAQS:
o 2008 eight-hour O3 (75 parts per billion [ppb]) by 2013 ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 10 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
o 2012 Annual PM2.5 (12 µg/m3) by 2025
o 1997 eight-hour O3 (80 ppb) by 2023
o 1979 one-hour O3 (120 ppb) by 2022
o 2006 24-hour PM2.5 (35 µg/m3) by 2019
In 2022, the SCAQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP. In response to the USEPA lowering the primary and secondary O3 standard levels to 70 ppb, the 2022 AQMP was developed to address the requirements for meeting this standard. The 2022 AQMP explores new and innovative ways to accomplish these goals through incentive programs, efficiency improvements, recognition of co-benefits from other programs, regulatory measures, and other voluntary actions.
Tanner Air Toxics Act & Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act CARB’s statewide comprehensive air toxics program was established in 1983 with Assembly Bill (AB) 1807, the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (Tanner Air Toxics Act of 1983). AB 1807 created California's program to reduce exposure to air toxics and sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions.
CARB also administers the State’s mobile source emissions control program and oversees air quality programs established by state statute, such as AB 2588, the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment (HRA) and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. In September 1992, the "Hot Spots" Act was amended by Senate Bill (SB) 1731, which required facilities that pose a significant health risk to the community to reduce their risk through a risk management plan.
2.2.3 Local
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, including the Project Site. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that the NAAQS and CAAQS are attained and maintained in the SoCAB. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 11 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
The following is a list of noteworthy SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Proposed Project:
Rule 201 & Rule 203 (Permit to Construct & Permit to Operate) – Rule 201 requires a “Permit to Construct” prior to the installation of any equipment “the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants . . .” and Regulation II provides the requirements for the application for a Permit to Construct. Rule 203 similarly requires a Permit to Operate. Rule 212 (Standards for Approving Permits and Issuing Public Notice)- This rule requires the applicant to show that the equipment used of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants or the use of which may eliminate, reduce, or control the issuance of air contaminants, is so designed, controlled, or equipped with such air pollution control equipment that it may be expected to operate without emitting air contaminants in violation of Section 41700, 4170 or 44300 of the Health and Safety Code or of these rules.
Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible PM are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All onsite roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c) All material transported offsite will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 12 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants) – This rule requires new source review of any new, relocated, or modified permit units that emit TACs. The rule establishes allowable risks for permit units requiring permits pursuant to Rules 201 and 203 discussed above.
Additionally, the SCAQMD has adopted the Clean Communities Plan (November 5, 2010), which is a planning document designed to reduce the exposure to air toxics and air-related nuisances throughout the SoCAB. The 2010 Clean Communities Plan is a planning document that outlines the overall control strategy for the SCAQMD’s air toxics control program. The plan is the continuing effort and update to both the Air Toxics Control Plan developed in 2000 and the subsequent Addendum in 2004. The 2010 Clean Communities Plan is comprised of traditional source-specific control measures and measures to address cumulative toxic impacts that affect neighborhoods and communities within the SoCAB.
The SCAQMD has conducted an in-depth analysis of the TACs and their resulting health risks for all of Southern California. This study, the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V (MATES V) shows that cancer risk has decreased more than 40 percent between MATES IV and MATES V (cancer risk decreased more than 50 percent between MATES III and MATES IV). MATES V is the most comprehensive dataset documenting the ambient air toxic levels and health risks associated with the SoCAB emissions. The MATES V study represents the baseline health risk for a cumulative analysis. MATES V estimates the average excess cancer risk level from TAC inhalation is 424 in one million basin-wide. These model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at 10 fixed sites within the SoCAB. None of the fixed monitoring sites are within the local area of the Project Site. However, MATES V has extrapolated the excess cancer risk levels throughout the basin by modeling the specific grids. MATES V modeling predicted an excess cancer risk of 415 in one million for the Project Area. DPM is included in this cancer risk along with all other TAC sources. DPM accounts for the majority of total risk shown in MATES V.
Southern California Association of Governments
In April 2024, the SCAG Regional Council adopted the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2024 RTP/SCS). The 2024 RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation – so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. It was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.
The 2024 RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions. Specifically, the region has been tasked by CARB to achieve a 19 percent per capita reduction by the end of 2035.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 13 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
2.3 Air Quality Emissions Impact Assessment
2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance. The Project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it would do any of the following:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. 2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people).
The significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district (SCAQMD) may be relied upon to make the above determinations. According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Proposed Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality for construction and operational activities of land use development projects such as that proposed, as shown in Table 2-4.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 14 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Table 2-4. SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds – Pounds per Day Air Pollutant Construction Activities Operations
Reactive Organic Gas 75 55
Carbon Monoxide 550 550
Nitrogen Oxide 100 55
Sulfur Oxide 150 150
Coarse Particulate Matter 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter 55 55
Source: SCAQMD 1993 (PM2.5 threshold adopted June 1, 2007) By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s individual emissions exceed its identified significance thresholds, the project would be cumulatively considerable. Projects that do not exceed significance thresholds would not be considered cumulative considerable.
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to regional significance thresholds, the SCAQMD developed localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (offsite mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis protocol). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a Project Site without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent national or state ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis is applicable for all projects that disturb five acres or less on a single day. The SCAQMD has prepared mass rate LST look-up tables for project disturbing one acre, two acres, and five acres. The Proposed Project spans just under three acres (2.8) and is located within SCAQMD SRA 25 (Lake Elsinore). Table 2-5 shows the LSTs for a project site in SRA 25, as derived from the SCAQMD mass rate LST look-up tables, with sensitive receptors located within 200 meters.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 15 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Table 2-5. Local Significance Thresholds at 200 Meters of a Sensitive Receptor Project Size
Pollutant (pounds per day)
Construction / Operations
NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5
1 Acre 460 / 460 4,850 / 4,850 67 / 17 20 / 5
2 Acres 521 / 521 5,641 / 5,641 75 / 18 23 / 6
5 Acres 672 / 672 7,535 / 7,535 96 / 23 31 / 8
Source: SCAQMD 2009
2.3.2 Methodology
Air quality impacts were assessed in accordance with methodologies recommended by the SCAQMD. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Project construction-generated air pollutant emissions were calculated using CalEEMod model defaults for Riverside County. Operational air pollutant emissions were based on the Project site plans and traffic trip generation rates from K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. (2022).
2.3.3 Impact Analysis
Project Construction-Generated Criteria Air Quality Emissions Regional Construction Significance Analysis
Construction-generated emissions are temporary and short-term but have the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. Three basic sources of short-term emissions will be generated through construction of the Proposed Project: operation of the construction vehicles (i.e., excavators, trenchers, dump trucks), the creation of fugitive dust during clearing and grading, and the use of asphalt or other oilbased substances during paving activities. Construction activities such as excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed soils would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive PM emissions that affect local air quality at various times during construction. Effects would be variable depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and the nature of dust control efforts. The dry climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation. Construction activities would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires taking reasonable precautions to prevent the emissions of fugitive dust, such as using water or chemicals, where possible, for control of dust during the clearing of land and other construction activities.
Construction-generated emissions associated the Proposed Project were calculated using the CARBapproved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 16 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Attachment A for more information regarding the construction assumptions, including construction equipment and duration, used in this analysis.
Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Proposed Project are summarized in Table 2-6. Construction-generated emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Table 2-6. Construction-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis) Construction Year
Pollutant (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Year One 3.59 25.48 28.73 0.05 3.62 2.05
Construction Year Two 3.37 23.65 28.50 0.05 1.37 1.13
SCAQMD Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Regional Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.
As shown in Table 2-6, emissions generated during Project construction would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, criteria pollutant emissions generated during Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site include residences located approximately 700 feet distant from the northeastern boundary, fronting Collier Avenue. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific level proposed projects.
For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is Lake Elsinore, SRA 25. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. . As previously described, the SCAQMD has produced lookup tables for projects that disturb one, two and five acres. The Proposed Project Site is approximately 2.8 acres, but acreage disturbed daily during phases is much less. The SCAQMD has also issued guidance on applying the CalEEMod emissions software to LSTs. Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 2-7 is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs.
All construction years have the same equipment, as such, only construction phases are shown in the table.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 17 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Table 2-7. Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase Equipment Type
Acres
Graded/Disturbed
per 8-Hour Day
Equipment
Quantity
Operating
Hours per
Day
Acres
Graded per
Day
Site
Preparation
Graders 0.5 1 8 0.5
Scrapers 1 1 8 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.5 1 8 0.5
Site Preparation Total: 2.0
Grading
Graders 0.5 1 8 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 0.5 1 8 0.5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.5 2 8 1.0
Grading Total: 2.0
Building
Construction,
Paving &
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 0.0 1 7 0.0
Forklifts 0.0 2 8 0.0
Generator Sets 0.0 1 8 0.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.5 2 8 1.0
Welders 0.0 3 8 0.0
Pavers 0.0 1 8 0.0
Paving Equipment 0.0 1 8 0.0
Rollers 0.0 2 8 0.0
Cement and Morter Mixers 0.0 1 8 0.0
Air Compressors 0.0 1 8 0.0
Building Construction, Paving & Architectural Coating Total: 1.0 As shown in Table 2-7, Project implementation could potentially disturb a total maximum of 2.0 acres during site preparation and grading, and 1.0 acres during building construction, paving & architectural coating. As described, the SCAQMD has produced lookup tables for projects that disturb one, two and five acres. The LST threshold value for a two acre site was used for the site and grading phases, and the LST threshold value for a one acre site was used for the building construction, paving and architectural coating phase.
LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site is a residence located approximately 1,000 feet (approximately 305 meters) distant from the northeastern Project Site boundary, fronting Collier Avenue The SCAQMD’s methodology clearly states that “…offsite mobile emissions from a project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 18 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
included in the CalEEMod onsite emissions outputs were considered. Table 2-8 presents the results of localized emissions. The LSTs reflect a maximum disturbance of the entire Project Site daily at 200 meters from sensitive receptors.
Table 2-8. Maximum Construction-Related Emissions (Localized Significance Analysis) Activity
Onsite Pollutant (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 15.67 10.06 1.22 0.61
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold
(2 acre of disturbance at 200 meters) 521 5,641 75 23
Grading 16.98 9.22 3.50 2.02
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold
(2 acre of disturbance at 200 meters) 521 5,641 75 23
Building Construction, Paving & Architectural
Coating 25.34 27.86 1.27 0.80
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold
(1 acre of disturbance at 200 meters) 460 4,850 67 20
Exceed SCAQMD Localized Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.
Notes: Emissions taken from the year and season, summer or winter, with the highest outputs. Emission reduction/credits for construction emissions are applied based on the required implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403. The specific Rule 403 measures applied in CalEEMod include the following: sweeping/cleaning adjacent roadway access areas daily; washing equipment tires before leaving the construction site; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 25 miles per hour.
Table 2-8 shows that the emissions of these pollutants during construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction activities. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative. The SCAQMD Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative program seeks to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution.
Therefore, significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction activities.
LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative. The SCAQMD Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative program seeks to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution. The Environmental Justice Program is divided into three categories, with the LST protocol promulgated under Category I: Further-Reduced Health Risk.
Thus, the fact that onsite Project construction emissions would be generated at rates below the LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 demonstrates that the Project would not adversely impact the neighboring receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 19 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Project Operations Criteria Air Quality Emissions
Regional Operational Significance Analysis
Implementation of the Project would result in long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants such as PM10, PM2.5, CO, and SO2 as well as O3 precursors such as ROGs and NOX. Project-generated increases in emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. As previously described, operational air pollutant emissions were based on the Project Site plans and traffic trip generation rates from K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. (2022). Long-terms operational emissions attributable to the Project are identified in Table 2-9 and compared to the operational significance thresholds promulgated by the SCAQMD.
Table 2-9. Operational-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis) Emission Source
Pollutant (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer Emissions
Area 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.07
Mobile 0.41 0.59 4.55 0.01 1.12 0.30
Total: 0.69 0.70 4.64 0.01 1.13 0.31
SCAQMD Regional Significance
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Regional
Threshold? No No No No No No
Winter Emissions
Area 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 0.36 0.63 3.97 0.01 1.12 0.30
Total: 0.64 0.73 4.06 0.01 1.13 0.31
SCAQMD Regional Significance
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Regional
Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.
Notes: Emission projections predominately based on CalEEMod model defaults for Riverside County. Average daily vehicle trips provided by K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. (2022).
As shown in Table 2-9, the Project’s emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants during operation.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 20 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
As identified in Table 2-3, Riverside County portion of the SoCAB is listed as a nonattainment area for federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM2.5 and PM10 (CARB 2019). O3 is a health threat to persons who already suffer from respiratory diseases and can cause severe ear, nose and throat irritation and increases susceptibility to respiratory infections. PM can adversely affect the human respiratory system. As shown in Table 2-9, the Proposed Project would result in increased emissions of the O3 precursor pollutants ROG and NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, however, the correlation between a project’s emissions and increases in nonattainment days, or frequency or severity of related illnesses, cannot be accurately quantified. The overall strategy for reducing air pollution and related health effects in the SCAQMD is contained in the SCAQMD 2022 AQMP. The AQMP provides control measures that reduce emissions to attain federal ambient air quality standards by their applicable deadlines such as the application of available cleaner technologies, best management practices, incentive programs, as well as development and implementation of zero and near-zero technologies and control methods. The CEQA thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD are designed to meet the objectives of the AQMP and in doing so achieve attainment status with state and federal standards. As noted above, the Project would increase the emission of these pollutants, but would not exceed the thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for purposes of reducing air pollution and its deleterious health effects.
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project only if the project includes stationary sources (e.g., smokestacks) or attracts heavy-duty trucks that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The Proposed Project does not include such uses. Therefore, in the case of the Proposed Project, the operational LST protocol is not applied.
2.3.3.1 Conflict with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the USEPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a SIP that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under state law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the NAAQS and CAAQS. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.
As previously mentioned, the Project Site is located within the SoCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the federal CAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. In order to reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted and adopted the 2022 AQMP. The 2022 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state and federal air quality standards. The 2022 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and the USEPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 21 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
including SCAG’s latest RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. (SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.) The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
According to the SCAQMD, in order to determine consistency with SCAQMD’s air quality planning two main criteria must be addressed.
Criterion 1:
With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As shown in Table 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9 above, the Proposed Project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds during both construction and operations. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations and would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.
b) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
As shown in Table 2-7 and 2-9 above, the Proposed Project would be below the SCAQMD regional thresholds for construction and operations. Because the Project would result in less than significant regional emission impacts, it would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or AQMP emissions reductions.
Criterion 2:
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the SoCAB focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining Project consistency focuses on whether or not the Proposed Project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in its air quality planning documents.
Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2022 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria.
a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the 2022 AQMP? A project is consistent with regional air quality planning efforts in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the SCAQMD air quality plans.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 22 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Generally, three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions in Lake Elsinore.
Specifically, SCAG’s Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) provides regional population forecasts for the region and SCAG’s RTP/SCS provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan is referenced by SCAG in order to assist forecasting future growth in Lake Elsinore.
The Proposed Project Site has a General Plan land use designation of Limited Industrial. The intent of this designation is to reserve appropriate locations for certain categories of light industrial uses that are relatively free of nuisance or hazardous characteristics. (Lake Elsinore 2021). The Project is not proposing to amend the City General Plan, is consistent with all land use designations applied to the site and would not increase the number of people residing in the area beyond that anticipated. Additionally, the Project is considered ‘infill development’ as it proposes to develop a property in a rapidly urbanizing area with developed sites adjacent to the Project site.
The Project is consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and is therefore consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity in the RTP/SCS and RCPG. As a result, the Project would not conflict with the land use assumptions or exceed the population or job growth projections used by SCAQMD to develop the 2022 AQMP. The City’s population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City; and these are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into their air quality planning efforts, it can be concluded that the Proposed Project would be consistent with the projections. (SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.) Therefore, the Proposed Project would be considered consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of SCAQMD’s air quality plans. b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? In order to further reduce emissions, the Project would be required to comply with emission reduction measures promulgated by the SCAQMD, such as SCAQMD Rules 201, 402, 403, and 1113. SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires fugitive dust sources to implement Best Available Control Measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. SCAQMD Rule 403 is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. SCAQMD 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and endusers of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. As such, the Proposed Project meets this consistency criterion.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 23 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth by SCAQMD air quality planning efforts?
The AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density presented in the City’s General Plan and therefore, would not exceed the population or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP.
In conclusion, the determination of AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality. The Proposed Project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet state and federal air quality standards. The Proposed Project’s long-term influence would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP.
The Project would be consistent with the emission-reduction goals of the 2016 AQMP.
Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants As previously described, sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over age 65, children under age 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site includes a residence located approximately 700 feet distant from the northeastern Project Site boundary, fronting Collier Avenue.
Construction-Generated Air Contaminants
Construction-related activities would result in temporary, short-term Proposed Project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10 from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); soil hauling truck traffic; paving; and other miscellaneous activities. The portion of the SoCAB which encompasses the Project Area is designated as a nonattainment area for federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM2.5, and PM10 standards (CARB 2019). Thus, existing O3, PM10, and PM2.5 levels in the SoCAB are at unhealthy levels during certain periods. However, as shown in Table 2-7 and Table 2-8, the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional or localized significance thresholds for emissions.
The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. Because the Project would not involve construction activities that would result in O3 precursor emissions (ROG or NOx) in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds, the Project is not anticipated to substantially contribute to regional O3 concentrations and the associated health impacts.
CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. In terms of adverse health effects, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can include dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 24 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
central nervous system functions. The Project would not involve construction activities that would result in CO emissions in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, the Project’s CO emissions would not contribute to the health effects associated with this pollutant.
Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Particulate matter exposure has been linked to a variety of problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing. For construction activity, DPM is the primary TAC of concern. PM10 exhaust is considered a surrogate for DPM as all diesel exhaust is considered to be DPM. As with O3 and NOx, the Project would not generate emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 that would exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Accordingly, the Project’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are not expected to cause any increase in related regional health effects for these pollutants.
In summary, Project construction would not result in a potentially significant contribution to regional concentrations of nonattainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those pollutants.
Operational Air Contaminants
Operation of the Proposed Project would not result in the development of any substantial sources of air toxics. There are no stationary sources associated with the operations of the Project; nor would the Project attract additional mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at the site. Onsite Project emissions would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. The Project would not have a high carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk during operation.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Given the high traffic volume potential, areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,” are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. However, transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited, and CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Furthermore, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SoCAB is designated as in attainment. Detailed modeling of Project-specific CO “hot spots” is not necessary and thus this potential impact is addressed qualitatively.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 25 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
A CO “hot spot” would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide in Los Angeles County and a Modeling and Attainment Demonstration prepared by the SCAQMD as part of the 2003 AQMP can be used to demonstrate the potential for CO exceedances of these standards. The SCAQMD is the air pollution control officer for much of southern California. The SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis as part of the 1992 CO Federal Attainment Plan at four busy intersections in Los Angeles County during the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood), Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood), Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood), and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). The busiest intersection evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. Despite this level of traffic, the CO analysis concluded that there was no violation of CO standards (SCAQMD 1992). In order to establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the Los Angeles, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 at the same four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards. The highest one-hour concentration was measured at 4.6 ppm at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue and the highest eighthour concentration was measured at 8.4 ppm at Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway. Thus, there was no violation of CO standards.
Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the air pollution control officer for the San Francisco Bay Area, concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact.
According to the traffic memo provided by K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc., the proposed facility is expected to have a trip generation of 24 trips in the AM peak hour, 12 trips in the PM peak hour, and 119 average daily traffic trips (K2 Traffic Engineering. 2022). Thus, the Proposed Project would not generate traffic volumes at any intersection of more than 100,000 vehicles per day (or 44,000 vehicles per day) and there is no likelihood of the Project traffic exceeding CO values.
Odors
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).
With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 26 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
to another. It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.
Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.
During construction, the Proposed Project presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, these emissions are short-term in nature and will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources.
Additionally, odors would be localized and generally confined to the construction area. Therefore, construction odors would not adversely affect a substantial number of people to odor emissions.
According to the SCAQMD, land uses commonly considered to be potential sources of obnoxious odorous emissions include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 27 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.1 Greenhouse Gas Setting
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead trapped, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would not be able to support life as we know it.
Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane (CH4), and N2O. Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride; however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic factors together (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2014).
Table 3-1 describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties, primary sources, and contributions to the greenhouse effect.
Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. CH4 traps over 25 times more heat per ton than CO2, and N2O traps 298 times more heat than CO2 (IPCC 2014). Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weight each gas by its global warming potential. Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of any particular GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, it is understood that more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 28 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013).
Table 3-1. Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
CO2 Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas. CO2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources. A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere.1 CH4 Methane is a colorless, odorless gas and is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (intestinal fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of CH4 to the atmosphere. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years.2
N2O Nitrous oxide is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests.
The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years.3 Sources: 1USEPA 2016a, 2 USEPA 2016b, 3 USEPA 2016c
The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; it is sufficient to say the quantity is enormous, and no single project alone would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature or to global, local, or microclimates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts to global climate change are inherently cumulative.
3.1.1 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2023, CARB released the 2023 edition of the California GHG inventory covering calendar year 2021 emissions. In 2021, California emitted 381.3 million gross metric tons of CO2e including from imported electricity. This inventory is 3.4 percent higher than the State’s 2020 inventory, but 5.7 percent lower than 2019 level, which aligns with the global changes, shutdowns, and economic recoveries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, between 2020 and 2021, California’s Gross Domestic Product (GPD) increased 7.8 percent while the GHG intensity of California’s economy (GHG emissions per unit GDP) ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 29 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
decreased 4.1 percent. Combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2021, accounting for approximately 38.2 percent of total GHG emissions in the state. Transportation emissions have increased 7.4 percent compared to 2020, which is most likely from light duty vehicle emissions that rebounded when COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders were lifted. Emissions from the electricity sector account for 16.4 percent of the inventory, which is an increase of 4.8 percent since 2020, despite the growth of in-state solar and imported renewable energy. California’s industrial sector accounts for the second largest source of the state’s GHG emissions in 2021, accounting for 19.4 percent, which saw an increase of nearly 1 percent since 2020 (CARB 2023).
3.2 Regulatory Framework
3.2.1 State
Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the EO established total GHG emission targets for the state.
Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050.
Assembly Bill 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan and Updates In 2006, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Health and Safety Code § 38500 et seq., or AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 required CARB to design and implement feasible and cost-effective emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions). Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan in December 2008, which outlined measures to meet the 2020 GHG reduction goals. California exceeded the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2017.
The Scoping Plan is required by AB 32 to be updated at least every five years. The latest update, the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, outlines strategies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California. The plan focuses on achieving the state's goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2045 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The plan includes a range of strategies across various sectors, including transportation, industry, energy, and agriculture. Some of the key strategies include transitioning to zero-emission vehicles, expanding renewable energy sources, promoting sustainable land use practices, implementing a low-carbon fuel standard, and reducing emissions from buildings. Additionally, the plan addresses equity and environmental justice by prioritizing investments in communities most impacted by pollution and climate change. The plan also aims to promote economic growth and job creation through the transition to a low-carbon economy.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 30 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 of 2016
In August 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197, which serve to extend California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include § 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030.
Assembly Bill 1279 of 2022
This bill, the California Climate Crisis Act, would declare the policy of the state both to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels. The bill would require the state board to work with relevant state agencies to ensure that updates to the scoping plan identify and recommend measures to achieve these policy goals and to identify and implement a variety of policies and strategies that enable carbon dioxide removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in California, as specified. The bill would require the state board to submit an annual report, as specified.
Senate Bill 100 of 2018
In 2018, SB 100 was signed codifying a goal of 60 percent renewable procurement by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045 Renewables Portfolio Standard.
2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings The Building and Efficiency Standards (Energy Standards) were first adopted and put into effect in 1978 and have been updated periodically in the intervening years. These standards are a unique California asset that have placed the State on the forefront of energy efficiency, sustainability, energy independence and climate change issues. The 2022 California Building Codes include provisions related to energy efficiency to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. Some of the key energy efficiency components of the codes are:
1. Energy Performance Requirements: The codes specify minimum energy performance standards for the building envelope, lighting, heating and cooling systems, and other components.
2. Lighting Efficiency: The codes require that lighting systems meet minimum efficiency standards, such as the use of energy-efficient light bulbs and fixtures.
3. HVAC Systems: The codes establish requirements for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, including the use of high-efficiency equipment, duct sealing, and controls.
4. Building Envelope: The codes include provisions for insulation, air sealing, glazing, and other building envelope components to reduce energy loss and improve indoor comfort.
5. Renewable Energy: The codes encourage the use of renewable energy systems, such as photovoltaic panels and wind turbines, to reduce dependence on non-renewable energy sources.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 31 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
6. Commissioning: The codes require the commissioning of building energy systems to ensure that they are installed and operate correctly and efficiently.
Overall, the energy efficiency provisions of the 2022 California Building Codes aim to reduce the energy consumption of buildings, lower energy costs for building owners and occupants, and reduce the environmental impact of the built environment. The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards improve upon the 2019 Energy Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The exact amount by which the 2022 Building Codes are more efficient compared to the 2019 Building Codes would depend on the specific provisions that have been updated and the specific building being considered. However, in general, the 2022 Building Codes have been updated to include increased requirements for energy efficiency, such as higher insulation and air sealing standards, which are intended to result in more efficient buildings. The 2022 standards are a major step toward meeting Zero Net Energy..
3.2.2 Local
South Coast Air Quality Management District
To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in CEQA documents, SCAQMD staff is convening an ongoing GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group.
Members of the working group include government agencies implementing CEQA and representatives from various stakeholder groups that provide input to SCAQMD staff on developing the significance thresholds.
On October 8, 2008, the SCAQMD released the Draft AQMD Staff CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds. These thresholds have not been finalized and continue to be developed through the working group.
The Draft AQMD Staff CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds guidance document, which builds on the previous guidance prepared by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), explored various approaches for establishing a significance threshold for GHG emissions and was described as a “work in progress” of efforts to date. However, the draft interim CEQA thresholds guidance document was not adopted or approved by the Governing Board. In December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted a 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. From December 2008 to September 2010, SCAQMD hosted working group meetings and revised the draft threshold proposal several times, although it did not officially provide these proposals in a subsequent document. SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general land use development projects. The most recent proposal, issued in September 2010, used the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses:
Tier 1 Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2. Tier 2 Consider whether or not the proposed project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearing and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3. Tier 3 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for individual land uses. The 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year threshold for industrial uses would be ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 32 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 metric tons of CO2e per year), commercial projects (1,400 metric tons of CO2e per year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year). Under option 2, a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4.
Tier 4 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 40 percent by 2035. The efficiency-based threshold of 3.0 metric tons of CO2e per service population (defined as the people that work and/or congregate on the Project Site) per year in 2035. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5. Tier 5 Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels.
The SCAQMD has not announced when staff are expecting to present a finalized version of its GHG thresholds to the governing board.
These thresholds were developed as part of the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. This working group was formed to assist SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the SoCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the SoCAB, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. These thresholds were developed to be consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds, are supported by substantial evidence, and provides guidance to CEQA practitioners with regard to determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed land use project are significant.
Southern California Association of Governments
In April 2024, the SCAG Regional Council adopted the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2024 RTP/SCS). The 2024 RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation – so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. It was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.
The 2024 RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions. Specifically, the region has been tasked by CARB to achieve a 19 percent per capita reduction by the end of 2035.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 33 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
The City of Lake Elsinore (City) Climate Action Plan
The City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a long-range plan to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from activities within the City limits. Specifically, the CAP is designed to:
• Benchmark Lake Elsinore’s existing (2008) GHG emissions and projected emissions relative to statewide emissions targets.
• Establish GHG emissions reduction strategies and measures to reduce the City’s proportionate share of emissions to meet the statewide targets identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. Set forth procedures to monitor and verify the effectiveness of the CAP and require amendment if the CAP is not achieving targeted levels of emissions. • Mitigate Lake Elsinore’s GHG emissions impacts (by reducing GHG emissions consistent with the State of California via the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines, AB 32, and Executive Order S-3-05). The CEQA Guidelines encourage the adoption of plans or mitigation programs as a means of comprehensively addressing the cumulative impacts of projects (see CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(c)).
• Serve as the programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA within the City of Lake Elsinore for GHG emissions, by which applicable projects will be reviewed. If a proposed development project can demonstrate it is consistent with the applicable emissions reduction measures included in the CAP, the programs and standards that would be implemented as a result of the CAP, and the General Plan Update growth projections, the project’s environmental review pertaining to GHG impacts may be streamlined as allowed by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15183.5.
The CAP is not intended to limit future development or economic growth within Lake Elsinore, nor is it intended to stop any individual project (as prescribed by the City’s General Plan) from moving forward. The CAP is a strategy for Lake Elsinore to grow in a sustainable way that meets GHG reduction targets while continuing to allow for public and private development and redevelopment that will keep the City of Lake Elsinore a vibrant and livable community. A CAP consistency checklist for future development projects is included in the implementation program.
City CAP Consistency Checklist
As part of the CAP, the City developed a CAP consistency checklist for land use projects. The checklist is a streamlined tool that identifies the CAP’s mandatory requirements and provides an opportunity for project applicants to demonstrate project consistency with GHG reduction measures and actions in the CAP. The checklist identifies a general development class and the strategies which must be implemented for the Project to be compliant with the CAP. The checklist is also an opportunity to identify additional Project characteristics that support the GHG reduction targets and programs in the CAP. If a project does not comply with the applicable mandatory GHG reduction measures, mitigation measures must be implemented to require compliance.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 34 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Assessment
3.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance. The Project would result in a significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions if it would:
1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
2) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases or
The Appendix G thresholds for GHG emissions do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA. With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states that lead agencies “shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions resulting from a project. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency has the discretion to either quantify a project’s GHG emissions or rely on a “qualitative analysis or other performance-based standards.” (14 CCR 15064.4(b)). A lead agency may use a “model or methodology” to estimate GHG emissions and has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers “most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change.” (14 CCR 15064.4(c)). Section 15064.4(b) provides that the lead agency should consider the following when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:
1. The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4(b)).
In addition, Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “[w]hen adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (14 CCR 15064.7(c)). The CEQA Guidelines also clarify that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). As a note, the CEQA ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 35 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Guidelines were amended in response to Senate Bill 97. In particular, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to specify that compliance with a GHG emissions reduction plan renders a cumulative impact insignificant.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency.
Examples of such programs include a “water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Put another way, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) allows a lead agency to make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions.
The local air quality agency regulating the SoCAB is the SCAQMD, the regional air pollution control officer for the basin. As previously stated, to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in CEQA documents, SCAQMD staff convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. The Working Group was formed to assist the SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the Basin, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the Basin, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. The numeric bright line and efficiencybased thresholds described above were developed to be consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds, are supported by substantial evidence, and provide guidance to CEQA practitioners and lead agencies with regard to determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant.
In Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 2014, 213, 221, 227, following its review of various potential GHG thresholds proposed in an academic study [Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203], the California Supreme Court identified the use of numeric bright-line thresholds as a potential pathway for compliance with CEQA GHG requirements.
The study found numeric bright line thresholds designed to determine when small projects were so small as to not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on global climate change was consistent with CEQA.
Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21003(f) provides it is a policy of the State that "[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment." The Supreme Court-reviewed study noted, "[s]ubjecting the smallest projects to the full panoply of CEQA requirements, even though the public benefit would be minimal, would not be consistent with implementing the statute in the most efficient, expeditious manner.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 36 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Nor would it be consistent with applying lead agencies' scarce resources toward mitigating actual significant climate change impacts." (Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227.) The significance of the Project’s GHG emissions is evaluated consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(2) by considering whether the Project complies with applicable plans, policies, regulations and requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The City of Lake Elsinore may set a project-specific threshold based on the context of each particular project, including using the SCAQMD Working Group expert recommendation. This standard is appropriate for this Project because it is in the same air quality basin that the experts analyzed. For the Proposed Project, the SCAQMD’s 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year threshold is used as the significance threshold in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance set forth below from Section VII of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year threshold represents a 90 percent capture rate (i.e., this threshold captures projects that represent approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions from new sources). The 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year value is typically used in defining small projects within this air basin that are considered less than significant because it represents less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target and the lead agency can provide more efficient implementation of CEQA by focusing its scarce resources on the top 90 percent. This threshold is correlated to the 90 percent capture rate for industrial projects within the air basin. Land use projects above the 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year level would fall within the percentage of largest projects that are worth mitigating without wasting scarce financial, governmental, physical and social resources. (Crockett 2011). As noted in the academic study, the fact that small projects below a numeric bright line threshold are not subject to CEQAbased mitigation does not mean such small projects do not help the State achieve its climate change goals because even small projects participate in or comply with non-CEQA-based GHG reduction programs, such as constructing development in accordance with statewide GHG-reducing energy efficiency building standards, called Cal Green or Title 24 energy-efficiency building standards (Crockett 2011).
Additionally, the Project is assessed for consistency with the City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan (CAP), a long-range plan to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions from activities within the City limits.
Specifically, the City set emission reduction goals of 48.2 percent below 2008 emissions levels by lowering GHG emission rates to 4.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person by 2030. Therefore, Project compliance with the CAP adequately establishes Project compliance with statewide GHG reduction goals for the year 2030 associated with AB 32. The CAP is a strategy for the City to continue to grow in a sustainable way that meets GHG reduction targets while continuing to allow for public and private development and redevelopment that will uphold the City as a vibrant and livable community.
3.3.2 Methodology
GHG emissions-related impacts were assessed in accordance with methodologies recommended by the SCAQMD. Where GHG emission quantification was required, emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Project construction-generated air pollutant emissions were calculated using CalEEMod model ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 37 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
defaults for Riverside County coupled with details associated with construction timing, phasing, and duration provided by the Project Applicant. Operational air pollutant emissions were based on the Project site plans, and traffic trip generation rates from K2 Traffic Engineering Group, Inc. (2022).
3.3.3 Impact Analysis
Generation of GHG Emissions
Construction
Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker commute trips, haul trucks carrying supplies and materials to and from the Project site, and off-road construction equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, excavators). Table 3-2 illustrates the specific construction generated GHG emissions that would result from construction of the Project. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Table 3-2. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)
Construction Calendar Year One 307
Construction Calendar Year Two 93
Total Construction Emissions 400
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.
As shown in Table 3-2, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 400 metric tons of CO2e over the course of construction. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. Consistent with SCAQMD recommendations, Project construction GHG emissions have been amortized of the expected life of the Project, which is considered to be 30 years per the SCAQMD.
The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions (see Table 3- 3).
Operational Significance Analysis
Operation of the Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions primarily associated with motor vehicle trips and onsite energy sources. Long-term operational GHG emissions attributed to the Project are identified in Table 3-3.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 38 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Table 3-3. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)
Construction Emissions (amortized over the
30-year life of the Project) 13
Area Source 0
Energy 42
Mobile 175
Waste 7
Water 10
Total 247
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 3,000
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Attachment B for Model Data Outputs.
Notes: Emission projections predominately based on CalEEMod model defaults for Riverside County. Average daily vehicle trips provided by K2 Traffic Engineering (2022).
As shown in Table 3-3, operational-generated emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric brightline threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually. SCAQMD thresholds were developed based on substantial evidence that such thresholds represent quantitative levels of GHG emissions, compliance with which means that the environmental impact of the GHG emissions will normally not be cumulatively considerable under CEQA. These thresholds were developed as part of the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. The working group was formed to assist the SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State OPR, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the SoCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the basin, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations.
Conflict with any Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an Agency Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
In 2011, the City of Lake Elsinore adopted the City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan, a long-range plan to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions from activities within the City limits. The CAP is a strategy for the City to continue to grow in a sustainable way that meets GHG reduction targets while continuing to allow for public and private development and redevelopment that will uphold the City as a vibrant and livable community (City of Lake Elsinore 2011). According to the CAP, the City selected efficiency-based target is 4.4 metric tons of CO2e per service population (defined as employees + residents) per year by 2030 (a 48.2 percent reduction from the 2008 rate of 8.5 metric tons of CO2e per service ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 39 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
population). These efficiency-based targets represent the AB 32 and SB 32 targeted emissions levels for 2020 and 2030 on a per service population basis.
The CAP specifically states, “A project-specific environmental document that relies on the CAP for its cumulative impact analysis must identify the CAP measures that apply to the project and demonstrate how the project incorporates or is consistent with them. In order to demonstrate project-level compliance with CEQA relevant to GHG emissions impacts, applications for discretionary projects must demonstrate the following (all mandates not pertaining to the Project excluded):
• How the project is consistent with the CAP and incorporates all applicable measures from the CAP as binding and enforceable components of the project.
• How the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations and population and employment growth projections within the City limits upon which the CAP modeling is based.” A specific project proposal is considered consistent with the City CAP if it complies with the “required” GHG reduction measures in the adopted CAP. The following questions are used by the City in order to determine consistency:
1. Is the project consistent with the General Plan land use designation?
2. Is the project consistent with the General Plan population and employment projections for the site upon which the CAP modeling is based?
3. Does the project incorporate the following CAP measures as binding and enforceable components of the project? Until these measures have been formally adopted by the City and incorporated in to applicable codes, the requirements must be incorporated as mitigation measures applicable to the project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5(b)(2)).
• T-1.2 Pedestrian Infrastructure
o Does the project provide connections to neighborhood activity centers, major destinations, and transit contiguous to site?
• D-2 T-1.5 Bicycle Parking
o Does new, non-residential development that is anticipated to generate visitor traffic provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitor entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack?
• T-2.1 Designated Parking for Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
o Does a non-residential development designate 10% of its total parking spaces for “Clean Air Vehicles?”
• E-1.1 Tree Planting
o Does the developer provide a 15-gal non-deciduous, umbrella-form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary length, near buildings, or to shade pavement in parking lots and streets?
• E-1.2 Cool Roof Requirements
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 40 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
o Does the new non-residential development use roofing materials having solar reflectance, thermal emittance or Solar Reflectance Index 3 per CalGreen Tier 1 values? • E-1.3 Energy Efficient Building Standards
o Does new construction achieve CalGreen Tier 1 energy efficiency standards? • E-4.1 Landscaping
o Does the development comply with the City’s AB 1881 Landscaping Ordinance? • E-4.2 Indoor Water Conservation Requirements
o Does the development reduce indoor water consumption by 30%, consistent with CalGreen Tier 1, Section A5.303.2.3.1?
The Proposed Project is consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan land use designation for the site and is consistent with the General Plan population and employment projections for the site upon which the CAP modeling is based. In order to ensure the required CAP measures are implemented, mitigation measure GHG-1 is recommended.
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
GHG-1: Climate Action Plan Consistency
The following measures shall be included in the Project design:
Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure D-2 T-1.5, the Project shall provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitor entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack.
Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure T-2.1, the Project shall designate 10% of its total parking spaces for “Clean Air Vehicles”.
Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure E-1.1, the Project shall provide a 15-gal nondeciduous, umbrella-form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary length, near buildings, or to shade pavement in parking lots and streets.
Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure E-1.2, the Project shall use roofing materials having solar reflectance, thermal emittance or Solar Reflectance Index 3 per CalGreen Tier 1 values.
Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure E-1.3, the Project shall achieve CalGreen Tier 1 energy efficiency standards.
Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure E-4.1, the Project shall comply with the City’s AB 1881 Landscaping Ordinance.
Consistent with CAP Reduction Measure 4.2, the Project shall reduce indoor water consumption by 30%, consistent with CalGreen Tier 1, Section A5.303.2.3.1.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 41 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
Monitoring/Enforcement: City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department Implementing the City’s CAP will greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from transportation, helping to achieve statewide emission reduction targets. All development in the City, including the Project, is required to adhere to all applicable City-adopted policy provisions, including those contained in the City CAP. The City ensures all applicable provisions of the CAP are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and applications of conditions of approval as applicable. All of the applicable and feasible provisions of the City GHG-reduction program as promulgated by its CAP will be incorporated into the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would in no way conflict with the stated goals of the CAP and thus would not interfere with City’s ability to achieve the goals set forth in the CAP. The Proposed Project is consistent with the City General Plan land use designation and development intensity for the site. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the CAP GHG-reduction targets. As such, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 42 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
4.0 REFERENCES
CAPCOA. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. _____. 2013. Health Effects. http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects/.
CARB. 2024. Air Quality Data Statistics. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. _____. 2023. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2023 Edition. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghginventory-data _____. 2022. State and Federal Area Designation Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. _____. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices (Appendix F).
Crockett, Alexander G. 2011. Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA:
California’s Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Approved Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/.
_____. 2013. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2022. Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memo: Construction Equipment Rental Facility 29400 Enterprise Way, Lake Elsinore.
Lake Elsinore, City of. 2021. City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. _____. 2011a. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan.
_____. 2011b. City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan.
SCAQMD. 2009. Localized Significance Threshold Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-Up Tables. Revised October 21, 2009. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/LST.html. _____. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]). _____. 2003. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan.
_____. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
_____. 1992. 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide.
USEPA. 2016a. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Dioxide. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html.
_____. 2016b. Methane. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html. _____. 2016c. Nitrous Oxide. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 43 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Collier Commercial Properties Project
_____. 2002. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=300055PV.TXT.
ECORP Consulting Inc. April 2022 (Revised December 2024) 44 Collier Commercial Properties Project 2022-020
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – CalEEMod Output File for Air Quality Emissions Attachment B – CalEEMod Output File for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ATTACHMENT A
CalEEMod Output Files – Criteria Air Pollutants
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Collier Commercial Project
Riverside-South Coast County, Summer
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Light Industry 11.97 1000sqft 2.80 11,975.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024
Utility Company Southern California Edison
CO2 Intensity 390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033 N2O Intensity 0.004 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot acreage totals 2.8 acres
Construction Phase - construction, paving, and architecural coating will be happening simultaneously Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Vehicle Trips - corrected trip rate to meet Traffic Study's amount of 119 daily trips Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Rule 403
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 220.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 220.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/31/2023 3/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/17/2023 3/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/18/2023 5/2/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/30/2022 5/2/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/4/2023 5/2/2022
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 11,970.00 11,975.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.27 2.80
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.99 9.96
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.00 9.96
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 4.96 9.96
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.5918 25.4828 28.7293 0.0483 7.1944 1.2741 7.9372 3.4544 1.2070 4.1378 0.0000 4,534.655 4 4,534.655
4 1.0076 0.0111 4,563.142
3 2023 3.3690 23.6494 28.5048 0.0483 0.2475 1.1199 1.3675 0.0659 1.0607 1.1266 0.0000 4,526.703 6 4,526.703
6 0.9970 0.0104 4,554.727
8 Maximum 3.5918 25.4828 28.7293 0.0483 7.1944 1.2741 7.9372 3.4544 1.2070 4.1378 0.0000 4,534.655 4 4,534.655
4 1.0076 0.0111 4,563.142
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.5918 25.4828 28.7293 0.0483 2.8740 1.2741 3.6168 1.3653 1.2070 2.0487 0.0000 4,534.655 4 4,534.655
4 1.0076 0.0111 4,563.142
3 2023 3.3690 23.6494 28.5048 0.0483 0.2475 1.1199 1.3675 0.0659 1.0607 1.1266 0.0000 4,526.703 6 4,526.703
6 0.9970 0.0104 4,554.727
8 Maximum 3.5918 25.4828 28.7293 0.0483 2.8740 1.2741 3.6168 1.3653 1.2070 2.0487 0.0000 4,534.655 4 4,534.655
4 1.0076 0.0111 4,563.142
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.05 0.00 46.43 59.34 0.00 39.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003 Energy 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 0.4169 0.5986 4.5526 0.0109 1.1155 8.2000e003 1.1237 0.2976 7.6900e003 0.3053 1,109.006 0 1,109.006
0 0.0496 0.0488 1,124.792
0 Total 0.6960 0.7026 4.6412 0.0115 1.1155 0.0161 1.1316 0.2976 0.0156 0.3132 1,233.795 6 1,233.795
6 0.0520 0.0511 1,250.323
4 Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003 Energy 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 0.4169 0.5986 4.5526 0.0109 1.1155 8.2000e003 1.1237 0.2976 7.6900e003 0.3053 1,109.006 0 1,109.006
0 0.0496 0.0488 1,124.792
0 Total 0.6960 0.7026 4.6412 0.0115 1.1155 0.0161 1.1316 0.2976 0.0156 0.3132 1,233.795 6 1,233.795
6 0.0520 0.0511 1,250.323
4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/19/2022 4/21/2022 5 3 2 Grading Grading 4/22/2022 4/29/2022 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 5/2/2022 3/3/2023 5 220 4 Paving Paving 5/2/2022 3/3/2023 5 220
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/2/2022 3/3/2023 5 220 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 17,963; Non-Residential Outdoor: 5,988; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 5.00 2.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.5952 0.5952 0.5476 0.5476 2,375.156 9 2,375.156
9 0.7682 2,394.361
3 Total 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 1.5908 0.5952 2.1859 0.1718 0.5476 0.7193 2,375.156 9 2,375.156
9 0.7682 2,394.361
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0315 0.0204 0.3185 8.1000e004 0.0894 4.4000e004 0.0899 0.0237 4.1000e004 0.0241 82.1515 82.1515 2.0500e003 2.0300e003 82.8087 Total 0.0315 0.0204 0.3185 8.1000e004 0.0894 4.4000e004 0.0899 0.0237 4.1000e004 0.0241 82.1515 82.1515 2.0500e003 2.0300e003 82.8087 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.6204 0.0000 0.6204 0.0670 0.0000 0.0670 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.5952 0.5952 0.5476 0.5476 0.0000 2,375.156 9 2,375.156
9 0.7682 2,394.361
3 Total 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.6204 0.5952 1.2156 0.0670 0.5476 0.6146 0.0000 2,375.156 9 2,375.156
9 0.7682 2,394.361
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0315 0.0204 0.3185 8.1000e004 0.0894 4.4000e004 0.0899 0.0237 4.1000e004 0.0241 82.1515 82.1515 2.0500e003 2.0300e003 82.8087 Total 0.0315 0.0204 0.3185 8.1000e004 0.0894 4.4000e004 0.0899 0.0237 4.1000e004 0.0241 82.1515 82.1515 2.0500e003 2.0300e003 82.8087 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 1,995.482 5 1,995.482
5 0.6454 2,011.616
9 Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 7.0826 0.7423 7.8249 3.4247 0.6829 4.1076 1,995.482 5 1,995.482
5 0.6454 2,011.616
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0394 0.0255 0.3981 1.0200e003 0.1118 5.6000e004 0.1123 0.0296 5.1000e004 0.0302 102.6894 102.6894 2.5600e003 2.5400e003 103.5109 Total 0.0394 0.0255 0.3981 1.0200e003 0.1118 5.6000e004 0.1123 0.0296 5.1000e004 0.0302 102.6894 102.6894 2.5600e003 2.5400e003 103.5109 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.7622 0.0000 2.7622 1.3357 0.0000 1.3357 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 0.0000 1,995.482 5 1,995.482
5 0.6454 2,011.616
9 Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 2.7622 0.7423 3.5045 1.3357 0.6829 2.0186 0.0000 1,995.482 5 1,995.482
5 0.6454 2,011.616
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0394 0.0255 0.3981 1.0200e003 0.1118 5.6000e004 0.1123 0.0296 5.1000e004 0.0302 102.6894 102.6894 2.5600e003 2.5400e003 103.5109 Total 0.0394 0.0255 0.3981 1.0200e003 0.1118 5.6000e004 0.1123 0.0296 5.1000e004 0.0302 102.6894 102.6894 2.5600e003 2.5400e003 103.5109 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.2500e- 0.0846 0.0294 3.6000e- 0.0128 1.2200e- 0.0140 3.6900e- 1.1700e- 4.8600e- 38.5891 38.5891 4.1000e- 5.7200e- 40.3046 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 003
Worker 0.0197 0.0128 0.1991 5.1000e004 0.0559 2.8000e004 0.0562 0.0148 2.6000e004 0.0151 51.3447 51.3447 1.2800e003 1.2700e003 51.7555 Total 0.0230 0.0973 0.2285 8.7000e004 0.0687 1.5000e003 0.0702 0.0185 1.4300e003 0.0199 89.9338 89.9338 1.6900e003 6.9900e003 92.0601 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.2500e- 0.0846 0.0294 3.6000e- 0.0128 1.2200e- 0.0140 3.6900e- 1.1700e- 4.8600e- 38.5891 38.5891 4.1000e- 5.7200e- 40.3046 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 003
Worker 0.0197 0.0128 0.1991 5.1000e004 0.0559 2.8000e004 0.0562 0.0148 2.6000e004 0.0151 51.3447 51.3447 1.2800e003 1.2700e003 51.7555 Total 0.0230 0.0973 0.2285 8.7000e004 0.0687 1.5000e003 0.0702 0.0185 1.4300e003 0.0199 89.9338 89.9338 1.6900e003 6.9900e003 92.0601 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523 3 2,289.523
3 0.4330 2,300.347
9 Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523 3 2,289.523
3 0.4330 2,300.347
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.2500e- 0.0653 0.0269 3.5000e- 0.0128 5.7000e- 0.0134 3.6900e- 5.4000e- 4.2300e- 37.0542 37.0542 3.8000e- 5.4800e- 38.6954 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 003
Worker 0.0183 0.0113 0.1829 4.9000e004 0.0559 2.6000e004 0.0562 0.0148 2.4000e004 0.0151 49.6870 49.6870 1.1500e003 1.1700e003 50.0653 Total 0.0205 0.0766 0.2098 8.4000e004 0.0687 8.3000e004 0.0695 0.0185 7.8000e004 0.0193 86.7412 86.7412 1.5300e003 6.6500e003 88.7606 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523 3 2,289.523
3 0.4330 2,300.347
9 Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523 3 2,289.523
3 0.4330 2,300.347
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.2500e- 0.0653 0.0269 3.5000e- 0.0128 5.7000e- 0.0134 3.6900e- 5.4000e- 4.2300e- 37.0542 37.0542 3.8000e- 5.4800e- 38.6954 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 003
Worker 0.0183 0.0113 0.1829 4.9000e004 0.0559 2.6000e004 0.0562 0.0148 2.4000e004 0.0151 49.6870 49.6870 1.1500e003 1.1700e003 50.0653 Total 0.0205 0.0766 0.2098 8.4000e004 0.0687 8.3000e004 0.0695 0.0185 7.8000e004 0.0193 86.7412 86.7412 1.5300e003 6.6500e003 88.7606 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689
2 0.5419 1,723.235
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689
2 0.5419 1,723.235
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0591 0.0383 0.5972 1.5200e003 0.1677 8.3000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.7000e004 0.0452 154.0341 154.0341 3.8400e003 3.8100e003 155.2664 Total 0.0591 0.0383 0.5972 1.5200e003 0.1677 8.3000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.7000e004 0.0452 154.0341 154.0341 3.8400e003 3.8100e003 155.2664 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689
2 0.5419 1,723.235
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689
2 0.5419 1,723.235
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0591 0.0383 0.5972 1.5200e003 0.1677 8.3000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.7000e004 0.0452 154.0341 154.0341 3.8400e003 3.8100e003 155.2664 Total 0.0591 0.0383 0.5972 1.5200e003 0.1677 8.3000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.7000e004 0.0452 154.0341 154.0341 3.8400e003 3.8100e003 155.2664 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992 6 1,709.992
6 0.5420 1,723.541
4 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992 6 1,709.992
6 0.5420 1,723.541
4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0548 0.0338 0.5488 1.4700e003 0.1677 7.8000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.2000e004 0.0452 149.0611 149.0611 3.4500e003 3.5200e003 150.1959 Total 0.0548 0.0338 0.5488 1.4700e003 0.1677 7.8000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.2000e004 0.0452 149.0611 149.0611 3.4500e003 3.5200e003 150.1959 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2023
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992 6 1,709.992
6 0.5420 1,723.541
4 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992 6 1,709.992
6 0.5420 1,723.541
4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0548 0.0338 0.5488 1.4700e003 0.1677 7.8000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.2000e004 0.0452 149.0611 149.0611 3.4500e003 3.5200e003 150.1959 Total 0.0548 0.0338 0.5488 1.4700e003 0.1677 7.8000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.2000e004 0.0452 149.0611 149.0611 3.4500e003 3.5200e003 150.1959 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.5046 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 0.7091 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.9400e- 2.5500e- 0.0398 1.0000e- 0.0112 6.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0200e- 10.2689 10.2689 2.6000e- 2.5000e- 10.3511 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
Total 3.9400e- 2.5500e- 0.0398 1.0000e- 0.0112 6.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0200e- 10.2689 10.2689 2.6000e- 2.5000e- 10.3511 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.5046 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 0.7091 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.9400e- 2.5500e- 0.0398 1.0000e- 0.0112 6.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0200e- 10.2689 10.2689 2.6000e- 2.5000e- 10.3511 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
Total 3.9400e- 2.5500e- 0.0398 1.0000e- 0.0112 6.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0200e- 10.2689 10.2689 2.6000e- 2.5000e- 10.3511 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.5046 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 0.6963 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6500e- 2.2600e- 0.0366 1.0000e- 0.0112 5.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0100e- 9.9374 9.9374 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 10.0131 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
Total 3.6500e- 2.2600e- 0.0366 1.0000e- 0.0112 5.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0100e- 9.9374 9.9374 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 10.0131 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.5046 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 0.6963 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6500e- 2.2600e- 0.0366 1.0000e- 0.0112 5.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0100e- 9.9374 9.9374 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 10.0131 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
Total 3.6500e- 2.2600e- 0.0366 1.0000e- 0.0112 5.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0100e- 9.9374 9.9374 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 10.0131 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.4169 0.5986 4.5526 0.0109 1.1155 8.2000e003 1.1237 0.2976 7.6900e003 0.3053 1,109.006 0 1,109.006
0 0.0496 0.0488 1,124.792
0 Unmitigated 0.4169 0.5986 4.5526 0.0109 1.1155 8.2000e003 1.1237 0.2976 7.6900e003 0.3053 1,109.006 0 1,109.006
0 0.0496 0.0488 1,124.792
0 4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Light Industry 119.22 119.22 119.22 527,945 527,945 Total 119.22 119.22 119.22 527,945 527,945
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Light Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 28.00 13.00 92 5 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Light Industry 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 Mitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
NaturalGas 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 Unmitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Light 1060.69 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 Industry 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Light 1.06069 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 Industry 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
No Hearths Installed
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003 Unmitigated 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0304 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.2371 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.1000e- 1.0000e- 1.2200e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e- 2.6200e- 1.0000e- 2.7900e004 005 003 003 003 005 003 Total 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:17 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0304 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.2371 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.1000e- 1.0000e- 1.2200e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e- 2.6200e- 1.0000e- 2.7900e004 005 003 003 003 005 003 Total 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Collier Commercial Project
Riverside-South Coast County, Winter
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Light Industry 11.97 1000sqft 2.80 11,975.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024
Utility Company Southern California Edison
CO2 Intensity 390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033 N2O Intensity 0.004 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot acreage totals 2.8 acres
Construction Phase - construction, paving, and architecural coating will be happening simultaneously Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Vehicle Trips - corrected trip rate to meet Traffic Study's amount of 119 daily trips Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Rule 403
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 220.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 220.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/31/2023 3/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/17/2023 3/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/18/2023 5/2/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/30/2022 5/2/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/4/2023 5/2/2022
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 11,970.00 11,975.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.27 2.80
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.99 9.96
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.00 9.96
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 4.96 9.96
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.5862 25.4894 28.5719 0.0481 7.1944 1.2741 7.9372 3.4544 1.2070 4.1378 0.0000 4,514.382 8 4,514.382
8 1.0076 0.0112 4,542.909
6 2023 3.3641 23.6552 28.3613 0.0481 0.2475 1.1199 1.3675 0.0659 1.0607 1.1266 0.0000 4,507.199 0 4,507.199
0 0.9969 0.0105 4,535.262
5 Maximum 3.5862 25.4894 28.5719 0.0481 7.1944 1.2741 7.9372 3.4544 1.2070 4.1378 0.0000 4,514.382 8 4,514.382
8 1.0076 0.0112 4,542.909
6 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.5862 25.4894 28.5719 0.0481 2.8740 1.2741 3.6168 1.3653 1.2070 2.0487 0.0000 4,514.382 8 4,514.382
8 1.0076 0.0112 4,542.909
6 2023 3.3641 23.6552 28.3613 0.0481 0.2475 1.1199 1.3675 0.0659 1.0607 1.1266 0.0000 4,507.199 0 4,507.199
0 0.9969 0.0105 4,535.262
5 Maximum 3.5862 25.4894 28.5719 0.0481 2.8740 1.2741 3.6168 1.3653 1.2070 2.0487 0.0000 4,514.382 8 4,514.382
8 1.0076 0.0112 4,542.909
6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.05 0.00 46.43 59.34 0.00 39.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003 Energy 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 0.3613 0.6349 3.9793 0.0101 1.1155 8.2100e003 1.1237 0.2976 7.7000e003 0.3053 1,029.488 9 1,029.488
9 0.0502 0.0498 1,045.589
0 Total 0.6404 0.7389 4.0679 0.0107 1.1155 0.0161 1.1316 0.2976 0.0156 0.3132 1,154.278 5 1,154.278
5 0.0526 0.0521 1,171.120
3 Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003 Energy 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 0.3613 0.6349 3.9793 0.0101 1.1155 8.2100e003 1.1237 0.2976 7.7000e003 0.3053 1,029.488 9 1,029.488
9 0.0502 0.0498 1,045.589
0 Total 0.6404 0.7389 4.0679 0.0107 1.1155 0.0161 1.1316 0.2976 0.0156 0.3132 1,154.278 5 1,154.278
5 0.0526 0.0521 1,171.120
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/19/2022 4/21/2022 5 3 2 Grading Grading 4/22/2022 4/29/2022 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 5/2/2022 3/3/2023 5 220 4 Paving Paving 5/2/2022 3/3/2023 5 220
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/2/2022 3/3/2023 5 220 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 17,963; Non-Residential Outdoor: 5,988; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 5.00 2.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.5952 0.5952 0.5476 0.5476 2,375.156 9 2,375.156
9 0.7682 2,394.361
3 Total 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 1.5908 0.5952 2.1859 0.1718 0.5476 0.7193 2,375.156 9 2,375.156
9 0.7682 2,394.361
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0294 0.0212 0.2581 7.4000e004 0.0894 4.4000e004 0.0899 0.0237 4.1000e004 0.0241 74.4126 74.4126 2.0300e003 2.0800e003 75.0838 Total 0.0294 0.0212 0.2581 7.4000e004 0.0894 4.4000e004 0.0899 0.0237 4.1000e004 0.0241 74.4126 74.4126 2.0300e003 2.0800e003 75.0838 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.6204 0.0000 0.6204 0.0670 0.0000 0.0670 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.5952 0.5952 0.5476 0.5476 0.0000 2,375.156 9 2,375.156
9 0.7682 2,394.361
3 Total 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.6204 0.5952 1.2156 0.0670 0.5476 0.6146 0.0000 2,375.156 9 2,375.156
9 0.7682 2,394.361
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0294 0.0212 0.2581 7.4000e004 0.0894 4.4000e004 0.0899 0.0237 4.1000e004 0.0241 74.4126 74.4126 2.0300e003 2.0800e003 75.0838 Total 0.0294 0.0212 0.2581 7.4000e004 0.0894 4.4000e004 0.0899 0.0237 4.1000e004 0.0241 74.4126 74.4126 2.0300e003 2.0800e003 75.0838 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 1,995.482 5 1,995.482
5 0.6454 2,011.616
9 Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 7.0826 0.7423 7.8249 3.4247 0.6829 4.1076 1,995.482 5 1,995.482
5 0.6454 2,011.616
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0368 0.0265 0.3226 9.2000e004 0.1118 5.6000e004 0.1123 0.0296 5.1000e004 0.0302 93.0158 93.0158 2.5400e003 2.6000e003 93.8548 Total 0.0368 0.0265 0.3226 9.2000e004 0.1118 5.6000e004 0.1123 0.0296 5.1000e004 0.0302 93.0158 93.0158 2.5400e003 2.6000e003 93.8548 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.7622 0.0000 2.7622 1.3357 0.0000 1.3357 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 0.0000 1,995.482 5 1,995.482
5 0.6454 2,011.616
9 Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 2.7622 0.7423 3.5045 1.3357 0.6829 2.0186 0.0000 1,995.482 5 1,995.482
5 0.6454 2,011.616
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0368 0.0265 0.3226 9.2000e004 0.1118 5.6000e004 0.1123 0.0296 5.1000e004 0.0302 93.0158 93.0158 2.5400e003 2.6000e003 93.8548 Total 0.0368 0.0265 0.3226 9.2000e004 0.1118 5.6000e004 0.1123 0.0296 5.1000e004 0.0302 93.0158 93.0158 2.5400e003 2.6000e003 93.8548 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.1200e- 0.0891 0.0305 3.6000e- 0.0128 1.2200e- 0.0140 3.6900e- 1.1700e- 4.8600e- 38.6312 38.6312 4.0000e- 5.7300e- 40.3497 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 003
Worker 0.0184 0.0133 0.1613 4.6000e004 0.0559 2.8000e004 0.0562 0.0148 2.6000e004 0.0151 46.5079 46.5079 1.2700e003 1.3000e003 46.9274 Total 0.0215 0.1024 0.1919 8.2000e004 0.0687 1.5000e003 0.0702 0.0185 1.4300e003 0.0199 85.1390 85.1390 1.6700e003 7.0300e003 87.2771 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281
3 0.4417 2,300.323
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.1200e- 0.0891 0.0305 3.6000e- 0.0128 1.2200e- 0.0140 3.6900e- 1.1700e- 4.8600e- 38.6312 38.6312 4.0000e- 5.7300e- 40.3497 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 003
Worker 0.0184 0.0133 0.1613 4.6000e004 0.0559 2.8000e004 0.0562 0.0148 2.6000e004 0.0151 46.5079 46.5079 1.2700e003 1.3000e003 46.9274 Total 0.0215 0.1024 0.1919 8.2000e004 0.0687 1.5000e003 0.0702 0.0185 1.4300e003 0.0199 85.1390 85.1390 1.6700e003 7.0300e003 87.2771 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523 3 2,289.523
3 0.4330 2,300.347
9 Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523 3 2,289.523
3 0.4330 2,300.347
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0900e- 0.0693 0.0278 3.5000e- 0.0128 5.7000e- 0.0134 3.6900e- 5.5000e- 4.2300e- 37.1462 37.1462 3.7000e- 5.4900e- 38.7926 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 003
Worker 0.0171 0.0117 0.1486 4.5000e004 0.0559 2.6000e004 0.0562 0.0148 2.4000e004 0.0151 45.0212 45.0212 1.1400e003 1.2000e003 45.4075 Total 0.0192 0.0810 0.1764 8.0000e004 0.0687 8.3000e004 0.0695 0.0185 7.9000e004 0.0193 82.1673 82.1673 1.5100e003 6.6900e003 84.2001 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523 3 2,289.523
3 0.4330 2,300.347
9 Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523 3 2,289.523
3 0.4330 2,300.347
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0900e- 0.0693 0.0278 3.5000e- 0.0128 5.7000e- 0.0134 3.6900e- 5.5000e- 4.2300e- 37.1462 37.1462 3.7000e- 5.4900e- 38.7926 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 003
Worker 0.0171 0.0117 0.1486 4.5000e004 0.0559 2.6000e004 0.0562 0.0148 2.4000e004 0.0151 45.0212 45.0212 1.1400e003 1.2000e003 45.4075 Total 0.0192 0.0810 0.1764 8.0000e004 0.0687 8.3000e004 0.0695 0.0185 7.9000e004 0.0193 82.1673 82.1673 1.5100e003 6.6900e003 84.2001 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689
2 0.5419 1,723.235
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689
2 0.5419 1,723.235
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0552 0.0398 0.4840 1.3800e003 0.1677 8.3000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.7000e004 0.0452 139.5236 139.5236 3.8100e003 3.9000e003 140.7822 Total 0.0552 0.0398 0.4840 1.3800e003 0.1677 8.3000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.7000e004 0.0452 139.5236 139.5236 3.8100e003 3.9000e003 140.7822 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689
2 0.5419 1,723.235
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689
2 0.5419 1,723.235
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0552 0.0398 0.4840 1.3800e003 0.1677 8.3000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.7000e004 0.0452 139.5236 139.5236 3.8100e003 3.9000e003 140.7822 Total 0.0552 0.0398 0.4840 1.3800e003 0.1677 8.3000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.7000e004 0.0452 139.5236 139.5236 3.8100e003 3.9000e003 140.7822 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992 6 1,709.992
6 0.5420 1,723.541
4 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992 6 1,709.992
6 0.5420 1,723.541
4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0513 0.0351 0.4456 1.3400e003 0.1677 7.8000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.2000e004 0.0452 135.0635 135.0635 3.4300e003 3.6000e003 136.2226 Total 0.0513 0.0351 0.4456 1.3400e003 0.1677 7.8000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.2000e004 0.0452 135.0635 135.0635 3.4300e003 3.6000e003 136.2226 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2023
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992 6 1,709.992
6 0.5420 1,723.541
4 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992 6 1,709.992
6 0.5420 1,723.541
4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0513 0.0351 0.4456 1.3400e003 0.1677 7.8000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.2000e004 0.0452 135.0635 135.0635 3.4300e003 3.6000e003 136.2226 Total 0.0513 0.0351 0.4456 1.3400e003 0.1677 7.8000e004 0.1685 0.0445 7.2000e004 0.0452 135.0635 135.0635 3.4300e003 3.6000e003 136.2226 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.5046 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 0.7091 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6800e- 2.6500e- 0.0323 9.0000e- 0.0112 6.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0200e- 9.3016 9.3016 2.5000e- 2.6000e- 9.3855 003 003 005 005 003 005 003 004 004
Total 3.6800e- 2.6500e- 0.0323 9.0000e- 0.0112 6.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0200e- 9.3016 9.3016 2.5000e- 2.6000e- 9.3855 003 003 005 005 003 005 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.5046 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 0.7091 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6800e- 2.6500e- 0.0323 9.0000e- 0.0112 6.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0200e- 9.3016 9.3016 2.5000e- 2.6000e- 9.3855 003 003 005 005 003 005 003 004 004
Total 3.6800e- 2.6500e- 0.0323 9.0000e- 0.0112 6.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0200e- 9.3016 9.3016 2.5000e- 2.6000e- 9.3855 003 003 005 005 003 005 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.5046 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 0.6963 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.4200e- 2.3400e- 0.0297 9.0000e- 0.0112 5.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0100e- 9.0042 9.0042 2.3000e- 2.4000e- 9.0815 003 003 005 005 003 005 003 004 004
Total 3.4200e- 2.3400e- 0.0297 9.0000e- 0.0112 5.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0100e- 9.0042 9.0042 2.3000e- 2.4000e- 9.0815 003 003 005 005 003 005 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.5046 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 0.6963 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.4200e- 2.3400e- 0.0297 9.0000e- 0.0112 5.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0100e- 9.0042 9.0042 2.3000e- 2.4000e- 9.0815 003 003 005 005 003 005 003 004 004
Total 3.4200e- 2.3400e- 0.0297 9.0000e- 0.0112 5.0000e- 0.0112 2.9600e- 5.0000e- 3.0100e- 9.0042 9.0042 2.3000e- 2.4000e- 9.0815 003 003 005 005 003 005 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.3613 0.6349 3.9793 0.0101 1.1155 8.2100e003 1.1237 0.2976 7.7000e003 0.3053 1,029.488 9 1,029.488
9 0.0502 0.0498 1,045.589
0 Unmitigated 0.3613 0.6349 3.9793 0.0101 1.1155 8.2100e003 1.1237 0.2976 7.7000e003 0.3053 1,029.488 9 1,029.488
9 0.0502 0.0498 1,045.589
0 4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Light Industry 119.22 119.22 119.22 527,945 527,945 Total 119.22 119.22 119.22 527,945 527,945
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Light Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 28.00 13.00 92 5 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Light Industry 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 Mitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
NaturalGas 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 Unmitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Light 1060.69 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 Industry 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Light 1.06069 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 Industry 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.0114 0.1040 0.0874 6.2000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 7.9000e- 124.7870 124.7870 2.3900e- 2.2900e- 125.5286 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
No Hearths Installed
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003 Unmitigated 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0304 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.2371 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.1000e- 1.0000e- 1.2200e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e- 2.6200e- 1.0000e- 2.7900e004 005 003 003 003 005 003 Total 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0304 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.2371 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.1000e- 1.0000e- 1.2200e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e- 2.6200e- 1.0000e- 2.7900e004 005 003 003 003 005 003 Total 0.2676 1.0000e005 1.2200e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6200e003 2.6200e003 1.0000e005 2.7900e003
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 29 Date: 4/19/2022 3:19 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation
ATTACHMENT B
CalEEMod Output Files – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Collier Commercial Project
Riverside-South Coast County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Light Industry 11.97 1000sqft 2.80 11,975.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024
Utility Company Southern California Edison
CO2 Intensity 390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033 N2O Intensity 0.004 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot acreage totals 2.8 acres
Construction Phase - construction, paving, and architecural coating will be happening simultaneously Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Vehicle Trips - corrected trip rate to meet Traffic Study's amount of 119 daily trips Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Rule 403
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 220.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 220.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/31/2023 3/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/17/2023 3/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/18/2023 5/2/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/30/2022 5/2/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/4/2023 5/2/2022
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 11,970.00 11,975.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.27 2.80
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.99 9.96
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.00 9.96
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 4.96 9.96
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.3203 2.3050 2.5474 4.3200e003 0.0454 0.1146 0.1600 0.0163 0.1085 0.1248 0.0000 367.7314 367.7314 0.0828 9.1000e004 370.0716 2023 0.0756 0.5323 0.6389 1.0800e003 5.4800e003 0.0252 0.0307 1.4600e003 0.0239 0.0253 0.0000 92.0881 92.0881 0.0204 2.2000e004 92.6615 Maximum 0.3203 2.3050 2.5474 4.3200e003 0.0454 0.1146 0.1600 0.0163 0.1085 0.1248 0.0000 367.7314 367.7314 0.0828 9.1000e004 370.0716 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.3203 2.3050 2.5474 4.3200e003 0.0310 0.1146 0.1456 9.9100e003 0.1085 0.1184 0.0000 367.7310 367.7310 0.0828 9.1000e004 370.0712 2023 0.0756 0.5323 0.6389 1.0800e003 5.4800e003 0.0252 0.0307 1.4600e003 0.0239 0.0253 0.0000 92.0880 92.0880 0.0204 2.2000e004 92.6614 Maximum 0.3203 2.3050 2.5474 4.3200e003 0.0310 0.1146 0.1456 9.9100e003 0.1085 0.1184 0.0000 367.7310 367.7310 0.0828 9.1000e004 370.0712 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.34 0.00 7.56 36.12 0.00 4.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 4-19-2022 7-18-2022 0.8814 0.8814
2 7-19-2022 10-18-2022 0.9553 0.9553
3 10-19-2022 1-18-2023 0.9421 0.9421
4 1-19-2023 4-18-2023 0.4246 0.4246
Highest 0.9553 0.9553
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0488 0.0000 1.5000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e004 3.0000e004 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e004 Energy 2.0900e003 0.0190 0.0159 1.1000e004 1.4400e003 1.4400e003 1.4400e003 1.4400e003 0.0000 41.7271 41.7271 2.1700e003 5.9000e004 41.9586 Mobile 0.0665 0.1164 0.7503 1.8700e003 0.1997 1.4900e003 0.2012 0.0533 1.4000e003 0.0547 0.0000 172.6891 172.6891 8.2900e003 8.2700e003 175.3620 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0124 0.0000 3.0124 0.1780 0.0000 7.4631 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8782 6.3921 7.2702 0.0907 2.2000e003 10.1928 Total 0.1174 0.1354 0.7664 1.9800e003 0.1997 2.9300e003 0.2026 0.0533 2.8400e003 0.0562 3.8906 220.8086 224.6992 0.2792 0.0111 234.9767 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0488 0.0000 1.5000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e004 3.0000e004 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e004 Energy 2.0900e003 0.0190 0.0159 1.1000e004 1.4400e003 1.4400e003 1.4400e003 1.4400e003 0.0000 41.7271 41.7271 2.1700e003 5.9000e004 41.9586 Mobile 0.0665 0.1164 0.7503 1.8700e003 0.1997 1.4900e003 0.2012 0.0533 1.4000e003 0.0547 0.0000 172.6891 172.6891 8.2900e003 8.2700e003 175.3620 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0124 0.0000 3.0124 0.1780 0.0000 7.4631 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8782 6.3921 7.2702 0.0907 2.2000e003 10.1928 Total 0.1174 0.1354 0.7664 1.9800e003 0.1997 2.9300e003 0.2026 0.0533 2.8400e003 0.0562 3.8906 220.8086 224.6992 0.2792 0.0111 234.9767 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/19/2022 4/21/2022 5 3 2 Grading Grading 4/22/2022 4/29/2022 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 5/2/2022 3/3/2023 5 220 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Paving Paving 5/2/2022 3/3/2023 5 220
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/2/2022 3/3/2023 5 220 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 17,963; Non-Residential Outdoor: 5,988; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 5.00 2.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e003 0.0000 2.3900e003 2.6000e004 0.0000 2.6000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0700e003 0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e005 8.9000e004 8.9000e004 8.2000e004 8.2000e004 0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e003 0.0000 3.2582 Total 2.0700e- 0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e- 2.3900e- 8.9000e- 3.2800e- 2.6000e- 8.2000e- 1.0800e- 0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e- 0.0000 3.2582 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e005 3.0000e005 4.1000e004 0.0000 1.3000e004 0.0000 1.3000e004 4.0000e005 0.0000 4.0000e005 0.0000 0.1036 0.1036 0.0000 0.0000 0.1046 Total 4.0000e005 3.0000e005 4.1000e004 0.0000 1.3000e004 0.0000 1.3000e004 4.0000e005 0.0000 4.0000e005 0.0000 0.1036 0.1036 0.0000 0.0000 0.1046 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.3000e004 0.0000 9.3000e004 1.0000e004 0.0000 1.0000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0700e003 0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e005 8.9000e004 8.9000e004 8.2000e004 8.2000e004 0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e003 0.0000 3.2582 Total 2.0700e- 0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e- 9.3000e- 8.9000e- 1.8200e- 1.0000e- 8.2000e- 9.2000e- 0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e- 0.0000 3.2582 003 005 004 004 003 004 004 004 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e005 3.0000e005 4.1000e004 0.0000 1.3000e004 0.0000 1.3000e004 4.0000e005 0.0000 4.0000e005 0.0000 0.1036 0.1036 0.0000 0.0000 0.1046 Total 4.0000e005 3.0000e005 4.1000e004 0.0000 1.3000e004 0.0000 1.3000e004 4.0000e005 0.0000 4.0000e005 0.0000 0.1036 0.1036 0.0000 0.0000 0.1046
3.3 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0213 0.0000 0.0213 0.0103 0.0000 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.6200e003 0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e005 2.2300e003 2.2300e003 2.0500e003 2.0500e003 0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e003 0.0000 5.4747 Total 4.6200e003 0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e005 0.0213 2.2300e003 0.0235 0.0103 2.0500e003 0.0123 0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e003 0.0000 5.4747 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 1.0200e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.2591 0.2591 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.2614 004 005 003 004 004 005 005 005 005
Total 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 1.0200e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.2591 0.2591 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.2614 004 005 003 004 004 005 005 005 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 8.2900e003 0.0000 8.2900e003 4.0100e003 0.0000 4.0100e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.6200e003 0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e005 2.2300e003 2.2300e003 2.0500e003 2.0500e003 0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e003 0.0000 5.4747 Total 4.6200e003 0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e005 8.2900e003 2.2300e003 0.0105 4.0100e003 2.0500e003 6.0600e003 0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e003 0.0000 5.4747 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 1.0200e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.2591 0.2591 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.2614 004 005 003 004 004 005 005 005 005
Total 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 1.0200e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.2591 0.2591 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.2614 004 005 003 004 004 005 005 005 005
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1624 1.2779 1.2559 2.1900e003 0.0614 0.0614 0.0589 0.0589 0.0000 181.7201 181.7201 0.0351 0.0000 182.5966 Total 0.1624 1.2779 1.2559 2.1900e003 0.0614 0.0614 0.0589 0.0589 0.0000 181.7201 181.7201 0.0351 0.0000 182.5966 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.8000e- 7.7700e- 2.6200e- 3.0000e- 1.1100e- 1.1000e- 1.2100e- 3.2000e- 1.0000e- 4.2000e- 0.0000 3.0646 3.0646 3.0000e- 4.5000e- 3.2009 004 003 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 005 004
Worker 1.5300e- 1.1900e- 0.0149 4.0000e- 4.8100e- 2.0000e- 4.8300e- 1.2800e- 2.0000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 3.7780 3.7780 1.0000e- 1.1000e- 3.8119 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004
Total 1.8100e- 8.9600e- 0.0175 7.0000e- 5.9200e- 1.3000e- 6.0400e- 1.6000e- 1.2000e- 1.7200e- 0.0000 6.8425 6.8425 1.3000e- 5.6000e- 7.0127 003 003 005 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 004
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1624 1.2779 1.2559 2.1900e003 0.0614 0.0614 0.0589 0.0589 0.0000 181.7199 181.7199 0.0351 0.0000 182.5964 Total 0.1624 1.2779 1.2559 2.1900e003 0.0614 0.0614 0.0589 0.0589 0.0000 181.7199 181.7199 0.0351 0.0000 182.5964 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.8000e- 7.7700e- 2.6200e- 3.0000e- 1.1100e- 1.1000e- 1.2100e- 3.2000e- 1.0000e- 4.2000e- 0.0000 3.0646 3.0646 3.0000e- 4.5000e- 3.2009 004 003 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 005 004
Worker 1.5300e- 1.1900e- 0.0149 4.0000e- 4.8100e- 2.0000e- 4.8300e- 1.2800e- 2.0000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 3.7780 3.7780 1.0000e- 1.1000e- 3.8119 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004
Total 1.8100e- 8.9600e- 0.0175 7.0000e- 5.9200e- 1.3000e- 6.0400e- 1.6000e- 1.2000e- 1.7200e- 0.0000 6.8425 6.8425 1.3000e- 5.6000e- 7.0127 003 003 005 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 004
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0386 0.3065 0.3198 5.6000e004 0.0138 0.0138 0.0132 0.0132 0.0000 46.7330 46.7330 8.8400e003 0.0000 46.9539 Total 0.0386 0.3065 0.3198 5.6000e004 0.0138 0.0138 0.0132 0.0132 0.0000 46.7330 46.7330 8.8400e003 0.0000 46.9539 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e- 1.5400e- 6.1000e- 1.0000e- 2.8000e- 1.0000e- 3.0000e- 8.0000e- 1.0000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.7571 0.7571 1.0000e- 1.1000e- 0.7907 005 003 004 005 004 005 004 005 005 005 005 004
Worker 3.6000e- 2.7000e- 3.5200e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.3000e- 0.0000 0.9403 0.9403 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.9484 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 005
Total 4.1000e- 1.8100e- 4.1300e- 2.0000e- 1.5200e- 2.0000e- 1.5400e- 4.1000e- 2.0000e- 4.2000e- 0.0000 1.6975 1.6975 3.0000e- 1.3000e- 1.7390 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 004
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0386 0.3065 0.3198 5.6000e004 0.0138 0.0138 0.0132 0.0132 0.0000 46.7329 46.7329 8.8400e003 0.0000 46.9539 Total 0.0386 0.3065 0.3198 5.6000e004 0.0138 0.0138 0.0132 0.0132 0.0000 46.7329 46.7329 8.8400e003 0.0000 46.9539 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e- 1.5400e- 6.1000e- 1.0000e- 2.8000e- 1.0000e- 3.0000e- 8.0000e- 1.0000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.7571 0.7571 1.0000e- 1.1000e- 0.7907 005 003 004 005 004 005 004 005 005 005 005 004
Worker 3.6000e- 2.7000e- 3.5200e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.3000e- 0.0000 0.9403 0.9403 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.9484 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 005
Total 4.1000e- 1.8100e- 4.1300e- 2.0000e- 1.5200e- 2.0000e- 1.5400e- 4.1000e- 2.0000e- 4.2000e- 0.0000 1.6975 1.6975 3.0000e- 1.3000e- 1.7390 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 004
3.5 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0824 0.8166 1.0235 1.5600e003 0.0427 0.0427 0.0394 0.0394 0.0000 135.7129 135.7129 0.0430 0.0000 136.7881 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0824 0.8166 1.0235 1.5600e003 0.0427 0.0427 0.0394 0.0394 0.0000 135.7129 135.7129 0.0430 0.0000 136.7881 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5900e- 3.5700e- 0.0447 1.2000e- 0.0144 7.0000e- 0.0145 3.8300e- 7.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 11.3339 11.3339 3.0000e- 3.2000e- 11.4356 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
Total 4.5900e- 3.5700e- 0.0447 1.2000e- 0.0144 7.0000e- 0.0145 3.8300e- 7.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 11.3339 11.3339 3.0000e- 3.2000e- 11.4356 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0824 0.8166 1.0235 1.5600e003 0.0427 0.0427 0.0394 0.0394 0.0000 135.7127 135.7127 0.0430 0.0000 136.7880 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0824 0.8166 1.0235 1.5600e003 0.0427 0.0427 0.0394 0.0394 0.0000 135.7127 135.7127 0.0430 0.0000 136.7880 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5900e- 3.5700e- 0.0447 1.2000e- 0.0144 7.0000e- 0.0145 3.8300e- 7.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 11.3339 11.3339 3.0000e- 3.2000e- 11.4356 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
Total 4.5900e- 3.5700e- 0.0447 1.2000e- 0.0144 7.0000e- 0.0145 3.8300e- 7.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 11.3339 11.3339 3.0000e- 3.2000e- 11.4356 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 004
3.5 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0198 0.1937 0.2629 4.0000e004 9.7600e003 9.7600e003 9.0100e003 9.0100e003 0.0000 34.9038 34.9038 0.0111 0.0000 35.1803 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0198 0.1937 0.2629 4.0000e004 9.7600e003 9.7600e003 9.0100e003 9.0100e003 0.0000 34.9038 34.9038 0.0111 0.0000 35.1803 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0900e- 8.1000e- 0.0106 3.0000e- 3.7100e- 2.0000e- 3.7300e- 9.9000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.8210 2.8210 7.0000e- 7.0000e- 2.8451 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 003 005 005
Total 1.0900e- 8.1000e- 0.0106 3.0000e- 3.7100e- 2.0000e- 3.7300e- 9.9000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.8210 2.8210 7.0000e- 7.0000e- 2.8451 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 003 005 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0198 0.1937 0.2629 4.0000e004 9.7600e003 9.7600e003 9.0100e003 9.0100e003 0.0000 34.9037 34.9037 0.0111 0.0000 35.1803 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0198 0.1937 0.2629 4.0000e004 9.7600e003 9.7600e003 9.0100e003 9.0100e003 0.0000 34.9037 34.9037 0.0111 0.0000 35.1803 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0900e- 8.1000e- 0.0106 3.0000e- 3.7100e- 2.0000e- 3.7300e- 9.9000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.8210 2.8210 7.0000e- 7.0000e- 2.8451 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 003 005 005
Total 1.0900e- 8.1000e- 0.0106 3.0000e- 3.7100e- 2.0000e- 3.7300e- 9.9000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.8210 2.8210 7.0000e- 7.0000e- 2.8451 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 003 005 005
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0442 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0179 0.1232 0.1587 2.6000e004 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 0.0000 22.3410 22.3410 1.4500e003 0.0000 22.3773 Total 0.0621 0.1232 0.1587 2.6000e004 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 0.0000 22.3410 22.3410 1.4500e003 0.0000 22.3773 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.1000e- 2.4000e- 2.9800e- 1.0000e- 9.6000e- 0.0000 9.7000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.7556 0.7556 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.7624 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005
Total 3.1000e- 2.4000e- 2.9800e- 1.0000e- 9.6000e- 0.0000 9.7000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.7556 0.7556 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.7624 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0442 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0179 0.1232 0.1587 2.6000e004 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 0.0000 22.3409 22.3409 1.4500e003 0.0000 22.3773 Total 0.0621 0.1232 0.1587 2.6000e004 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 7.1500e003 0.0000 22.3409 22.3409 1.4500e003 0.0000 22.3773 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.1000e- 2.4000e- 2.9800e- 1.0000e- 9.6000e- 0.0000 9.7000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.7556 0.7556 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.7624 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005
Total 3.1000e- 2.4000e- 2.9800e- 1.0000e- 9.6000e- 0.0000 9.7000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.7556 0.7556 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.7624 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0114 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.3100e003 0.0293 0.0408 7.0000e005 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 0.0000 5.7448 5.7448 3.4000e004 0.0000 5.7534 Total 0.0157 0.0293 0.0408 7.0000e005 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 0.0000 5.7448 5.7448 3.4000e004 0.0000 5.7534 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.0000e005 5.0000e005 7.0000e004 0.0000 2.5000e004 0.0000 2.5000e004 7.0000e005 0.0000 7.0000e005 0.0000 0.1881 0.1881 0.0000 0.0000 0.1897 Total 7.0000e005 5.0000e005 7.0000e004 0.0000 2.5000e004 0.0000 2.5000e004 7.0000e005 0.0000 7.0000e005 0.0000 0.1881 0.1881 0.0000 0.0000 0.1897 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0114 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.3100e003 0.0293 0.0408 7.0000e005 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 0.0000 5.7448 5.7448 3.4000e004 0.0000 5.7534 Total 0.0157 0.0293 0.0408 7.0000e005 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 1.5900e003 0.0000 5.7448 5.7448 3.4000e004 0.0000 5.7534 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.0000e005 5.0000e005 7.0000e004 0.0000 2.5000e004 0.0000 2.5000e004 7.0000e005 0.0000 7.0000e005 0.0000 0.1881 0.1881 0.0000 0.0000 0.1897 Total 7.0000e005 5.0000e005 7.0000e004 0.0000 2.5000e004 0.0000 2.5000e004 7.0000e005 0.0000 7.0000e005 0.0000 0.1881 0.1881 0.0000 0.0000 0.1897 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0665 0.1164 0.7503 1.8700e003 0.1997 1.4900e003 0.2012 0.0533 1.4000e003 0.0547 0.0000 172.6891 172.6891 8.2900e003 8.2700e003 175.3620 Unmitigated 0.0665 0.1164 0.7503 1.8700e003 0.1997 1.4900e003 0.2012 0.0533 1.4000e003 0.0547 0.0000 172.6891 172.6891 8.2900e003 8.2700e003 175.3620
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Light Industry 119.22 119.22 119.22 527,945 527,945 Total 119.22 119.22 119.22 527,945 527,945
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Light Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 28.00 13.00 92 5 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Light Industry 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.0672 21.0672 1.7800e003 2.2000e004 21.1759 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.0672 21.0672 1.7800e003 2.2000e004 21.1759 NaturalGas 2.0900e- 0.0190 0.0159 1.1000e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 0.0000 20.6599 20.6599 4.0000e- 3.8000e- 20.7827 Mitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
NaturalGas 2.0900e- 0.0190 0.0159 1.1000e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 0.0000 20.6599 20.6599 4.0000e- 3.8000e- 20.7827 Unmitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
General Light 387152 2.0900e- 0.0190 0.0159 1.1000e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 0.0000 20.6599 20.6599 4.0000e- 3.8000e- 20.7827 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
Total 2.0900e- 0.0190 0.0159 1.1000e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 0.0000 20.6599 20.6599 4.0000e- 3.8000e- 20.7827 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
General Light 387152 2.0900e- 0.0190 0.0159 1.1000e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 0.0000 20.6599 20.6599 4.0000e- 3.8000e- 20.7827 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
Total 2.0900e- 0.0190 0.0159 1.1000e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 1.4400e- 0.0000 20.6599 20.6599 4.0000e- 3.8000e- 20.7827 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
General Light
Industry
118792 21.0672 1.7800e003 2.2000e004 21.1759
Total 21.0672 1.7800e003 2.2000e004 21.1759
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
General Light
Industry
118792 21.0672 1.7800e003 2.2000e004 21.1759
Total 21.0672 1.7800e003 2.2000e004 21.1759
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
No Hearths Installed
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0488 0.0000 1.5000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e004 3.0000e004 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e004 Unmitigated 0.0488 0.0000 1.5000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e004 3.0000e004 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e004
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
5.5500e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.0433 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e005 0.0000 1.5000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e004 3.0000e004 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e004 Total 0.0488 0.0000 1.5000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e004 3.0000e004 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
5.5500e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.0433 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e005 0.0000 1.5000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e004 3.0000e004 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e004 Total 0.0488 0.0000 1.5000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e004 3.0000e004 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e004
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 7.2702 0.0907 2.2000e003 10.1928
Unmitigated 7.2702 0.0907 2.2000e003 10.1928
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Light
Industry
2.76806 /
0 7.2702 0.0907 2.2000e003 10.1928
Total 7.2702 0.0907 2.2000e003 10.1928
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Light
Industry
2.76806 /
0 7.2702 0.0907 2.2000e003 10.1928
Total 7.2702 0.0907 2.2000e003 10.1928
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 3.0124 0.1780 0.0000 7.4631
Unmitigated 3.0124 0.1780 0.0000 7.4631
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Light
Industry
14.84 3.0124 0.1780 0.0000 7.4631
Total 3.0124 0.1780 0.0000 7.4631
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Light
Industry
14.84 3.0124 0.1780 0.0000 7.4631
Total 3.0124 0.1780 0.0000 7.4631
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 33 Date: 4/19/2022 3:15 PM Collier Commercial Project - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation
Appendix B
Biological Technical Report and Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Consistency Analysis for the Collier
Commercial Properties
Biological Technical Report and
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Consistency Analysis
for the
Collier Commercial Properties
Riverside County, California
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 377-190-002, -003, & -004
Prepared For:
Collier Commercial Properties, LLC
43 Golfview Drive
Dove Canyon, California 92679
Prepared By:
215 North 5th Street
Redlands, California 92374
March 1, 2022
Revised December, 2024
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES REGULATIONS.................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.1 The Federal Endangered Species Act .........................................................................................4
2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 State and Local Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act ..............................................................................................5
2.2.2 Fully Protected Species .................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Native Plant Protection Act ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act ..............................................................................................6
2.2.5 California Fish and Game Code .................................................................................................... 6
2.2.6 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ......................7
2.2.7 CEQA Significance Criteria.............................................................................................................. 7
3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Literature Review................................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Field Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
3.2.1 Biological Reconnaissance Survey............................................................................................ 10
3.2.2 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment ......................................................................................... 11
4.0 RESULTS................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
4.1 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................................. 11
4.1.1 Special-Status Plants and Wildlife ............................................................................................ 11
4.1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Designated Critical Habitat .............................................. 11
4.1.3 State or Federally Protected Wetlands and Waters of the United States ................. 11
4.2 Biological Reconnaissance Survey............................................................................................................. 12
4.2.1 Property Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 14
4.2.2 Vegetation Communities .............................................................................................................. 14
4.2.3 Plants Observed ............................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.4 Wildlife Observed ............................................................................................................................ 19 ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL i
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
4.2.5 Potential for Special-Status Plant to Occur on the Project Site.................................... 19
4.2.6 Potential for Special-Status Wildlife to Occur on the Project Site............................... 22
4.2.7 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment ......................................................................................... 26
4.3 Raptors and Migratory Birds ....................................................................................................................... 26
4.4 Wildlife Movement Corridors, Linkages, and Significant Ecological Areas ............................... 26
5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................ 27
5.1 Special-Status Species.................................................................................................................................... 27
5.2 Sensitive Natural Communities .................................................................................................................. 30
5.3 State or Federally Protected Wetlands and Waters of the United States .................................. 30
5.4 Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites ........................................................................................................ 30
5.5 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans................................ 30
5.5.1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 31
6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................................................................................................ 33
7.0 CERTIFICATION.................................................................................................................................................................. 34
8.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................................................... 35
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Project Location .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4. Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results ............................................................................................................ 15 Figure 5. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types............................................................................................... 17
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Weather Conditions during the Surveys ................................................................................................................. 12 Table 2. CRPR Status Designations............................................................................................................................................. 20
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Sensitive Plant Species Potential for Occurrence Appendix B – Sensitive Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Appendix C – Representative Site Photographs
Appendix D – Plant Species Observed
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL ii
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Appendix E – Wildlife Species Observed
Appendix F – CNPS Search Results
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
CASSA Criteria Area Species Survey Area
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNPSEI California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CWA Clean Water Act
ESA Endangered Species Act
GPS Global Positioning System
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
IA Implementing Agreement
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
RCA Regional Conservation Authority
RCTLMA Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAA Streambed Alteration Agreement
SSAR Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
SSC Species of Special Concern
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC U.S. Code
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL iii
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
1.0 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
INTRODUCTION
ECORP Consulting, Inc. was retained by Collier Commercial Properties, LLC to provide California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) services for the proposed Collier Commercial Properties (Project) located in the city of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. A reconnaissance-level biological survey of the Project site was conducted to document the existing biological resources, to assess the habitat for its potential to support sensitive plant and wildlife species, and to determine whether Project-related impacts would occur to sensitive biological resources, as required under CEQA. A burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat assessment of the Project site was conducted concurrently with the biological reconnaissance survey to determine if any suitable burrowing owl habitat or suitable burrowing owl burrows were present. The surveys were conducted in accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP provides information on plant and wildlife species of concern to the County of Riverside (referred to as Planning Species) and outlines goals for their conservation. Information on the MSHCP can be found at www.rctlma.org (Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency [RCTLMA] 2022). The purpose of the study is to comply with the requirements of the MSHCP and identify any biological resources that may require mitigation prior to impacts from development.
1.1 Project Location
The Project site consists of an approximately 2.8-acre area composed of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 377-190-002, 377-190-003, and 377-190-004. The Project is located within the city of Lake Elsinore, south of Collier Avenue and east of Chaney Street in Riverside County (Figures 1 and 2). The Project site is west of industrial development, east of a Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District drainage and detention basin, and north of West Minthorn Street. The Project is depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Lake Elsinore 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
Elevation at the Project site is approximately 1,280 feet above mean sea level.
1.2 Project Description
The Project proposes the construction of two buildings which include an office, conference room, storage, and an electrical room. Two driveways, parking spaces, a sidewalk, gravel fill, landscaping, and a block wall along the western boundary will also be installed with this Project. It is assumed that the entire 2.8-acre Project site will be developed.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES REGULATIONS
The biological reconnaissance survey was conducted to identify potential constraints to Project development and ensure compliance with state and federal regulations regarding listed, protected, and sensitive species. The regulations are detailed below.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 1
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
2.0 Project Location
^_
San Bernardino
National Forest
Angeles
National
Forest
Cleveland
National
Forest
San Bernardino
National Forest
Cleveland
National
Forest
L o s A n g e l e s L o s A n g e l e s
C o u n t y C o u n t y
O r a n g e O r a n g e
C o u n t y C o u n t y
R i v e r s i d e R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y C o u n t y
S a n S a n
B e r n a r d i n o B e r n a r d i n o
C o u n t y C o u n t y
S a n D i e g o S a n D i e g o
C o u n t y C o u n t y
ÄÆ83
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ261
ÄÆ66
ÄÆ79 ÄÆ241
ÄÆ57 ÄÆ66
ÄÆ71
ÄÆ330
ÄÆ78
ÄÆ210
ÄÆ138
ÄÆ133
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ79
ÄÆ79
ÄÆ74
ÄÆ74
ÄÆ371
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ71
ÄÆ79
ÄÆ60 ÄÆ90
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ55
ÄÆ73
ÄÆ74
ÄÆ241
ÄÆ74
ÄÆ78
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ91
¨¦§210
¨¦§15
¨¦§215
¨¦§5
¨¦§10
¨¦§5
¨¦§405
¨¦§215
¨¦§215
¨¦§210
¨¦§5
Camp Pendleton
Marine Corps
Base
Anaheim
Corona
Fontana
Fullerton Moreno Valley
Ontario
Orange
Pomona
Rancho
Cucamonga
Riverside
San
Bernardino
West
Covina
Costa
Mesa
Escondido
Irvine
Oceanside
Lake Elsinore Lake Elsinore
Figure 1. Project Vicinity
2022-020 Collier Commercial
Location: N:\2022\2022-020 Collier Commercial\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Collier_Vicinity_V1.mxd (MAG)-mguidry 1/25/2022 Map Date: 1/25/2022
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
!"c$
!"^$
!"^$
!"a$
!"b$
!"`$
!"_$
Reno
Fresno
Santa Ana Los Angeles
Oakland
San Jose
San Diego
Las Vegas
Long Beach
Bakersfield
Sacramento Carson City
San
Francisco
CACA
NVNV
UTUT
AZAZ
OROR IDID
I
0 5 10
Mil es
¨¦§15 CAMINO Del Norte
W Minthorn St
N Poe St
Ohana Cir
Silver St
Collier Ave
Location: N:\2022\2022-020 Collier Commercial\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Collier_Location_V2.mxd (MAG)-trotellini 2/1/2022 Map Da e: 2 1 2022
Base Source: Esr
Pho o Source: NA
I
0 250
Fe et Map Content
Project Area
t / /
i World Streetmap
IP (2020) Figure 2. Project Location
2022-020 Co
t
llier Commercial
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
2.1 Federal Regulations
2.1.1 The Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects plants and animals that are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where taking is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.3). For plants, this statute governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on federal land and removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law (16 U.S. Code [USC]1538). Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect a listed (or proposed) species (including plants) or its critical habitat. Through consultation and the issuance of a biological opinion, the USFWS may issue an incidental take statement allowing take of the species that is incidental to an otherwise authorized activity provided the activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Section 10 of the ESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits where no other federal actions are necessary provided a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is developed.
2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the U.S. and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, any of their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. As authorized by the MBTA, the USFWS issues permits to qualified applicants for the following types of activities: falconry, raptor propagation, scientific collecting, special purposes (rehabilitation, education, migratory game bird propagation, and salvage), take of depredating birds, taxidermy, and waterfowl sale and disposal. The regulations governing migratory bird permits can be found in 50 CFR Part 13 General Permit Procedures and 50 CFR Part 21 Migratory Bird Permits. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code.
2.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act
The purpose of the federal CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S. without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The definition of Waters of the U.S. includes rivers, streams, estuaries, the territorial seas, ponds, lakes, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined as those areas:
…that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3 7b).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) also has authority over wetlands and may override a USACE permit.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 4
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Section 401 of the CWA (33 USC 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into Waters of the U.S. to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards.
Substantial impacts to wetlands may require an individual permit. Projects that only minimally affect wetlands may meet the conditions of one of the existing Nationwide Permits. For commercial development projects, permitting through Section 404 should qualify under the Nationwide Permit Project and specifically Nationwide Permit 39: Commercial and Institutional Developments which has an acreage limit of greater than 0.5 acre to non-tidal Waters of the U.S.
A Water Quality Certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for Section 404 permit actions; this certification or waiver is issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
2.2 State and Local Regulations
2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act
The California ESA generally parallels the main provisions of the ESA but, unlike its federal counterpart, the California ESA applies the take prohibitions to species proposed for listing (called “candidates” by the State). Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the taking, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the regulations. Take is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The California ESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects. State lead agencies are required to consult with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to ensure that any action they undertake is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of essential habitat.
2.2.2 Fully Protected Species
The State of California first began to designate species as “fully protected” prior to the creation of the federal and California ESAs. Lists of fully protected species were initially developed to provide protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction, and included fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most fully protected species have since been listed as threatened or endangered under federal and/or California ESAs. The regulations that implement the Fully Protected Species Statute (California Fish and Game Code § 4700) provide that fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. Furthermore, CDFW prohibits any state agency from issuing incidental take permits for fully protected species, except for necessary scientific research.
2.2.3 Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code §§ 1900-1913) was created with the intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 5 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis NPPA is administered by CDFW. The Fish and Wildlife Commission has the authority to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. The California ESA of 1984 (California Fish and Game Code § 2050-2116) provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code.
2.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The RWQCB implements water quality regulations under the federal CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. These regulations require compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), including compliance with the California Storm Water NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water runoff associated with construction activities. General Construction Permits for projects that disturb 1 or more acres of land require development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the RWQCB also regulates actions that would involve “discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the water of the state” (Water Code 13260(a)).
Waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (Water Code 13050 (e)). The RWQCB regulates all such activities, as well as dredging, filling, or discharging materials into Waters of the State, that are not regulated by the USACE due to a lack of connectivity with a navigable water body. The RWQCB may require issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements for these activities.
2.2.5 California Fish and Game Code
2.2.5.1 Streambed Alteration Agreement
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires that a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” The CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits to the Applicant a proposal for measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the Applicant is the Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA). Often, projects that require an SAA also require a permit from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. In these instances, the conditions of the Section 404 permit and the SAA may overlap.
2.2.5.2 Migratory Birds
The CDFW enforces the protection of nongame native birds in §§ 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the possession or take of birds listed under the MBTA. These sections mandate the protection of California nongame native birds’ nests and also make it unlawful to take these birds. All raptor species are protected from “take” pursuant to California Fish and Game Code § 3503.5 and are also protected at the federal level by the MBTA of 1918 (USFWS 1918).
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 6 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
2.2.6 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional HCP focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. It is also a Natural Communities Protection Plan (NCCP) under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP identifies 146 species, referred to as “Covered Species,” for which the federal and California ESAs “take” authorization has been granted to signatories to the plan as long as they comply with its requirements. Of the 146 Covered Species within the MSHCP, 118 are considered to be “adequately conserved.” The remaining 28 Covered Species will be considered to be adequately conserved when certain landmark conservation requirements are met during the course of future development. The goal of the MSHCP is to maintain the biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region while also improving the future economic development in the county by providing an efficient, streamlined regulatory process through which development can proceed in an efficient way.
The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the wildlife agencies (CDFW and USFWS) allows signatories of the IA to issue “take” authorizations for all species covered by the MSHCP, including state- and federally listed species, as well as other identified sensitive species and/or their habitats. Each city of local jurisdiction will impose a Development Mitigation Fee for projects within their jurisdiction. The City of Lake Elsinore is signatory to the MSHCP. With payment of the mitigation fee to the county and compliance with the survey requirements of the MSHCP where required, full mitigation in compliance with CEQA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California ESA, and the ESA will be granted. The Development Mitigation Fee varies according to project size and project description and is dependent on development density (Riverside County Ordinance No. 810.2). Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 of the MSHCP are intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA, NEPA, and the California and federal ESAs for impacts to the species and habitats covered by the MSHCP, pursuant to agreements with USFWS, CDFW, and/or any other appropriate participating regulatory agencies as set forth in the IA for the MSHCP.
2.2.7 CEQA Significance Criteria
The CEQA lead agency, in this case the City of Lake Elsinore, ensures compliance with CEQA requirements. Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines encourages local agencies to develop and publish the thresholds that the agency uses in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by projects under its review. However, agencies may also rely upon the guidance provided by the expanded Initial Study checklist contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G provides examples of impacts that would normally be considered significant. Based on these examples, impacts to biological resources would normally be considered significant if the project would:
have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS; ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 7
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
3.1 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, and coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and
conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state HCP.
An evaluation of whether an impact on biological resources would be substantial must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Substantial impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important biological resource, or those that would obviously conflict with local, state, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations.
Impacts are sometimes locally important but not significant according to CEQA. The reason for this is that although the impacts would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they would not substantially diminish, or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis.
3.0 METHODS
Literature Review
Prior to conducting the biological reconnaissance survey, ECORP biologists performed a literature review using the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2022a, 2022b) and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI; CNPS 2022a) to determine the special-status plant and wildlife species that have been documented in the vicinity of the Project site.
ECORP searched CNDDB and CNPSEI records within the Project site boundaries as depicted on USGS
7.5-minute Lake Elsinore topographic quadrangle, plus the surrounding eight topographic quadrangles, including Lake Mathews, Steele Peak, Perris, Romoland, Murrieta, Wildomar, Sitton Peak, and Alberhill.
The CNDDB and CNPSEI contain records of reported occurrences of federally or state-listed endangered, threatened, proposed endangered or threatened species, California Species of Special Concern (SSC), and/or other special-status species or habitat that may occur within or in the vicinity of the Project. Additional information was gathered from the following sources and includes, but is not limited to:
State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CDFW 2022b); Special Animals List (CDFW 2022c);
The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et al. 2012); A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009); ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 8 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition (CNPS 2022b); and various online websites (e.g., CalFlora 2022).
Using this information and observations in the field, a list of special-status plant and animal species that have potential to occur within the Project site was generated. For the purposes of this assessment, special-status species are defined as plants or animals that:
have been designated as either rare, threatened, or endangered by CDFW, CNPS, or the USFWS, and/or are protected under either the federal or California ESAs; are candidate species being considered or proposed for listing under these same acts; are fully protected by the California Fish and Game Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, or 5515; are of expressed concern to resource and regulatory agencies or local jurisdictions; and/or are covered species or special-status species under the MSHCP.
Special-status species reported for the region in the literature review or for which suitable habitat occurs on the site were assessed for their potential to occur within the Project site based on the following guidelines:
Present: The species was observed on the site during a site visit or focused survey.
High: Habitat (including soils and elevation factors) for the species occurs within the Project site and a known occurrence has recently been recorded (within the last 20 years) within 5 miles of the area.
Moderate: Habitat (including soils and elevation factors) for the species occurs within the Project site and a documented observation occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the area; a historic documented observation (more than 20 years old) was recorded within 5 miles of the Project site; or a recently documented observation occurs within 5 miles of the area and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs in the Project site.
Low: Limited or marginal habitat for the species occurs within the Project site and a recently documented observation occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the area; a historic documented observation (more than 20 years old) was recorded within 5 miles of the Project site; or suitable habitat strongly associated with the species occurs on site, but no records or only historic records were found within the database search.
Presumed Absent: Species was not observed during a site visit or focused surveys conducted in accordance with protocol guidelines at an appropriate time for identification; habitat (including soils and elevation factors) does not exist on site; or the known geographic range of the species does not include the Project site.
Note that location information on some special-status species may be of questionable accuracy or unavailable. Therefore, for survey purposes, the environmental factors associated with a species’ occurrence requirements may be considered sufficient reason to give a species a positive potential for occurrence. In addition, just because a record of a species does not exist in the databases does not ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 9 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis mean it does not occur. In many cases, records may not be present in the databases because an area has not been surveyed for that species.
A review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2022) Web Soil Survey, National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2022), and the corresponding USGS topographic maps was also conducted to determine if there were any blue line streams or drainages present on the Project site that potentially fall under the jurisdiction of either federal or state agencies.
3.1.1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
Data regarding the Project site were reviewed to determine consistency with the MSHCP. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map was queried to determine requirements for habitat assessment(s), potential focused survey(s), or other issues related to biological resources that could exist on the Project site (RCA 2022).
Section 6.0 of the MSHCP also requires that an assessment of the Project site be completed to identify any potential Project-related effects on biological resources, including burrowing owl, riparian/riverine areas, vernal pool habitats, riparian/riverine species, fairy shrimp, narrow endemic plant species or criteria area plant and wildlife species, and other special-status species, if applicable. In addition, the MSHCP requires that an Urban/Wildlands Interface analysis be conducted to address the indirect effects associated with locating proposed development in the proximity of MSHCP Conservation Areas.
3.2 Field Survey
3.2.1 Biological Reconnaissance Survey
A biological reconnaissance survey was conducted by walking the northern and southern perimeters of the Project site and surrounding areas to identify the vegetation communities and wildlife habitats on the Project site. During the survey, the Project site was not accessible due safety issues with the site currently being used for construction and equipment storage; therefore, the Project site was surveyed from the perimeter with binoculars. A second biological site visit was coordinated with the property representative and then performed to walk the Project site. The biologist documented the plant and wildlife species present on the Project site, and the location and condition of the Project site were assessed for the potential to provide habitat for special-status plant and wildlife species. Data were recorded on a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, field notebooks, and/or maps. Photographs were also taken during the surveys to provide visual representation of the various vegetation communities and site conditions within and adjacent to the Project site. The Project site was also examined to assess its potential to facilitate wildlife movement or function as a movement corridor for wildlife moving throughout the region. In addition, the biologist mapped the vegetation communities present on the Project site.
Plant and wildlife species, including any special-status species that were observed during the survey, were recorded. Plant nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et al. 2012). Wildlife nomenclature follows Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 10 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis (SSAR 2017), Check-list of North American Birds (Chesser et al. 2020, as updated), and the Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico (Bradley et al. 2014).
In instances where a special-status species was observed, the date, species, location and habitat, and GPS coordinates were recorded. The locations of special-status species observations were recorded using a handheld GPS in NAD83, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates, Zone 11S.
3.2.2 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment
The Project site is not located within a MSHCP burrowing owl survey area, however burrowing owls are to be avoided and under the MSHCP and so a habitat assessment was undertaken. In order to determine if suitable habitat is present, a burrowing owl habitat assessment was conducted concurrently with the biological reconnaissance survey and biological site visit. The Project site was walked as well as a 500-foot buffer to identify the presence of owl habitat and search for presence of potential burrows (i.e., of suitable size and shape for burrowing owl use). Areas that were not accessible by foot were scanned using binoculars for suitable habitat, including presence of burrows. Areas on private property, behind fencing, and north of the I-15 were not surveyed due to safety issues and inaccessibility.
4.0 RESULTS
Summarized below are the results of the literature review and field surveys, including site characteristics, vegetation communities, plants, wildlife, special-status species, and special-status habitats (including any potential wildlife corridors).
4.1 Literature Review
4.1.1 Special-Status Plants and Wildlife
The CNDDB and CNPSEI searches were conducted on January 21, 2022. The database searches identified 35 special-status plant species and 44 special-status wildlife species that could occur on and/or near the Project site. A list was generated from the results of the literature review and the Project site was evaluated for suitable habitat that could support any of the special-status plant or wildlife species on the list. Appendix A contains a list of the special-status plant species with potential to occur on and/or near the Project site and Appendix B contains a list of the special-status wildlife species with potential to occur on and/or near the Project site.
4.1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Designated Critical Habitat The Project site is not located within any USFWS-designated critical habitat. The nearest designated critical habitat is located approximately 2 miles northeast for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica).
4.1.3 State or Federally Protected Wetlands and Waters of the United States Based on the results of the literature review, the Project site does not contain any state or federally protected wetlands or waters of the United States (USFWS 2022). The National Wetlands Inventory ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 11
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
4.2 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis (NWI) shows three blue line features outside of the Project site in the surrounding area: an intermittent riverine (R4SBA) that is temporarily flooded occurs west of the site and travels from the northeast to the southwest; a freshwater forested/shrub wetland (PFOC) that is seasonally flooded occurs south of the Project site; and an intermittent riverine (R4SBC) that is seasonally flooded exists southwest of the Project site (USFWS 2022). These three NWI mapped blue line features are shown on Figure 3.
Biological Reconnaissance Survey
The biological reconnaissance survey was conducted on January 28, 2022, and the biological site visit was performed on February 4, 2022, by ECORP biologist Chelsie Brown. Summarized below are the results of the biological reconnaissance survey and site visit, including site characteristics, plants and plant communities, wildlife, special-status species, and special-status habitats (including any potential wildlife corridors). Weather conditions during the surveys are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Weather Conditions during the Surveys
Date
Time Temperature (˚F) Cloud Cover (%) Wind Speed (mph)
Start End Start End Start End Start End
1/28/2022 0950 1250 59 64 90 50 8-10 8-10
2/4/2022 0920 1020 57 61 0 0 5-8 8-10
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 12
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Location: N:\2022\2022-020 Collier Commercial\MAPS\Hydro\Collier_NWI.mxd (MAG)-trotellini 2/2/2022 Map Da e: 2 2 2022
Base Source: Esr
Pho o Source: NA
I
0 300
Fe et
Map Content
Project Area
NWI Features
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Riverine
t / /
i World Streetmap
IP (2020) Figure 3. National Wetlands Invent
er Commerc
t ory
2022-020 Colli ial
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
4.2.1 Property Characteristics
The Project site consists of an occupied construction storage lot containing ruderal vegetation that is heavily disturbed. Gravel and fill are spread over a majority of the Project site for heavy equipment and vehicles to drive over. Vehicle tracks are present throughout the site. At the time of the initial survey, semi-trucks were observed moving around inside the Project site. Heavy construction equipment, construction materials, semi-trucks, tow trucks, vehicles, two travel trailers, a porta john, and a covered storage area are currently being stored on the Project site. Additionally, there is evidence of recent mechanical ground disturbance such as discing and/or mowing, likely done for weed abatement purposes, present on the northern and western sides of the site. The perimeter of the Project site is fenced, and a gate is located on the northeast side. Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows are present in the southwest corner and western side of the Project site. A few small mammal burrows are present on the western portion of the Project site. Soil types within the Project site consist of Arbuckle gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (AIE), Cortina gravelly coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (CnC), and Waukena loamy fine sand, saline-alkali (Wa; NRCS 2022). The Project site is bounded by a Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District drainage and detention basin to the west, Collier Avenue to the north, an industrial towing business to the east, and W Minthorn Street to the south. There is industrial development to the east and south, vacant land to the north, and flood control structures to the west. Two drainage culverts, one of which is fully filled in with concrete, are present outside of the Project site in the surrounding area to the northeast, between Collier Avenue and I-15. One area with standing water was present outside of the Project site, in vacant land west of the site and immediately adjacent to W Minthorn Street, at the time of the surveys. The water in this area was approximately 2 inches deep at the time of the survey and riparian vegetation species were identified at this location. One small drainage was identified during the survey outside of the Project site in the surrounding area to the southwest. The drainage was dry at the time of the survey and appeared to flow southwest to where it connects to the seasonally flooded intermittent riverine (R4SBC) mapped by NWI; however, the drainage did not connect to any water or wetland features within the Project site. The small drainage may be fed by the area of pooling observed northwest of it due to the proximity of the two features and the slight downward slope in land elevation between them. The two drainage culverts, area of standing water, and small drainage are shown on Figure 4. Representative site photographs are included in Appendix C.
4.2.2 Vegetation Communities
No vegetation communities are present on the Project site; the entire site is disturbed. However, some native vegetation communities are present in adjacent areas within the 500-foot buffer. The Project site is within an urban environment that is generally subjected to repeated and ongoing disturbance from human activities. The dominant plant species observed on the Project site during the survey are nonnative and/or invasive weedy species. The northern and western portions of the Project site appeared recently disced at the time of the survey. Vehicle tracks are present throughout much of the Project site.
Areas surrounding the Project site are largely devoid of native vegetation; however, some native species are present within the 500-foot buffer. A small area of disturbed California buckwheat (Eriogonum ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 14
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
!( !(
!?
Collier Ave
Silver St
W Minthorn St
CAMINO Del Norte
¨¦§15
Figure 4. Biological Reconnai
Survey Resu
Location: N:\2022\2022-020 Collier Commercial\MAPS\Biological_Resources\Collier_BioRecon_Results.mxd (MAG)-trotellini 2/2/2022 Map Da e: 2 1/2022
Base Source: Esr
Pho o Source: NAIP (2020)
er Commerc
I
0 225
Fe et
Map Content
Project Area
500-ft Buffer
Pooling
Drainage
!? Culverts (x2)
!( Potential Burrowing Owl Burrow (No Sign)
t /
t
i World Streetmap
2022-020 Colli
ssance
ts
i la
l
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis fasciculatum) scrub is present north of the site between Collier Avenue and I-15. California buckwheat scrub is present south of the Project site on hillsides. Ornamental trees are present northeast and south of the Project site. In addition, cattail (Typha sp.) marshes occur south and southwest of the Project site.
Each of these vegetation communities and land cover types is described below and depicted in Figure
5. 4.2.2.1 Disturbed
Disturbed is not a vegetation classification, but rather a land cover type. The entire Project site is classified as disturbed because it is subject to repeated disturbances (e.g., vehicle and equipment use, discing), largely devoid of native vegetation, and is dominated by open areas or non-native weedy and ruderal vegetation. The disturbed designation indicates a location that has experienced disturbances, typically associated with human activities. Disturbed areas may be actively maintained to be free of vegetation or have been compacted or disced to such a degree that native vegetation is very sparse.
Nonnative plant species are present on the northern and western portions of the site. Within the Project site, plants present in this land cover type include non-native weedy species such as coastal heron’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and sweetclover (Melilotus sp.). A pile of cut down vegetation is present in the southern portion of the site. At the time of the survey, the southern and eastern portions of the Project site appeared the most disturbed based on the large areas of gravel and bare ground. Outside of the Project site, disturbed areas are present scattered throughout the surrounding area and consist of open areas and human disturbed areas.
4.2.2.2 California buckwheat scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance) The hillsides south of the Project site contain California buckwheat scrub; this vegetation community is not present on the Project site. California buckwheat scrub is dominated or co-dominated by California buckwheat and consists primarily of shrubs less than 7 feet in height with a continuous to intermittent canopy. The herbaceous layer is variable and may be grassy. Habitats suitable for California buckwheat scrub include upland slopes, intermittently flooded arroyos, and channels and washes. The area mapped as disturbed California buckwheat scrub south of the Project site contains an intermittent shrub canopy and has a variable herbaceous layer, mostly covered in grass. Habitat observed during the survey within this community consists of upland slopes.
The shrubs observed within this community at the time of the survey range from approximately 0.5 feet to 5 feet in height. Species present within this community at the time of the survey include California buckwheat, California cholla (Cylindropuntia californica), and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa).
A small area north of the Project site is mapped as disturbed California buckwheat scrub. This area lays adjacent to the I-15 and disturbances observed include heavy amounts of trash, a chain-link fence, and ruderal nonnative plant species. Species present within this community at the time of the survey include California buckwheat, brittlebush, and short-podded mustard.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 16 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Figure 5. Vegetation Communities
and Land Cover Types
Location: N:\2022\2022-020 Collier Commercial\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\Collier_Vegetation_v1.mxd (MAG/TR)-trotellini 2/2/2022 Map Content
Project Area
500-ft Buffer
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover
Types
Cattail marshes (Typha Herbaceous
Alliance)
California buckwheat scrub (Eriogonum
fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance)
Disturbed – California buckwheat scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance)
Ornamental Trees
Disturbed
Urban/Developed
Photo (or Base) Source: NAIP (2020) Map Date: 2/2/2022 2022-020 Collier Commercial Sca le i n F e et 0 200 I
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
4.2.2.3 Cattail marshes (Typha Herbaceous Alliance)
The NWI mapped seasonally flooded freshwater forested/shrub wetland south of the Project site and the NWI mapped riverine southwest of the site contain cattail marshes. Cattail marshes are dominated or co-dominated by narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), cattail (Typha domingensis), or broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). The community consists primarily of herbs less than 5 feet in height with a continuous to intermittent canopy. The habitats suitable for cattail marshes consist of semipermanently flooded freshwater or brackish marshes. The area mapped as cattail marshes contains cattails and a continuous to intermittent canopy was observed during the biological survey. Standing water was present throughout the majority of this community to the south of the Project site at the time of the biological survey; however, no water was present within this community southwest of the site. Cattails present within this community south of the site at the time of the survey were approximately 3 feet to 5 feet above the water line. At the time of the survey, cattails southwest of the Project site were approximately 1 foot to 2 feet in height.
4.2.2.4 Ornamental Trees
Areas designated as ornamental trees include areas where ornamental species have been planted and native vegetation is either sparse or non-existent. Ornamental trees are not a vegetation classification, but rather a land cover type where nonnative vegetation has been purposely planted and is not restricted to a known elevation. Ornamental trees occur northeast of the Project site in the form of a stand of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata), and Peruvian pepper trees (Schinus mole) behind a chain-link fence, along Collier Avenue. South of the Project site, ornamental trees are present along W Minthorn Street in the form of a few stands of oleander (Nerium oleander).
4.2.2.5 Urban/Developed
Urban/Developed areas do not constitute a vegetation classification, but rather a land cover type. Areas outside of the Project site are mapped as developed and have been constructed upon or otherwise physically altered to an extent that natural vegetation communities are no longer supported. Outside of the Project site, portions of the developed areas contain small strips of landscaped vegetation; however, areas mapped with urban/developed land cover type consist primarily of paved roads, buildings, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District drainage and detention basin.
4.2.3 Plants Observed
The majority of the Project site lacks vegetation due to the high level of disturbance. Plant species observed on the Project site were generally characteristic of disturbed urban areas: coastal heron’s bill, short-podded mustard, and sweetclover. Other plant species observed during the biological survey include mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), brittlebush, California buckwheat, eucalyptus, oleander, olive (Olea Europaea), Mexican palo verde, annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Peruvian pepper tree, common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), wirelettuce (Stephanomeria sp.). and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.). Note that the native species observed were not found ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 18 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis onsite, but within adjacent areas. A full list of plant species observed on and immediately adjacent to the Project site is included in Appendix D.
4.2.4 Wildlife Observed
The Project site provides habitat only for species adapted to disturbances and urban environments, while adjacent areas are more native and may support a richer species diversity. One insect species was observed during the biological reconnaissance survey: seven-spot lady beetle (Coccinella septempunctata). Five bird species were observed during the biological survey: American pipit (Anthus rubescens), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata). Three mammal species were also observed during the survey: California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and Botta's pocket gopher. A complete list of wildlife species observed on or immediately adjacent to the Project site is included in Appendix E.
4.2.5 Potential for Special-Status Plant to Occur on the Project Site The literature review and database searches identified 35 special-status plant species and 44 specialstatus wildlife species that occur on or near the Project site. However, due to the high level of disturbance at the Project site and the current lack of suitable habitat for the special-status plant and wildlife species, many of the species are presumed absent from the Project site.
4.2.5.1 Special-Status Plants
There were 35 special-status plant species (of those, eight are federally and/or state listed and 20 are covered by the MSHCP) that appeared in the literature review and database searches for the Project site (CDFW 2022a, CNPS 2022a). A list was generated from the results of the literature review and the Project was evaluated for suitable habitat that could support any of the special-status plant species on the list. For the purposes of this study, the results of the literature review were limited to plant species occurring within a nine-quadrangle search of the Project site. Plant species with a known elevation range outside of the Project site’s elevation were eliminated from the analysis. Plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1A species were eliminated from the analysis because they are presumed to be extirpated from California. Additionally, CRPR 3 or 4 species were eliminated from the analysis because these rankings are considered a review list and a watch list, respectively. Descriptions of the CRPR designations are found in Table 2. A Potential for Occurrence table outlining each species and their designations can be found in Appendix A. A complete list of the special status plant species that appeared in the CNPS literature search, including CRPR rank 3 and 4 species, is included as Appendix F.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 19 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Table 2. CRPR Status Designations
List Designation Meaning
1A Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 2A Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But Common Elsewhere 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere 3 Plants about which more information is needed; a review list 4 Plants of limited distribution; a watch list
List .1, .2 and .3 extension meanings:
.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 Moderately threatened in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 Not very threatened in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Note: According to CNPS (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), plants on Lists 1B and 2 meet definitions for listing as threatened or endangered under Section 1901, Chapter 10, of the California Fish and Game Code (California Department of Fish and Game 1984). This interpretation is inconsistent with other definitions.
4.2.5.2 Plant Species with a Moderate Potential
One plant species of higher sensitivity than List 3 or 4 was found to have a moderate potential to occur on the Project site. The site provides marginal or limited amounts of habitat (including soils and elevation factors) onsite in the disturbed land cover and recently documented observations occur within 5 miles of the Project site; or a historic documented observation (more than 20 years old) was recorded within 5 miles of the Project site. The special-status plant species with a moderate potential is listed below and also detailed in Appendix A.
San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), federally listed (endangered), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered
4.2.5.3 Plant Species Presumed Absent
The following 34 species of higher sensitivity than List 3 or 4 are presumed absent from the Project site due to the lack of suitable habitat, soil type, and/or elevation range at the Project site:
Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita), CRPR 1B.1; Munz’s onion (Allium munzii), federally listed (endangered), state listed (threatened), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered;
Alkali marsh aster (Almutaster pauciflorus), CRPR 1B.2; ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 20 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Rainbow manzanita (Arctostaphylos rainbowensis), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered; San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior), federally listed (endangered), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered;
Parish’s brittlescale (Atriplex parishii), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered; California ayenia (Ayenia compacta), CRPR 2B.3;
Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), federally listed (threatened), state listed (endangered), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered;
Intermediate mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius), CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP Covered; Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered; Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered; Long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina), CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP Covered;
San Miguel savory (Clinopodium chandleri), CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP Covered; Summer holly (Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. Diversifolia), CRPR 1B.2; Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), federally listed (endangered), state listed (endangered), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered;
Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP Covered; Sticky dudleya (Dudleya viscida), CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP Covered; San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii), federally listed (endangered), state listed (endangered), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered;
Campbell’s liverwort (Geothallus tuberosus), CRPR 1B.1; Tecate cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii), CRPR 1B.1;
Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula), CRPR 1B.1; Santa Lucia dwarf rush (Juncus luciensis), CRPR 1B.2; Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered; Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), federally listed (threatened), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered;
Prostrate vernal pool Navarretia (Navarretia prostrata), CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP Covered; Chaparral Nolina (Nolina cismontana), CRPR 1B.2;
California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), federally listed (endangered), state listed (endangered), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered;
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 21
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis White rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), CRPR 2B.2; Bottle liverwort (Sphaerocarpos drewiae), CRPR 1B.1;
San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum), CRPR 1B.2; Parry’s Tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus), CRPR 1B.2; California screw moss (Tortula californica), CRPR 1B.2; Wright’s trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii), CRPR 2B.1, MSHCP Covered; and La Purisima viguiera (Viguiera purisimae), CRPR 2B.3.
4.2.6 Potential for Special-Status Wildlife to Occur on the Project Site There were 44 special-status wildlife species (of those, 15 are federally and/or state listed and 28 are covered by the MSHCP) that appeared in the literature review and database searches for the Project site. Recent mechanical disturbances on the site, gravel added as a cover over the majority of the site, the current active status of the site with construction equipment and vehicle movement, proximity to industrial development, the presence of anthropogenic influences on the site, as well as the lack of suitable habitat likely preclude many of these species from occurring. A complete list of the 44 specialstatus wildlife species with details on habitat requirements and potential for occurrence designations is included as Appendix B.
4.2.6.1 Wildlife Species with a Low Potential to Occur
The following species has a low potential to occur on the Project site because limited habitat for the species occurs onsite and a known occurrence has been reported in the database, but not within 5 miles of the site; or a historic documented observation (more than 20 years old) was recorded within 5 miles of the project site; or suitable habitat strongly associated with the species occurs on site, but no records were found in the database search.
Crotch Bumble Bee
The Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) was petitioned for listing under the California ESA in October 2018 (Hatfield et al. 2018), advanced to candidacy in June 2019, was challenged in courts and the candidacy was temporarily stayed beginning in February 2021, and candidacy was recently reinstated in September 2022 (CDFW 2023). This species is associated with open grassland and scrub habitats and occurs primarily in California, including the Mediterranean region, Pacific Coast, Western Desert, Great Valley, and adjacent foothills through most of southwestern California (Williams et al. 2014). Crotch bumble bees primarily nest underground, and may occupy cavities in a variety of substrates including:
thatched grasses, abandoned rodent burrows or bird nests, brush piles, rock piles, and fallen logs (Alford 1975; Free and Colin Gasking Alford 1959; Fussell and Corbet 1992; Lye et al. 2012; Sladen 1912; Williams et al. 2014) and have also been found nesting in manmade structures such as walls, rubble or abandoned furniture (Fussell and Corbet 1992; Williams et al. 2014). Bumble bee nests are annual and conclude with deaths of the queen, workers, and drones at the end of the season with only the mated ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 22
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis gyne (future queen) surviving the winter (overwintering) in order to emerge the following spring to start the next year’s colony. Similar to other bumble bee species, Crotch bumble bee is a generalist forager and reportedly visits a variety of flowering plants, including Asclepias, Chaenactis, Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia, and Salvia.
The Project site contains marginally suitable foraging for this species within and adjacent to the Project site and marginally suitable nesting habitat for the species within the Project site. At the time of the biological survey, approximately half of the Project site contained flowering non-native plant species such as coastal heron’s bill and sweetclover, although most of the plants were not in bloom at the time of the survey. In addition, ornamental trees consisting of stands of oleander occur adjacent to the Project site in the 500-foot buffer. These plants could provide nectar sources and foraging opportunities for Crotch bumble bee. Gopher burrows and tufts of grass are present within the western half of the Project site which could provide nesting and overwintering habitat for the Crotch bumble bee. However, the western half of the Project site that contains gopher burrows and tufts of grass appears to be regularly disturbed by regular mechanical ground disturbance such as discing and/or mowing and by being actively used as a staging area where large equipment is driven and stored.
These disturbances would reduce the likelihood that the species would nest on the Project site.
Two historic occurrences of the species were documented in CNDDB within 5 miles of the Project site (CDFW 2024). The most recent and nearest occurrence was documented in 2001 approximately 3 miles southeast of the Project site (Occurrence # 212; CDFW 2024). This species has a low potential to occur due to the presence marginally suitable foraging, nesting, and overwintering habitat, and CNDDB records within 5 miles of the Project site.
Burrowing owl
Burrowing owl is a MSHCP Covered Species and a CDFW SSC. Burrowing owls historically occurred throughout much of California and the western United States; however, many former California populations have been extirpated. The burrowing owl inhabits open habitats, primarily grasslands and deserts. Burrowing owls require burrows for roosting and nesting cover. Although they often use abandoned California ground squirrel burrows, they will also use other small mammal burrows, pipes, culverts, and nest boxes, particularly where burrows are scarce (Zeiner et al. 1990). One recent record (Occurrence # 974) and one historic record (Occurrence # 632) occur within 5 miles of the Project site (CDFW 2022a). Occurrence # 974 was recorded approximately 4 miles from the site in 2007 (CDFW 2022a). During the biological survey, no potential burrowing owl burrows were observed on the Project site. Although California ground squirrels were observed during the biological survey in the surrounding area, no California ground squirrels were observed on or immediately adjacent to the Project site. The Project site lacks loose, friable soils suitable for burrowing, especially in the areas covered by gravel. The site exhibits high levels of disturbance with the presence of construction and equipment storage activities as well as the evidence of previous mechanical disturbances of the soils, which lowers the suitability of the habitat for burrowing owl. Although marginal amounts of low-quality foraging habitat are present in the areas lacking gravel cover, the presence of high levels of human and vehicular activity and associated disturbances likely preclude burrowing owls from using or occupying the small amounts of low-quality habitat present on the site.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 23 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Outside of the Project site and across a heavily trafficked road to the north, two burrows were identified that are suitably sized for burrowing owl use and have potential to be used by the species. No sign of burrowing owl use (e.g., whitewash, pellets, bones of prey items, feathers) were observed at these burrows. The locations of the potential burrowing owl burrows are depicted on Figure 4. Based on the lack of suitable burrows, marginal amounts of low-quality foraging habitat on the site, and the recent record of the species within 5 miles of the Project site, this species has a low potential to occur on the Project site, and would not be expected to use the area for nesting.
4.2.6.2 Wildlife Species Presumed Absent
These 42 species were not present at the site during the site visit and/or habitat was not present or suitable. For some species, there were historic or recent sightings; however, due to the lack of suitable habitat within the Project site, these species are presumed absent:
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), federally listed (threatened), MSHCP Covered; San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), federally listed (endangered); Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), federally listed (endangered), MSHCP Covered;
Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), federally listed (endangered), MSHCP Covered;
Arroyo chub (Gila orcutti), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered;
Steelhead - southern California Distinct Population Segment (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10), federally listed (endangered);
Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus), federally listed (endangered), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), federally listed (threatened), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered;
Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), CDFW SSC; California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), CDFW SSC; Red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; Coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), CDFW SSC; Two-striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii), CDFW SSC; ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 24
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), state listed (threatened), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; Long-eared owl (Asio otus), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered;
Coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), CDFW Fully Protected, MSHCP Covered; Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), state listed (threatened), MSHCP Covered; Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), federally listed (threatened), CDFW SSC;
Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), CDFW SSC;
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), CDFW Fully Protected, MSHCP Covered; Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), federally delisted, state listed (endangered), CDFW Fully Protected, MSHCP Covered;
Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), federally listed (threatened), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered;
Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), federally listed (endangered), state listed (endangered), MSHCP Covered;
Dulzura pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis), CDFW SSC; Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), federally listed (endangered), candidate for state listing, CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered;
Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), federally listed (endangered), state listed (threatened), MSHCP Covered;
Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), CDFW SSC; Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), CDFW SSC;
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; Pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus), CDFW SSC; Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona), CDFW SSC; Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered; and
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 25 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis American badger (Taxidea taxus), CDFW SSC.
4.2.7 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment
The burrowing owl habitat assessment was conducted concurrently with the January 28 and the February 4, 2022 surveys conducted by ECORP biologist Chelsie Brown. Weather conditions during the assessment are summarized in Table 1 (Section 4.2). The Project site contains disturbed soils with gravel and fill material spread over the majority of the property. Very little vegetation is present on the Project site and the non-gravel areas showed signs of being recently disced. The soils throughout the Project site were compact and vehicle tracks were observed throughout the site. A few small mammal burrows were identified within the Project site on the western portion of the site; however, none of the burrows were of suitable size for burrowing owl occupation. The Project site offers small amounts of low-quality foraging habitat for the species; however, the current human and vehicular activity on the Project site likely deter burrowing owls from using the site. Two potential burrowing owl burrows lacking sign of owl use (e.g., whitewash, pellets, feathers) were present outside of the Project site and across a busy road, Collier Avenue (Figure 4). Representative photos of the potential burrowing owl burrows identified outside of the Project site can be found in Appendix C.
Due to the presence of low-quality foraging habitat on the Project site and potential burrows located north of the Project site, preconstruction surveys are recommended no more than 30 days prior to site disturbance to maintain compliance with the MSHCP protection requirements for burrowing owl (RCTLMA 2022). Mitigation measures discussing additional survey requirements are described in Section 6.0.
4.3 Raptors and Migratory Birds
Potential nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code is present on the Project site in the stored heavy construction equipment, construction materials, gravel areas and semi-trailers. Outside of the Project site, potential nesting habitat is present in the ornamental trees outside of the Project site; the eucalyptus, Mexican palo verde, and Peruvian pepper trees adjacent to the site in the northeast and the stands of oleander located adjacent to the Project site to the south present suitable nesting habitat. In addition, power and telephone lines run along both the north and southern boundaries of the Project site and their poles could provide suitable nesting habitat. Suitable nesting habitat for ground nesting bird species, such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and killdeer, is present on many of the ground areas within the Project site. Raptors typically breed between February and August, and songbirds and other passerines generally nest between March and August.
4.4 Wildlife Movement Corridors, Linkages, and Significant Ecological Areas
The concept of habitat corridors addresses the linkage between large blocks of habitat that allow the safe movement of mammals and other wildlife species from one habitat area to another. The definition of a corridor is varied, but corridors may include such areas as greenbelts, refuge systems, underpasses, and biogeographic land bridges, for example. In general, a corridor is described as a linear habitat, ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 26 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
5.0 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis embedded in a dissimilar matrix, which connects two or more large blocks of habitat. Wildlife movement corridors are critical for the survivorship of ecological systems for several reasons. Corridors can connect water, food, and cover sources, spatially linking these three resources with wildlife in different areas. In addition, wildlife movement between habitat areas provides for the potential of genetic exchange between wildlife species populations, thereby maintaining genetic variability and adaptability to maximize the success of wildlife responses to changing environmental conditions. This is especially critical for small populations subject to loss of variability from genetic drift and effects of inbreeding. Naturally, the nature of corridor use and wildlife movement patterns varies greatly among species.
The Project site was assessed for its ability to function as a wildlife corridor. The Project site is disturbed, entirely fenced, and is generally surrounded by industrial development and paved roadways. Because of this, the Project site is isolated from large, contiguous blocks of native habitat. I-15 runs to the north and west of the Project site and is a large barrier to regional wildlife movement. The Project site is fenced with chain-link fencing with a gate located on the northeast side. Additionally, the current human and vehicle activity on the site, the lack of vegetative cover within the Project site, and the urban nature of the site would likely deter wildlife from using the Project site for movement opportunities.
Therefore, the Project site is not considered a linkage or corridor between conserved natural habitat areas.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
All areas where Project construction activities are proposed to take place are dominated by nonnative vegetation, with the majority of the Project site being covered in gravel and used for heavy equipment as well as vehicle and material storage. The remaining area has undergone recent discing or similar mechanical disturbances. Potential impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from Project activities are presented below.
5.1 Special-Status Species
The Project site consists of disturbed land and is devoid of native vegetation. No vegetation communities occur onsite. The literature review and database searches identified 35 special-status plant species that occur near the Project site. Of these 35 special-status plants, one was found to have a moderate potential to occur (San Diego ambrosia; federally listed (endangered), CRPR 1B.1, and MSHCP Covered Species) on the Project site due to the presence of disturbed land cover and records documented within 5 miles. The remaining 34 species were presumed absent. If rare, special-status, or narrow endemic plants occur on the Project site, direct impacts could occur to individuals in the form of ground disturbance, vegetation removal, habitat loss, and mortality and may be considered significant under CEQA. Within the Western Riverside MSHCP, San Diego ambrosia is a Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Impacts to this species has already been contemplated and addressed under the MSHCP.
Furthermore, the Project site is neither located in a MSHCP-designated NEPSSA or Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA). Therefore, additional focused surveys and implementation of mitigation for this species is not required for this particular Project, which is a covered activity under the MSHCP.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 27
Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Of the 44 special-status wildlife species identified in the literature search, two were found to have a low potential for occurrence: Crotch bumble bee (CDFW candidate for state listing) and burrowing owl (CDFW SSC). The Project site has marginally suitable foraging, nesting, and overwintering habitat for Crotch bumble bee within the Project site. Marginally suitable foraging habitat for the species is present on the Project site where non-native flowering weeds occur and marginally suitable nesting and overwintering habitat is present in the gopher burrows and tufts of grass located on the western half of the Project site. However, the flowering resources are limited to a small patch and the potential nesting habitat is located in an area that is regularly disturbed in the form of mechanical disturbance and is used as a staging area for large equipment. Although it is unlikely, if Crotch bumble bee is found to be using or nesting on the Project site prior to the start of construction, impacts to Crotch bumble bee may occur in the form of direct mortality of individuals, direct mortality to an active nesting colony, direct mortality to an overwintering individual, conversion of foraging habitat, or permanent loss of foraging resources. Because this species is a generalist forager that chooses nest and overwintering locations on an annual basis, temporary and permanent loss of habitat resulting from the Project would not be expected to contribute substantially to the overall decline of this species unless direct impacts were to occur to an active nest or overwintering gyne (future queen). Impacts to Crotch bumble bee would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. The Mitigation Measures for the proposed Project are discussed in Section 6.0.
The Project site is not located within a designated survey area under the MSHCP for burrowing owl (RCA 2022) and does not contain suitable burrows for burrowing owl use. Marginal amounts of lowquality foraging habitat for the species occurs on the site in the areas not covered by gravel; however, the high levels of disturbances present, and the lack of friable soils likely preclude burrowing owl from occurring on the Project site. Although a few small mammal burrows were identified on the Project site, none on the Project site were of suitable size and shape for burrowing owl use. The soils within the Project site appeared to have been recently mechanically disturbed (e.g., disced) and were compact at the time of the survey, which further reduces the site’s suitability for burrowing owl. Two potential burrowing owl burrows were observed outside of the Project site to the northeast, but neither had sign of burrowing owl use. No burrowing owls or burrowing owl sign were observed within the Project site or adjacent areas during the survey. However, due to the mobile nature of the species, it is possible that burrowing owl could use the area prior to the start of Project activities. Although unlikely, if burrowing owl are found to be using or nesting on the Project site prior to the start of construction, direct impacts may occur in the form of mortality or injury in the form of ground disturbance, entombment, and vegetation removal. If burrowing owl are found to be using or nesting in the area surrounding the Project site prior to the start of construction, indirect impacts from construction noise, increased human and vehicular activity, dust, and ground vibrations may occur. In order to avoid potentially significant impacts to burrowing owl, it is recommended that Mitigation Measure BIO-2 be implemented.
The remaining 42 special-status wildlife species are presumed absent from occurring on or adjacent to the site due to the lack of suitable habitat, including the recent mechanical disturbances to the soils, gravel cover occurring over the majority of the Project site, proximity to I-15, the currently activity status of the site with stored construction equipment and vehicle movement, and the presence of anthropogenic disturbances associated with the industrial development surrounding the site. No ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 28 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis impacts to the 42 presumed absent special-status wildlife species are anticipated to result from the development of this Project.
The stored heavy construction equipment, construction materials, and semi-trailers present on the Project site could provide nesting habitat for nesting birds and raptors protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. In addition, the trees adjacent to the Project site as well as the power and telephone poles immediately adjacent to the site could provide nesting habitat. Furthermore, the Project site could provide nesting habitat for ground-nesting bird species. If construction of the proposed Project occurs during the bird breeding season (typically February 1 through August 31), ground-disturbing construction activities could directly affect birds protected by the MBTA and their nests through the removal of habitat on the Project site, and indirectly through increased noise, vibrations, and increased human activity. Impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
Coastal California gnatcatcher (federally listed threatened, CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered) was found to be presumed absent from the Project site. This bird occurs in coastal scrub habitats, especially those dominated by California sage, including dry coastal slopes, washes, and mesas; areas of low plant growth (Atwood 1992). This species generally avoids crossing even small areas of unsuitable habitat (Atwood 1992). The Project site and area within the 500-foot buffer are not within core habitat or any MSHCP-designated area targeted for coastal California gnatcatcher conservation. No suitable habitat for the species is present on the Project site or immediately adjacent to the site. Coastal California gnatcatcher are not expected to occur in the small, disturbed California buckwheat scrub area north of the Project site due to the poor quality of the scrub habitat consisting of sparse shrub growth, close proximity to I-15, and anthropogenic disturbances. Off the Project site, approximately 0.96 acre of suitable California buckwheat scrub habitat for California gnatcatcher is present south of the Project site within the 500-buffer. While suitable habitat for California gnatcatcher is present on the hillsides south of the Project site, the surrounding area is subjected to many disturbances associated with industrial and commercial development, land uses, and I-15 to the north. Furthermore, the Riverside County flood control channel south of the Project site that separates the suitable California buckwheat scrub from the site likely provides an additional barrier between Project activities and the suitable habitat. If California gnatcatcher are present within the California buckwheat scrub habitat south of the Project site, they are likely already used to high levels of human and vehicular activities and the construction of the Project likely will not result in impacts to the species (behavior alteration, nesting or reproduction activities, or habitat loss and degradation). Project-related impacts to California gnatcatcher are not expected due to the lack of habitat on the Project site, high levels of disturbance in the region, and the potentially suitable scrub habitat located approximately 400 feet away from the Project site. In addition, a busy road, W Minthorn Street, and the flood control channel between the Project site and the potential habitat act as a buffer between Project construction activities and the California buckwheat scrub habitat. The literature review revealed 21 records within 5 miles of the Project site. The most recent occurrence (Occurrence # 564) was observed in 2015 less than 1 mile east of the Project site (CDFW 2022a). All other occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the Project site are greater than 20 years old and considered historic. Based on the lack of suitable coastal sage scrub habitat on the Project site, the industrial and commercial development surrounding the site, barriers present between the Project site and the suitable California gnatcatcher habitat located on hillsides south of the Project ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 29 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis site, and high levels of human and vehicular activity, Project-related impacts to the species are not expected to occur.
5.2 Sensitive Natural Communities
The Project site does not support any sensitive natural communities; no vegetation communities were present on the site and only disturbed land cover is present. The California buckwheat scrub and cattail marsh vegetation communities identified outside of the Project site are not considered sensitive natural communities. No impacts to sensitive natural communities are anticipated as a result of this Project.
5.3 State or Federally Protected Wetlands and Waters of the United States
No state or federally protected wetlands or waters of the U.S. were identified on the Project site; therefore, no impacts to these resources are expected to occur. The three blue line features mapped by NWI outside of the Project site may be jurisdictional: a temporarily flooded intermittent riverine is present to the west of the site and flows southwest through the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District drainage and detention basin; a seasonally flooded freshwater forested/shrub wetland occurs south of the Project site; and a seasonally flooded intermittent riverine is present southwest of the Project site (Figure 3). One area of pooling water was identified outside of the Project site to the west (Figure 4) and one small drainage was identified outside of the Project site to the southwest (Figure 4) that may also be jurisdictional. However, an official aquatic resources delineation was not performed because the aquatic features observed during the surveys are outside the Project site and impacts to these features are not expected to occur. Two drainage culverts, one of which is fully filled in with concrete, were identified outside the boundaries of the Project site to the northeast (Figure 4); however, impacts to these culverts are also not expected as a result of the Project due to their location outside of the Project boundaries. If any offsite improvements are planned that could affect the aquatic features in the vicinity of the Project site, a formal aquatic resources delineation is recommended to identify exact impacts to these features.
5.4 Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites
The Project site is located within and adjacent to areas containing existing disturbances (e.g., paved roads and industrial developments). The Project site is disturbed and contains little to no vegetative cover that would facilitate wildlife movement. No migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites were identified within the Project site. No impacts to these resources are expected to occur during the development of the Project site.
5.5 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans
The Project site is located within the planning area for the Western Riverside MSHCP. The Project site is not located within any Conservation Areas, Criteria Cells, or Subunit designations according to the MSHCP.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 30 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
5.5.1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
The Project site is located within the planning area for the MSHCP, but outside of any Cell Groups, Criteria Cells, and Subunit designations. Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires assessment of the potential effects from the Project on biological resources including riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, fairy shrimp, burrowing owl, and Narrow Endemic Plant Species. There is no requirement to analyze the potential effects from the Project on other Section 6.0 species, such as mammals, fish or amphibian species due to lack of presence of habitat. In addition, the MSHCP requires an Urban/Wildlands Interface analysis be conducted in order to address the indirect effects associated with locating proposed development in the proximity of MSHCP Conservation Areas. These resources were assessed during the reconnaissance survey and are discussed below in relation to the Project.
The Proposed Project consists of the construction of two buildings, two driveways, parking spaces, a sidewalk, a block wall along the western boundary, gravel fill, and landscaping on an approximately 2.8- acre Project site in the City of Lake Elsinore, California. Because development of the Project site is a covered activity within the MSHCP, it is an allowable use that has been contemplated within the MSHCP. However, projects that are covered still need to comply with MSHCP requirements.
5.5.1.1 Riparian/Riverine, Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp Habitat Assessment (MSHCP Section 6.1.2)
In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a habitat assessment was performed for riparian and riverine communities, vernal pools, and fairy shrimp. The Project site, consisting of Arbuckle gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (AIE), Cortina gravelly coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (CnC), and Waukena loamy fine sand, saline-alkali lacks clay soils and does not contain vernal pool habitat or suitable habitat for fairy shrimp. No evidence of pools or standing water was observed on the Project site.
No riparian vegetation or riverine features are present on the Project site and impacts to these resources are not anticipated as a result of the Project. Off the Project site, riparian vegetation was observed in an area of pooling west of the Project boundaries (Figure 4). Although this area may provide vernal pool habitat potentially suitable for fairy shrimp, it is located outside the Project boundaries and will be avoided under the Proposed Project plan. Riparian vegetation and standing water were observed south of the Project site, within the NWI mapped freshwater forested/shrub wetland (Figure 3). Southwest of the site, a small drainage was identified that was dry at the time of the survey and lacked riparian vegetation and hydric soils (Figure 4). Two drainage culverts (Figure 4) were also recorded outside the Project boundaries during the survey; however, no hydric soils were observed in association with the culverts. These areas are located outside the Project boundaries and will be avoided by the Project. Therefore, no impacts to riparian and riverine habitat, vernal pools, or fairy shrimp habitat are anticipated as a result of the Project. If any offsite improvements are planned that could affect aquatic features present in the areas surrounding the Project site, a formal aquatic resources delineation is recommended to identify impacts to these features.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 31 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Additionally, Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP lists 23 special-status plant species associated with riparian/riverine and vernal pool areas (RCTLMA 2022). There is no suitable habitat on the Project site for any of the 23 special-status plant species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
5.5.1.2 Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) The RCA MSHCP Information Map was reviewed to determine whether the Project site is located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA), in accordance with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.
The Project site is not located within a NEPSSA or a CASSA.
5.5.1.3 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) In accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, a habitat assessment for burrowing owl was performed.
Additionally, the RCA MSHCP Information Map was reviewed to identify areas within the Project site that may fall within the designated burrowing owl survey areas. The Project site is not located within a MSHCP-designated burrowing owl survey area. No suitably sized burrows were present on the Project site during the burrowing owl habitat assessment that was performed in accordance with the MSHCP burrowing owl survey guidelines (County of Riverside 2006). Two burrows of suitable size for burrowing owl usage were identified outside of the Project site during the habitat assessment; however, these burrows were located across a busy street, Collier Avenue, and near I-15 (Figure 4).
Although no burrowing owls or burrowing owl sign were observed during the survey, marginal amounts of low-quality foraging habitat is present on the Project site and two potential burrows were observed adjacent to the site. Preconstruction surveys will need to be conducted prior to the start of Project construction in order to maintain compliance with the burrowing owl protection measures in the MSHCP. The preconstruction surveys shall follow the protocols set forth in the MSHCP burrowing owl survey guidelines (County of Riverside 2006) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would keep the Project in compliance with the MSHCP requirements in Section 6.3.2.
5.5.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) The requirements for Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors do not apply to the majority of the Project site where it is not situated adjacent to any wildlands or MSHCP-designated Conservation Areas. The Project site is isolated from larger, contiguous blocks of native habitat, and completely surrounded by industrial development, paved roads, and other anthropogenic land use.
Public Quasi-Public Conserved Land, owned by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, is present immediately west of the Project site that is managed for protection of flood related threats. This area does not provide habitat for special-status species and the construction of the Project would not result in impacts to any Public or Quasi-Public Conserved Land. However, use of invasive species within landscaping on the site should be prohibited due to the potential for seed to disperse into the adjacent areas and move further downstream. A net long-term increase of edge impacts is not expected as a result of this Project.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 32 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
6.0 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
5.5.1.5 Additional Surveys (MSHCP Section 6.3.2)
The RCA MSHCP Information Map was reviewed to determine if the Project site is located within any MSHCP-designated survey areas. The Information Map revealed that the Project site is not located within the amphibian species, criteria area species, or mammalian species survey areas. Therefore, no further habitat assessments or surveys are required.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section provides recommendations and/or mitigation measures to address the potential impacts to biological resources identified in this report. Recommendations for avoiding impacts to sensitive biological resources are presented below:
BIO-1 Preconstruction Survey for Crotch bumble bee: If the Crotch bumble bee is no longer a Candidate or formally listed species under the California ESA at the time grounddisturbing activities occur, then no additional protection measures are proposed for the species.
If the Crotch bumble bee is legally protected under the California ESA as a Candidate or Listed species at the time ground-disturbing activities are scheduled to begin, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Survey Considerations for California ESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) during the Crotch’s bumble bee flight season (February – October) no more than 48 hours prior to Project-related ground disturbing activities (including but not limited to vegetation clearing, fence installation, and grading) by a qualified Crotch’s bumble bee biologist. The 48-hour preconstruction survey shall be repeated as necessary if the Project does not begin with 48 hours of completion of the preconstruction survey. If Crotch bumble bees are detected (alive or dead), CDFW shall be notified within 24 hours as further coordination may be required to avoid or mitigate certain impacts, and an incidental take permit may be required. If no Crotch bumble bees are detected, then the Project activities may commence.
BIO-2 Preconstruction Surveys for Burrowing Owl: Due to the presence of marginal amounts of lowquality foraging habitat on the Project site and potential burrows adjacent to the site in the surrounding area, preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, regardless of whether Project activities are scheduled to occur during the burrowing owl breeding season (March 1 through August 31) or not. The surveys shall be performed in accordance with the Western Riverside MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (County of Riverside 2006) and the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). If preconstruction survey results are negative, no further action is required for protection of burrowing owls.
If preconstruction survey results are positive and impacts to burrowing owls are unavoidable, then additional mitigation measures will need to be implemented to offset impacts to burrowing owl. Further, a burrowing owl avoidance and mitigation plan will prepared for review and approval by the wildlife agencies (CDFW and USFWS) if owls are ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 33 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
7.0 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis present. The plan will include measures developed in accordance with the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) and may include seasonal work restriction, establishing a non-disturbance buffer around each burrow location, biological monitoring, or passive relocation. If passive relocation is found to be necessary, then coordination with CDFW will need to occur.
BIO-3 Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds: Wherever feasible, any ground-disturbing activities (including vegetation removal) shall be conducted during the non-breeding season for birds (approximately September 1 through January 31) in order to avoid violations of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code §§ 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. If activities with the potential to disrupt nesting birds are scheduled to occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist who is experienced in surveying for and identification of avian species no more than three days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. The nesting bird survey shall include the Project site and adjacent areas where Project activities have the potential to cause nest failure. If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are found to be present, avoidance or minimization measures shall be implemented to avoid potential Project-related impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures shall be developed by the qualified biologist and may include non-disturbance buffers established around active nests until the biologist has determined that the nesting cycle is completed, seasonal work restrictions, or additional survey and monitoring requirements. The width of non-disturbance buffers established around active nests will be determined by the qualified biologist (300 feet is typically recommended for songbirds and 500 feet is typically recommended for raptors). Once nesting is deemed complete by the qualified biologist as determined through periodic nest monitoring, the nondisturbance buffer will be removed by the qualified biologist and Project work may resume in the area.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Field work conducted for this assessment was performed by me or under my direct supervision. I certify that I have not signed a nondisclosure or consultant confidentiality agreement with the project applicant or the applicant’s representative and that I have no financial interest in the project.
Signed: Date: March 1, 2022
Chelsie Brown
Associate Biologist/Assistant Project Manager
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 34 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
8.0 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
LITERATURE CITED
Alford, D. V. 1975. Bumblebees. Davis-Poynter, London.
Atwood, J. L. 1992. A closer look: California gnatcatcher. Birding, August, pp. 228-239.
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 pp.
Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A Cook, R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D. J. Schmidly, F.B.
Stangl, Jr., R.A. Van Den Bussche, B. Wursig. 2014. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Museum of Texas Tech University.
CalFlora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [Web application]. 2022. Berkeley, California: The CalFlora Database [a non-profit organization]. Available from:
http://www.calflora.org.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. _____. 1984. California Endangered Species Act. Fish and Game Code Section 2050-2085.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a. RareFind California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). California. Sacramento, CA, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed January 2022. _____. 2022b. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Sacramento (CA): State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed:
January 2022.
_____. 2022c. Special Animals List. Sacramento (CA): State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406.
Accessed January 2022.
_____. 2023. Survey and Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (California ESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. Published June 2023.
_____. 2024. RareFind California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
California. Sacramento, CA, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed December 2024.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 1.5). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA, http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.
_____. 2022b. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/; searched on February 1, 2022. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 35 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Chesser, R. T., K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2020. Check-list of North American Birds (online), 7th edition with 61st Supplement. American Ornithological Society. http://checklist.aou.org/taxa County of Riverside. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. edited by Environmental Programs Department.
Riverside, CA: County of Riverside.
Free, J. B., and Colin Gasking Butler. 1959. Bumblebees. Collins.
Fussell, M., and S. A. Corbet. 1992. Flower Usage by Bumble-Bees: A Basis for Forage Plant Management. Source: Journal of Applied Ecology. Volume 29.
Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, S. F. Jordan, M. Blackburn, A. Code. 2018. Petition to List Four Species of Bumble Bees as Endangered Species under the California Endangered Species Act. Submitted by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Food Safety.
Lye, G. C., J. L. Osborne, K. J. Park, and D. Goulson. 2012. Using citizen science to monitor Bombus populations in the UK; nesting ecology for and relative abundance in the urban environment.
Journal of Insect Conservation 16:697-707.
Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency (RCTLMA). 2022. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Available from:
http://rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/volume1/index.html
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Online Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed January 2022.
Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). 2022. RCA MSHCP Information Tool. Available from:
https://www.wrc-rca.org/rcamaps/
Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 5th edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 264 pp.
Sladen, F. W. Lambert 1912. The Humble-bee: its Life-history and how to Domesticate it. Macmillan and Company, limited.
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR). 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North American North of Mexico, With Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding. Eighth Edition. Committee on Standard English and Scientific Names.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed January 2022.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 36 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020 Biological Technical Report and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis _____. 1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Section 16 of the U.S. Code (703-712), as amended 1989.
Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S. R. Colla. 2014. The Bumble Bees of North America:
An Identification Guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Zeiner D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, editors (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1990. California’s Wildlife. Volume II, Birds. Sacramento (CA): State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. FINAL 37 Collier Commercial Properties 2022-020
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Sensitive Plant Species Potential for Occurrence Appendix B – Sensitive Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Appendix C – Representative Site Photographs
Appendix D – Plant Species Observed
Appendix E – Wildlife Species Observed
Appendix F – CNPS Search Results
APPENDIX A
Sensitive Plant Species Potential for Occurrence
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Bloom
Period &
Elevation
(feet) Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Ambrosia pumila
San Diego ambrosia
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
END
none
1B.1
COV
Apr-Oct
65-1360
Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland, and vernal pools.
Often found in sandy loam or clay, often
in disturbed areas, sometimes found in
alkaline soils.
Moderate Potential to Occur: Although no
suitable chaparral, coastal scrub, grassland, or
vernal pool habitat is present on the site, the
Project site consists of disturbed land cover and
four recent records (Occ # 44, 54, 58, 67) of the
species occur within 5 miles of the site.
Abronia villosa var. aurita
Chaparral sand-verbena
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.1
none
(Jan) MarSept
245-5250
Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and
desert dune habitats. Often found in
sandy soil.
Presumed Absent: No suitable chaparral,
coastal scrub, or sandy desert habitat is present
on the Project site and there are no records
within 5 miles of the site.
Allium munzii
Munz’s onion
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
END
THR
1B.1
COV
Mar-May
975-3510
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland, and valley and foothill
grasslands. Often found in clay soils,
growing in grasslands and openings
within shrublands or woodlands.
Presumed Absent: Although four recent
records occur within 5 miles of the Project site,
the site lacks clay soils and does not contain
suitable chaparral, woodland, coastal scrub, or
grassland habitat.
Almutaster pauciflorus
alkali marsh aster
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
none
Jun-Oct
785-2625
Occurs in meadows and seeps of alkaline
soils.
Presumed Absent: No suitable meadow or
seep habitat is present on the Project site and
there are no records within 5 miles of the site.
Arctostaphylos
rainbowensis
rainbow manzanita
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.1
COV
Dec-Mar
675-2200 Occurs in chaparral.
Presumed Absent: No suitable chaparral
habitat is present on the Project site and there
are no records within 5 miles.
Atriplex coronata var.
notatior
San Jacinto Valley
crownscale
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
END
none
1B.1
COV
Apr-Aug
455-1640
Occurs in playas, valley and foothill
grasslands, and vernal pools in alkaline
soils.
Presumed Absent: Although the site contains
alkaline soils in the southeast corner, this
portion of the site is highly disturbed and
covered in gravel currently. There has been one
recent records (Occ # 16) within 5 miles of the
Project site; however, the site lacks playa,
grassland, and vernal pool habitat. only
marginally suitable grassland habitat is present.
Atriplex parishii
Parish’s brittlescale
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
COV
Jun-Oct
80-6235
Occurs in chenopod scrub, playas, and
vernal pools in alkaline soils.
Presumed Absent: No suitable chenopod
scrub, playa, or vernal pool habitats are present
on site and no records occur within 5 miles.
Ayenia compacta
California ayenia
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
2B.3
none
Mar-Apr
490-3595
Occurs in Mojavean desert scrub and
Sonoran desert scrub often in rocky
habitats.
Presumed Absent: Although one historic
record (Occ # 52) occurs within 5 miles of the
site, the record is from 1929 and no suitable
rocky, desert habitat is present on the Project
site.
Brodiaea filifolia
thread-leaved brodiaea
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
THR
END
1B.1
COV
Mar-Jun
80-3675
Occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, playas, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools, and in openings
of chaparral. Often found in clay soils.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks clay soils
and suitable woodland, coastal scrub, playa,
grassland, vernal pool, and chaparral opening
habitat. In addition, there are no records of the
species within 5 miles of the site.
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Bloom
Period &
Elevation
(feet) Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Calochortus weedii var.
intermedius
intermediate mariposa lily
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
COV
May-July
345-2805
Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and
valley and foothill grasslands, in rocky,
calcareous soils.
Presumed Absent: The Project site lacks
rocky, calcareous soils and no suitable
chaparral, coastal scrub, or valley and foothill
grassland habitat is present. In addition, there
are no records within 5 miles.
Centromadia pungens ssp.
Laevis
smooth tarplant
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.1
COV
Apr-Sep
0-2100
Occurs in chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps, playas, riparian woodlands, and
valley and foothill grassland habitats.
Often found in alkaline soil.
Presumed Absent: Although the site contains
alkaline soils in the southeast corner, this
portion of the site is highly disturbed and
covered in gravel currently. Seven recent
records of the species occur within 5 miles of
the Project site; however, the site lacks scrub,
meadow and seep, playa, woodland, and
grassland habitat.
Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
Parry's spineflower
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.1
COV
Apr-Jun
900-4005
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and
foothill grassland habitat. Often found in
sandy or rocky openings. Generally
associated with larger alluvial plains.
Presumed Absent: Although three recent
records of the species occur within 5 miles of
the site, the Project site lacks chaparral,
woodland, coastal scrub, and grassland habitat.
Chorizanthe polygonoides
var. longispina
long-spined spineflower
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
COV
Apr-Jul
100-5020
Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub,
meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grasslands, and vernal pool habitat. Often
found in clay soil.
Presumed Absent: Although eight recent
records of the species have been recorded
within 5 miles of the site, the site lacks clay soils
and does not contain suitable chaparral, coastal
scrub, meadow and seep, grasslande, or vernal
pool habitat.
Clinopodium chandleri
San Miguel savory
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
COV
Mar-Jul
395-3525
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, riparian
woodland, and valley and foothill
grasslands. Often found in rocky,
gabbroic or metavolcanic soils.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks suitable
chaparral, woodland, coastal scrub, and valley
and foothill grassland habitat. In addition, there
are no records within 5 miles.
Comarostaphylis
diversifolia ssp.
Diversifolia
Summer Holly
Fed:
Ca:
CNPS:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
none
April-June
100-2590
Occurs on shady dry slopes of chaparral
or cismontane woodland often near
creeks or runoffs.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks dry slopes of
chaparral and cistomontane woodland. In
addition, there are no records within 5 miles of
the site.
Dodecahema leptoceras
slender-horned spineflower
Fed:
Ca:
CNPS:
MSHCP:
END
END
1B.1
COV
Apr-Jun
655-2495
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and alluvial fan coastal scrub
in sandy soils. Generally only located in
large alluvial systems.
Presumed Absent: No suitable chaparral,
woodland, or alluvial fan coastal scrub habitat
occurs on the Project site and no records occur
within 5 miles of the site.
Dudleya multicaulis
many-stemmed dudleya
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
COV
Apr-Jul
50-2590
Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and
valley and foothill grassland habitats.
Often found in areas of clay soil.
Presumed Absent: Although one recent record
(Occ # 6) occurs within 5 miles of the Project
site, the site lacks clay soils and does not
contain suitable chaparral, coastal scrub, or
grassland habitat.
Dudleya viscida
Sticky Dudleya
Fed:
Ca:
CNPS:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
COV
May-June
35-1805
Occurs in coastal bluff scrub, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub
in rocky soils.
Presumed Absent: No suitable coastal scrub,
chaparral, or woodland habitat occurs on the
Project site and no records occur within 5 miles
of the site.
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Bloom
Period &
Elevation
(feet) Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Eryngium aristulatum var.
parishii
San Diego button-celery
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
END
END
1B.1
COV
Apr-Jun
65-2035
Occurs in mesic habitats of coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal
pools.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks vernal pools,
coastal scrub, and suitable valley and foothill
grassland habiat. In addition, there are no
records within 5 miles of the site.
Geothallus tuberosus
Campbell’s liverwort
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.1
none
Ephemeral
liverwort
35-1970
Occurs in soils of mesic coastal scrub
habitats and vernal pools.
Presumed Absent: The Project site lacks
coastal scrub and vernal pool habitat. In
addition, there are no records within 5 miles.
Hesperocyparis forbesii
Tecate cypress
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.1
none
Perennial
evergreen
tree
260-4920
Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest,
and chaparral habitat. Often found in
areas with clay, gabbroic or
metavolcanics soils.
Presumed Absent: No suitable forest or
chaparral habitat is present on the Project site.
In addition, there are no records within 5 miles
of the site.
Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
none
none
1B.1
none
Feb-Jul
(Sep)
230-2660
Occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, and maritime chaparral in sandy or
gravelly soils.
Presumed Absent: No suitable cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, or maritime chaparral
habitat was present on the Project site. There
are no records within 5 miles.
Juncus luciensis
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
none
Apr-Jul
985-6695
Occurs in chaparral, Great Basin scrub,
lower montane coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps, and vernal pools.
Presumed Absent: No suitable chaparral,
forest, seep, or vernal pool habitat is present on
the Project site and there are no records within
5 miles.
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter’s goldfields
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.1
COV
Feb-Jun
5-4005
Occurs in coastal salt marshes and
swamps, playas, and vernal pools.
Presumed Absent: Although the literature
review revealed one historic record (Occ # 21)
and one recent record (Occ # 57) within 5 miles
of the site, no suitable marsh, swamp, playa, or
vernal pool habitat is present on the Project site.
Navarretia fossalis
spreading navarretia
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
THR
none
1B.1
COV
Apr-Jun
100-2150
Occurs in chenopod scrub, shallow
freshwater marshes and swamps, playas,
and vernal pools.
Presumed Absent: No suitable chenopod
scrub, marsh, playa, or vernal pool habitat is
present on the Project site and there are no
records within 5 miles of the site.
Navarretia prostrata
prostrate vernal pool
Navarretia
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
COV
Apr-Jul
10-3970
Occurs in coastal scrub, meadows and
seeps, alkaline valley and foothill
grasslands, and vernal pools.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks seeps,
vernal pools, coastal scrub, and suitable valley
& foothill grassland habitat. In addition, there
are no records within 5 miles of the site.
Nolina cismontana
chaparral Nolina
Fed:
Ca:
CNPS:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
none
(Mar) MayJuly
460-4185
Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and
areas with sandstone or gabbro.
Presumed Absent: No suitable chaparral and
coastal scrub habitat is present on the Project
site and there are no records within 5 miles of
the site.
Orcuttia californica
California Orcutt grass
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
END
END
1B.1
COV
Apr-Aug
50-2165 Occurs in vernal pools.
Presumed Absent: Although one historic
record (Occ # 42) of this species was observed
within 5 miles of the site in 1998, no vernal pool
habitat is present on the Project site.
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbit-tobacco
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
2B.2
none
(Jul)AugNov(Dec)
0-6890
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian
woodland. Often found in sandy, gravelly
soils.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks chaparral,
woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland
habitat. In addition, there are no records within 5
miles of the site.
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Bloom
Period &
Elevation
(feet) Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Sphaerocarpos drewiae
bottle liverwort
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.1
none
Ephemeral
liverwort
295-1970
Occurs in soil openings of chaparral and
coastal scrub.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks chaparral
and coastal scrub habitat and there are no
records within 5 miles.
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino aster
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
none
Jul-Nov
5-6695
Occurs in meadows and seeps, marshes,
and swamps, coastal scrub, cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest, and vernally mesic valley and
foothill grassland. Often found in
disturbed areas and near ditches,
streams, and springs.
Presumed Absent: No suitable habitat was
present on the Project site. Species occurs in
meadow and seep, marsh, swamp, coastal
scrub, cismontane woodland, coniferous forest,
and valley and foothill grassland communities.
In addition, no records occur within 5 miles of
the site.
Tetracoccus dioicus
Parry's Tetracoccus
Fed:
Ca:
CNPS:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
none
April-May
540-3280 Occurs in chaparral and coastal scrub.
Presumed Absent: There is no chaparral or
coastal scrub habitat on the Project site and
there are no records within 5 miles.
Tortula californica
California screw moss
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
1B.2
none
Moss
35-4790
Occurs in sandy soil of chenopod scrub
and valley and foothill grassland.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks chenopod
scrub and suitable valley and foothill grassland
habitat. In addition, there are no records within 5
miles.
Trichocoronis wrightii var.
wrightii
Wright’s trichocoronis
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
2B.1
COV
May-Sep
15-1425
Occurs in meadows and seeps, marshes
and swamps, riparian forest, and vernal
pools. Often found in alkaline soils.
Presumed Absent: No suitable seep, marsh,
riparian, or vernal pool habitat is present on the
Project site and there are no records within 5
miles.
Viguiera purisimae
La Purisima viguiera
Fed:
Ca:
CRPR:
MSHCP:
none
none
2B.3
none
April-Sept
1200-1395
Occurs in chaparral and coastal bluff
scrub.
Presumed Absent: There is no chaparral or
coastal scrub habitat on the Project site and
there are no records within 5 miles.
Federal Designations: State designations: CRPR Ranking
(Federal Endangered Species Act, (California Endangered Species Act, CDFG) 1A: Presumed extinct USFWS) 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California END: federally listed, endangered END: state-listed, endangered and elsewhere 2B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, THR: federally listed, threatened THR: state-listed, threatened but more common elsewhere CAN: Candidate for state listing 3: Review list of plants requiring more study FP: Fully Protected Species 4: Plants of limited distribution watch list Other Designations SSC: Species of Special Concern CRPR Threat Code COV: Covered under the Western Riverside MSHCP 0.1: Seriously threatened in California
0.2: Fairly threatened in California
0.3: Not very threatened in California
Source: California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) & California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CRPREI) Lake Elsinore, Lake Mathews, Steele Peak, Perris, Romoland, Murrieta, Wildomar, Sitton Peak, and Alberhill 7.5-minute quads.
APPENDIX B
Sensitive Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
THR
none
COV
Vernal pools and ephemeral wetlands. Typically, in
small and shallow pools with mud or grassy bottoms.
Presumed Absent: No ephemeral wetlands or
vernal pools are present on the Project site and
there are no records within 5 miles.
Branchinecta
sandiegonensis
San Diego fairy shrimp
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
END
none
none
Vernal pools and ephemeral wetlands in San Diego
and Orange Counties.
Presumed Absent: No ephemeral wetlands or
vernal pools are present on the Project site and
there are no records within 5 miles.
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
CAN
none
Found in coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade
crest and south into Mexico. Occurs in open grassland
and scrub habitats. Prefers a diet consisting of certain plant species including milkweeds, dusty maidens,
lupines, medics, phacelias, sages, clarkias, poppies,
and wild buckwheats. Nests are often located
Low Potential to occur: Marginally suitable
forging habitat is present within and adjacent to the
Project site and marginally suitable nesting habitat
for the species is present within the Project site. At
the time of the biological survey, approximately half
of the Project site contained flowering non-native
plant species such as coastal heron’s bill and
sweetclover, although most of the plants were not
in bloom at the time of the survey. In addition,
ornamental trees consisting of stands of oleander
occur adjacent to the Project site in the 500-foot
buffer. These plants could provide nectar sources
and foraging opportunities for Crotch bumble bee.
Gopher burrows and tufts of grass are present
within the western half of the Project site which
could provide nesting and overwintering habitat for
underground in abandoned rodent nests or above
ground in tufts of grass, old bird nests, rock piles, or cavities in dead trees.
the Crotch bumble bee. However, the western half
of the Project site that contains gopher burrows and
tufts of grass appears to be regularly disturbed by
regular mechanical ground disturbance such as
discing and/or mowing and by being actively used
as a staging area where large equipment is driven
and stored. These disturbances would reduce the
likelihood that the species would nest on the
Project site. There are two historic records of the
species within five miles of the Project site. The
nearest and most recent record was documented in
2001 approximately 3 miles southeast of the
Project site (Occ # 212).
Euphydryas editha quino
Quino checkerspot butterfly
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
END
none
COV
Chaparral and coastal sage scrublands in Riverside
and San Diego counties.
Presumed Absent: Although one recent record
(Occ # 83) occurs within 5 miles from 2002, the site
lacks chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat.
Streptocephalus woottoni
Riverside fairy shrimp
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
END
none
COV
Occurs in vernal pools, tectonic swales, and earth
slump basins in Riverside County.
Presumed Absent: Although one recent record
(Occ # 11) occurs within 5 miles of the site from
2010, no ephemeral wetlands or vernal pools are
present on the Project site.
Fishes
Gila orcutti
arroyo chub
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Creeks, streams, and rivers with areas of slow-moving
water with sand or mud bottoms. Ranges from San
Diego to San Luis Obispo county.
Presumed Absent: No creeks, streams, or rivers
are present on the Project site and there are no
records within 5 miles.
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus pop. 10
steelhead - southern
California DPS
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
END
none
none
Typically occurs in slow water steams or rivers.
Presumed Absent: No suitable water habitat for
this species is present on the Project site. No
records occur within five miles.
Amphibians
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Anaxyrus californicus
arroyo toad
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
END
SSC
COV
Occurs in desert wash, riparian scrub, riparian
woodland, south coast flowing waters, and south coast
standing waters habitat. Found in semi-arid regions
near washes or intermittent streams. Prefers rivers with sandy banks, willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores.
Often found in loose, gravelly areas of streams.
Presumed Absent. No suitable habitat is present
on the Project Site. Typically occurs near rivers
with riparian scrub. There are no records within 5
miles.
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
THR
SSC
COV
Occurs in aquatic, artificial flowing waters, artificial standing waters, freshwater marsh, marsh & swamp,
riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland,
Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters,
Sacramento/San Joaquin standing waters, south coast
flowing waters, south coast standing waters, and
wetland habitats. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent
Presumed Absent. No suitable aquatic or riparian
habitat is present on the Project site and no records
exist within 5 miles.
water for larval development. Often found in lowlands
and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep
water with dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian
vegetation.
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Open areas with sandy soils in a wide range of habitats including lowlands to foothills, coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, mixed woodlands, sandy washes, river
floodplains, alluvial fans, playas, and grasslands.
Vernal pools are essential for breeding and egg-laying.
Presumed Absent: Although 10 recent records
occur within 5 miles of the Project site, gravel
covers a large portion of the site and heavy
equipment, vehicles, and construction materials are
currently stored and operated on the site. The
western and northwestern portions of the site,
without gravel present, do not provide suitable
sandy habitat for the species. In addition, suitable
The species is almost completely terrestrial, entering
water only to breed.
pooling habitat for breeding and egg-laying was not
present. A pooling area was identified to the west of
the Project site; however, this was located across a
paved road and approximately 400 feet from the
Project site.
Taricha torosa
Coast Range newt
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Occurs in wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and
rolling grasslands. Burrows in moist soil or wood debris.
Presumed Absent: No chaparral, forest, rolling
grassland, or moist soil habitat is present on the
Project site and there are no records within 5 miles.
Reptiles
Anniella stebbinsi
southern California legless
lizard
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Coastal sand dunes, and variety of interior habitats
including sandy washes and alluvial fans. Occurs in
moist warm loose soil with plant cover and sparsely
vegetated beach dunes, pine-oak woodlands, desert
scrub, chaparral, and stream terraces with sycamores,
cottonwoods, or oaks. Sometimes found in suburban
gardens.
Presumed Absent: Although one recent record
(Occ # 177) occurs within 5 miles from 2010, no
suitable alluvial fan, sandy wash, dune, woodland,
desert scrub, chaparral, or stream terrace habitat
occurs on the Project site.
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy snake
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Most common in desert habitats but also found in arid
scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, low elevation coastal
scrub, valley-foothill hardwood, and chaparral. Prefers washes and sandy areas with patchy brush and rocks.
Perennial plants necessary in habitat for food source.
Presumed Absent: Three records of the species
occur within 5 miles, however, they are more than
40 years old. In addition, the site lacks desert,
scrub, wash, grassland, hardwood, and chaparral
habitats.
Crotalus ruber
red-diamond rattlesnake
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Found in coastal chaparral, arid scrub, rocky grassland, oak and pine woodlands, desert mountain slopes and
rocky desert flats. Diet consists of birds, lizards, and small mammals including ground squirrels, wood rats,
and rabbits.
Presumed Absent: Although four historic records
occur within 5 miles of the site, the site lacks
chaparral, scrub, grassland, woodland, desert
mountain, and desert flat habitat.
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Occurs in aquatic, artificial flowing waters,
Klamath/North coast flowing waters, Klamath/North
coast standing waters, marsh & swamp,
Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters,
Sacramento/San Joaquin standing waters, south coast
flowing waters, south coast standing waters, and
wetland habitats. Needs basking sites (logs, rocks, and exposed banks) and suitable (sandy banks or grassy
open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying.
Presumed Absent: Although the Riverside County
flood control drainage and basin are present
adjacent to the site, they are only temporarily
flooded and do not provide suitable habitat for the
species. One historic record (Occ # 828) occurs
within 5 miles of the site; however, the site does not
provide a suitable basking site or upland habitat for
the species due to the current construction
activities and disturbed nature of the site.
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
bluff scrub, coastal scrub, desert wash, pinon & juniper woodlands, riparian scrub, riparian woodland, and
valley & foothill grassland habitats. Requires open
areas for sunning, bushes to provide cover, and loose
soil for burial. Diet consists mainly of ants and also
small invertebrates. Most commonly found in lowlands
along sandy washes with scattered low bushes.
Presumed Absent: Although three recent records
of the species occur within 5 miles of the site, the
site lacks suitable chaparral, woodland, scrub,
wash, or grassland habitat for the species and does
not provide bushes for cover.
Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
coast patch-nosed snake
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Coastal scrub and semi-arid brushy areas and
chaparral in canyons, rocky hillsides, and plains.
Brushy or shrubby vegetation in coastal Southern
California. Require small mammal burrows for refuge
and overwintering sites. Diet consists mostly of lizards, along with small mammals.
Presumed Absent: Although one recent record
(Occ # 13) occurs within 5 miles of the site, the
Project site lacks coastal scrub, chaparral, rocky
hillsides, and plains. Vegetation on the Project site
was minimal and did not contain shrubs or brushy
areas.
Thamnophis hammondii
two-striped gartersnake
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Occur along aquatic habitats such as pools and creeks
usually near chaparral, rocky areas, brushland, oak
woodland, and conifer forests. Found in coastal
California from vicinity of Salinas to northwest Baja
California. From sea to about 7,000 ft elevation. Hunts in water.
Presumed Absent: Although the Riverside County
flood control basin and drainage are present
adjacent to the site, they are only temporarily
flooded and the site lacks suitable chaparral,
brushland, rocky areas, oak woodland, and forest
habitat. In addition, there are no records within 5
miles of the site.
Birds
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird (nesting
colony)
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
THR/SSC
COV
Occurs in freshwater marsh, swamp, and wetland
habitats. Largely endemic to California. Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley & vicinity.
Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and
foraging area with insect prey within a few kilometers of the colony. Forages in open habitat such as cultivated
fields and pastures.
Presumed Absent: Although the Project site is
located approximately 1 mile from Lake Elsinore
and one historic record (Occ # 364) from 1971
occurs approximately 5 miles from the Project site,
the site does not provide suitable foraging or
nesting habitat for the species.
Asio otus
long-eared owl
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Occurs in cismontane woodland, Great Basin scrub,
riparian forest, riparian woodland, and upper montane
coniferous forest habitats. Found in riparian
bottomlands grown to tall willows and cottonwoods.
Also found in belts of live oak paralleling stream
courses. Require adjacent open land, productive of
mice and the presence of old nests of crows, hawks, or
magpies for breeding.
Presumed Absent: No suitable woodland, scrub,
or forest habitat is present on the Project site. In
addition, the site lacks suitable breeding habitat
and there are no records within 5 miles.
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
coastal whiptail
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Arid habitats including chaparral, woodlands, and dry
riparian areas.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks suitable
chaparral, woodland, or riparian habitats and no
records occur within 5 miles.
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl (burrow &
some wintering sites)
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.
Occurs in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, Great Basin
grassland, Great Basin scrub, Mojavean desert scrub,
Sonoran desert scrub, and valley & foothill grassland
habitats. Subterranean nester, dependent upon
Low Potential to occur: No burrows were
observed during the biological survey on the
Project site and the site lacked loose, friable soils
preferred by the species. Low quality foraging
habitat is present on the western and northwestern
portions of the site. Two potential burrowing owl
burrows were observed outside of the Project site,
north of Collier Avenue. No sign of burrowing owl
was observed at either of the burrows. No suitable
burrowing mammals, most notably, the California
ground squirrel. Also found in vacant lots and airports. burrows were observed during the biological
survey. One recent record (Occ # 974) and one
historical record (Occ # 632) occur within 5 miles of
the Project site. Occ # 974 was recorded
approximately 4 miles from the site in 2007.
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle (nesting &
wintering)
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
FP
COV
Occurs in broadleaved upland forest, cismontane
woodland, coastal prairie, Great Basin grassland, Great Basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, pinon &
juniper woodlands, upper montane coniferous forest,
and valley & foothill grassland habitats. Found in rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert.
Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting habitat in most
parts of range; also large trees such as eucalyptus or
oak in open areas.
Presumed Absent: No forest, woodland, prairie,
grassland, & rolling foothill habitat occurs on the
Project site. Although large trees including
eucalyptus are present adjacent to the site to the
northeast which could provide suitable nesting
habitat, nesting activities are not expected on this
site because no cliff-walled canyons are located on
the Project site. There are no records within 5
miles.
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk (nesting)
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
THR
COV
Occurs in Great Basin grassland, riparian forest,
riparian woodland, and valley & foothill grassland
habitats. Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees,
juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, &
agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees.
Nests in solitary bush or tree, or in small groves.
Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as
grasslands or alfalfa/grain fields supporting rodent
populations.
Presumed Absent: No suitable grassland, forest,
or riparian woodland habitat occurs on the Project
Site and the site does not provide suitable foraging
habitat for the species. In addition, there are no
records within 5 miles.
Charadrius alexandrinus
nivosus
western snowy plover
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
THR
SSC
none
Sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large
alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly or friable soils for nesting.
Presumed Absent: Although one record (Occ #
92) was found approximately 1 mile away in 1974,
no sandy beaches, levees, or lake shores are
present on the Project site.
Coturnicops
noveboracensis
yellow rail
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Occurs in freshwater marshlands.
Presumed Absent: No suitable marshland habitat
is present on the Project Site. In addition, there are
no records within 5 miles.
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite (nesting)
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
FP
COV
Open habitat in lowlands including savanna, open
woodlands, marshes, and agricultural fields. Nests in
trees, riparian scrub areas, oak woodlands, and other
similar habitats.
Presumed Absent: Although one occurrence (Occ
# 112) from 2006 is within 5 miles, no suitable
lowland habitat is present on the Project site.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle (nesting &
wintering)
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
DL
END/FP
COV
Breeding habitat most commonly includes areas close
to coastal areas, bays, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, or other bodies of water that reflect the general availability of primary food sources including fish, waterfowl, or
seabirds. Nests in tall trees or on cliffs or pinnacles near open water.
Presumed Absent: No suitable tall trees, cliffs, or
body of water nesting habitat occurs on the Project
site and there are no records within 5 miles.
Icteria virens
yellow-breasted chat
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Occurs in riparian forest, riparian scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. Nests in low, dense riparian,
consisting of willow, blackberry, wild grape along
streams or at the edges of ponds or swamps. Forages
and nests within 10 ft of ground.
Presumed Absent: Although one record (Occ #
105) occurs within 5 miles of the site, no suitable
riparian habitat is present on the Project site for the species.
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike (nesting)
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Occurs in broadleaved upland forest, desert wash,
Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, pinon &
juniper woodlands, riparian woodland, chaparral, and
Sonoran desert scrub habitats. Prefers open country for hunting, with perches for scanning, and fairly dense
shrubs and brush for nesting.
Presumed Absent: Although one historic record
(Occ # 51) occurs within 5 miles of the Project site,
the site lacks suitable forest, wash, woodland,
scrub, and chaparral habitat. In addition, the site
lacks shrubs and brush for nesting and does not
provide suitable foraging habitat.
Polioptila californica
californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
THR
SSC
COV
Dry coastal slopes, washes, and mesas with areas of
low vegetation and coastal sage scrub including
California sagebrush, California buckwheat, salvia, and prickly pear cactus. Moves about actively in shrubs and low trees to forage. Generally found at elevations below 3,000 ft.
Presumed Absent: Although the literature review
revealed one recent and 20 historic records of this
species within 5 miles of the Project site, no
suitable coastal sage scrub habitat is present on
the Project site for the species. Suitable California
buckwheat scrub habitat occurs approximately 400
feet south of the Project site.
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo (nesting)
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
END
END
COV
Occurs in riparian forest, riparian scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. Summer resident of Southern
California in low riparian vegetation in the vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms, below 2,000 ft msl. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting
Presumed Absent: Mulefat was observed during
the survey in the pooling area southwest of the
Project site; however, it currently consists of a
small stand and does not provide suitable nesting
habitat. The cattail marshes within the NWI
mapped freshwater forested/shrub wetland located
outside of the Project site, approximately 0.1 mile
south, could offer suitable habitat for the species
into pathways, usually willow, mulefat, and mesquite. and 14 recent records of the species occur within 5 miles of the Project site; however, the Project site
does not contain suitable riparian or nesting habitat
for the species.
Mammals
Chaetodipus californicus
femoralis
Dulzura pocket mouse
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Chaparral, coastal scrub, and desert grasslands in San
Diego County along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Presumed Absent: The Project site lacks suitable
chaparral, coastal scrub, and grassland habitat. In
addition, there are no records within 5 miles of the
site.
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Sandy herbaceous areas, usually in association with
rocks or coarse gravel in southwestern California.
Primarily occurs in arid coastal and desert borders.
Typical habitats include sandy desert fans and shrub
communities such as coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
sagebrush, desert wash, desert scrub, desert succulent
scrub, pinyon-juniper, and annual grassland.
Presumed Absent: Although one historic record
(Occ # 1) occurs within 5 miles of the site, the
Project site lacks sandy desert fan and shrub
communities.
Dipodomys merriami
parvus
San Bernardino kangaroo
rat
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
END
CAN/SSC
COV
Gentle slopes of alluvial fans, on flood plains, along
washes, and on adjacent upland areas with soils
containing sand, loam, and gravel deposited by rivers
and streams. Can also be found in sandy soils that are
wind deposited. Found in alluvial sage scrub, coastal
sage scrub, and chaparral vegetation.
Presumed Absent: Although one historic record
(Occ # 102) occurs close to 100 years ago, the
Project site does not provide suitable alluvial scrub,
coastal scrub, or chaparral vegetation habitat for
this species.
Dipodomys stephensi
Stephens' kangaroo rat
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
END
THR
COV
Annual grasslands, coastal sage scrub with sparsely
spaced vegetation, loose friable soils, and flat or
slightly rolling terrain. Prefer open habitats with less than 50% protective cover.
Presumed Absent: Although 17 historic records
occur within 5 miles of the Project site, the site
lacks suitable grassland and coastal scrub habitat
for the species.
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff bat
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Roosts high above ground in rock and cliff crevices,
shallow caves, and rarely in buildings. Occurs in arid
and semiarid regions including rocky canyon habitats.
Presumed Absent: No suitable rock or cliff habitat
is present on the Project site and there are no
records within 5 miles.
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Lasiurus xanthinus
western yellow bat
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats and human developed
areas. Roosts in trees, particularly palms. Forages over water and among trees.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks suitable
riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitat. No
palm trees were observed during the biological
survey. In addition, there are no records within 5
miles of the site.
Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Variety of open or semi-open country including
grasslands, croplands, and sparse coastal scrub. Diet
consists primarily of a variety of grasses during spring and summer seasons, with various shrubs and forbs
during fall and winter seasons.
Presumed Absent: Although four historic records
occur within 5 miles of the Project site, the site
does not provide suitable open or semi-open
country habitat. In addition, the site is bounded by
two high traffic roads.
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert woodrat
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Coastal scrub of Southern California from San Diego
County to San Luis Obispo County. Also found in
coastal chaparral, sagebrush scrub, sandy desert,
Joshua tree woodland, pinyon-juniper pine, and boulder
habitats. Moderate to dense canopies preferred. They
are particularly abundant in rock outcrops & rocky cliffs & slopes.
Presumed Absent: The Project site does not
contain suitable chaparral, scrub, desert, woodland,
pine, or boulder habitats. In addition, there are no
records within 5 miles.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed bat
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Roosts in crevices of outcrops and cliffs, shallow
caves, and buildings. Found along rugged canyons,
high cliffs, and semiarid rock outcroppings.
Presumed Absent: No suitable rugged canyon,
cliff, or rock outcropping habitat is present on the
Project site and no records occur within 5 miles.
Onychomys torridus
ramona
southern grasshopper
mouse
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Low, semi-open, and open scrub habitats with flat,
sandy valley floors. Habitats include coastal and mixed chaparral, coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, low
sagebrush, and grasslands with interspaced shrubs.
Presumed Absent: The Project site lacks suitable
chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian scrub, sagebrush,
and grassland habitat. In addition, there are no
records within 5 miles of the site.
Perognathus
longimembris brevinasus
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
COV
Lower elevation grasslands, alluvial sage scrub, and
coastal sage communities in and around the Los
Angeles Basin. Can be found in fine, sandy soils
associated with washes or dunes. May hide under
weeds and dead leaves in addition to digging burrows.
Presumed Absent: The Project site does not
provide suitable grassland, alluvial scrub, or coastal
sage habitat. In addition, there are no records
within 5 miles.
Taxidea taxus
American badger
Fed:
CA:
MSHCP:
none
SSC
none
Low, semi-open, and open scrub habitats with flat,
sandy valley floors. Habitats include coastal and mixed chaparral, coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, low
sagebrush, and grasslands with interspaced shrubs.
Prefers open areas and may also frequent brushlands
with little groundcover. When inactive, occupies
underground burrow. Young are born in underground
burrows.
Presumed Absent: The site lacks suitable
chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian, sagebrush, and
grassland habitat for the species. In addition, there
are no records within 5 miles.
Federal Designations: State designations: Other Designations (Federal Endangered Species Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife (California Endangered Species Act, CDFW) COV: Covered under the Western Riverside MSHCP Service) END: Federally-listed, Endangered END: State-listed, Endangered THR: Federally-listed, Threatened THR: State-listed, Threatened FC: Federal Candidate Species CAN: Candidate for state listing DL: Federally-delisted SSC: Species of Special Concern
FP: Fully Protected Species
WL: Watch List Species
Source: California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) Lake Elsinore, Lake Mathews, Steele Peak, Perris, Romoland, Murrieta, Wildomar, Sitton Peak, and Alberhill 7.5- minute quads.
APPENDIX C
Representative Site Photographs
Photo 1. Project site from northeastern boundary at Collier Avenue with stored vehicles and heavy equipment present, facing south
Photo 2. Project site from southwestern boundary along W Minthorn Street showing pile of cut vegetation, gravel spread throughout the majority of the site, vehicle tracks, and construction materials storage, facing northeast
Photo 3. Rocky, disturbed soils and ruderal vegetation present on the northern and western portions of the Project site with evidence of recent mechanical disturbance, facing northeast
Photo 4. Representative photo of rocky, disturbed soils, ruderal vegetation, and vehicle tracks present on the northern portion of the Project site, facing north Photo 5. Location of NWI mapped riverine which runs through a Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District drainage and detention basin, adjacent to the Project site, facing southwest
Photo 6. Cattail marsh within the NWI mapped seasonally flooded freshwater forested/shrub wetland located and California buckwheat scrub south of the Project site, facing southwest
Photo 7. Two culverts, one of which is fully filled in with concrete, northeast of the Project site, facing north
Photo 8. Drainage located southwest of the Project site which appears to flow southwest to where it connects to a NWI mapped riverine, facing south Photo 9. Oleanders and telephone and power poles located adjacent to the Project site along W Minthorn Street which provide suitable nesting habitat Photo 10. Stand of eucalyptus, Peruvian pepper, and Mexican palo verde trees located northeast of the Project site along Collier Avenue, facing southeast Photo 11. California buckwheat scrub located approximately 450 feet south of the Project site, facing southwest
Photo 12. Disturbed California buckwheat scrub located north of the site between Collier Avenue and I-15
Photo 13. Potential burrowing owl burrow observed outside of the Project site (no sign of burrowing owl use), facing northeast
APPENDIX D
Plant Species Observed
Scientific Name Common Name
Baccharis salicifolia mulefat
Bromus madritensis* foxtail chess
Croton setiger turkey mullein
Cylindropuntia californica California cholla
Encelia farinosa brittlebush
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
Erodium cicutarium* + coastal heron's bill
Eucalyptus sp.* eucalyptus
Helianthus annuus common sunflower
Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed
Hirschfeldia incana* + short-podded mustard
Melilotus sp.* + sweetclover
Nerium oleander* oleander
Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco
Olea Europaea* olive
Parkinsonia aculeata* Mexican palo verde
Polypogon monspeliensis* + annual beard grass
Schinus mole* Peruvian pepper tree
Sonchus oleraceus* + common sowthistle
Stephanomeria sp. wirelettuce
Tamarix sp. tamarisk
Tribulus terrestris* + goathead
Typha sp. cattail
*Nonnative species
+Observed on the Project site
APPENDIX E
Wildlife Species Observed
Scientific Name Common Name
INSECTA INSECTS
Coccinella septempunctata*+ seven-spotted lady beetle
AVES BIRDS
Anthus rubescens+ American pipit
Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird
Charadrius vociferus+ killdeer
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Setophaga coronata+ yellow-rumped warbler
MAMMALIA MAMMALS
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail
Thomomys bottae+ Botta's pocket gopher
*Nonnative species
+Observed on the Project site
APPENDIX F
CNPS Search Results
1/21/22, 10:02 AM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California
Search Results
72 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria: Quad is one of [3311763:3311774:3311773:3311772:3311762:3311752:3311753:3311754:3311764] CA
RARE LOWEST HIGHEST
▲ SCIENTIFIC COMMON BLOOMING FED STATE PLANT GENERAL MICRO ELEVATION ELEVATION CA
NAME NAME LIFEFORM PERIOD LIST LIST RANK HABITATS HABITATS (FT) (FT) ENDEMIC Abronia villosa var. chaparral annual herb (Jan)Mar- None None 1B.1 Chaparral, Sandy 245 5250 aurita sand-verbena Sep Coastal
scrub,
Desert
dunes
Allium marvinii Yucaipa onion perennial Apr-May None None 1B.2 Chaparral 2495 3495 Yes bulbiferous herb
Allium munzii Munz's onion perennial Mar-May FE CT 1B.1 Chaparral, Clay, Mesic 975 3510 Yes bulbiferous herb Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Pinyon and
juniper
woodland,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Almutaster alkali marsh perennial herb Jun-Oct None None 2B.2 Meadows Alkaline 785 2625 pauciflorus aster and seeps
Ambrosia pumila San Diego perennial Apr-Oct FE None 1B.1 Chaparral, Alkaline 65 1360 ambrosia rhizomatous Coastal (sometimes),
herb scrub, Clay
Valley and (sometimes),
foothill Disturbed
grassland, areas
Vernal (often),
pools Sandy
(sometimes)
Amsinckia Douglas' annual herb Mar-May None None 4.2 Cismontane Dry 0 6400 Yes douglasiana fiddleneck woodland,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Arctostaphylos Rainbow perennial Dec-Mar None None 1B.1 Chaparral 675 2200 Yes rainbowensis manzanita evergreen shrub
https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1&quad=3311763:3311774:3311773:3311772:3311762:3311752:3311753:3311754:3311764: 1/10 1/21/22, 10:02 AM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result Asplenium
vespertinum
western
spleenwort
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Feb-Jun None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub
Rocky 590 3280
Atriplex coronata
var. notatior
San Jacinto
Valley
crownscale
annual herb Apr-Aug FE None 1B.1 Playas,
Valley and
foothill
grassland,
Vernal
pools
Alkaline 455 1640 Yes
Atriplex parishii Parish's
brittlescale
annual herb Jun-Oct None None 1B.1 Chenopod
scrub,
Playas,
Vernal
pools
Alkaline 80 6235
Atriplex serenana
var. davidsonii
Davidson's
saltscale
annual herb Apr-Oct None None 1B.2 Coastal
bluff scrub,
Coastal
scrub
Alkaline 35 655
Ayenia compacta California
ayenia
perennial herb Mar-Apr None None 2B.3 Mojavean
desert
scrub,
Sonoran
desert
scrub
Rocky 490 3595
Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved
brodiaea
perennial
bulbiferous herb
Mar-Jun FT CE 1B.1 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Playas,
Valley and
foothill
grassland,
Vernal
pools
Clay (often) 80 3675 Yes
Brodiaea
santarosae
Santa Rosa
Basalt
brodiaea
perennial
bulbiferous herb
May-Jun None None 1B.2 Valley and
foothill
grassland
1855 3430 Yes
Calochortus
catalinae
Catalina
mariposa lily
perennial
bulbiferous herb
(Feb)MarJunNone None 4.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
50 2295 Yes
https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1&quad=3311763:3311774:3311773:3311772:3311762:3311752:3311753:3311754:3311764: 2/10
1/21/22, 10:02 AM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily
perennial
bulbiferous herb
May-Jul None None 1B.2 Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Rocky 345 2805 Yes
Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum's
sedge
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Mar-Aug None None 4.2 Bogs and
fens,
Marshes
and
10 10825
swamps,
Meadows
and seeps
Caulanthus
simulans
Payson's
jewelflower
annual herb (Feb)MarMay(Jun)None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub
Granitic,
Sandy
295 7220 Yes
Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
smooth
tarplant
annual herb Apr-Sep None None 1B.1 Chenopod
scrub,
Meadows
and seeps,
Playas,
Riparian
woodland,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Alkaline 0 2100 Yes
Chorizanthe
leptotheca
Peninsular
spineflower
annual herb May-Aug None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
Granitic 985 6235
Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry's
spineflower
annual herb Apr-Jun None None 1B.1 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Openings, 900
Rocky
(sometimes),
Sandy
(sometimes)
4005 Yes
Chorizanthe
polygonoides var.
longispina
long-spined
spineflower
annual herb Apr-Jul None None 1B.2 Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Meadows
and seeps,
Valley and
foothill
grassland,
Vernal
pools
Clay (often) 100 5020
https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1&quad=3311763:3311774:3311773:3311772:3311762:3311752:3311753:3311754:3311764: 3/10 1/21/22, 10:02 AM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result Clinopodium
chandleri
San Miguel
savory
perennial shrub Mar-Jul None None 1B.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Riparian
woodland,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Gabbroic 395
(sometimes),
Rocky
(sometimes)
3525
Collomia
diversifolia
serpentine
collomia
annual herb May-Jun None None 4.3 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland
Gravelly 655
(sometimes),
Rocky
(sometimes),
Serpentinite
(sometimes)
1970 Yes
Comarostaphylis
diversifolia ssp.
diversifolia
summer holly perennial
evergreen shrub
Apr-Jun None None 1B.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland
100 2590
Convolvulus
simulans
smallflowered
morning-glory
annual herb Mar-Jul None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Clay, Seeps,
Serpentinite
100 2430
Deinandra
paniculata
paniculate
tarplant
annual herb (Mar)AprNovNone None 4.2 Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland,
Vernal
pools
Sandy
(sometimes),
Vernally
Mesic
(usually)
80 3085
Diplacus
clevelandii
Cleveland's
bush
monkeyflower
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Apr-Jul None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
Disturbed
areas
(often),
Gabbroic,
Openings,
Rocky
1475 6560
Dodecahema
leptoceras
slenderhorned
spineflower
annual herb Apr-Jun FE CE 1B.1 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub
Sandy 655 2495 Yes
Dudleya
multicaulis
manystemmed
dudleya
perennial herb Apr-Jul None None 1B.2 Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Clay (often) 50 2590 Yes
https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1&quad=3311763:3311774:3311773:3311772:3311762:3311752:3311753:3311754:3311764: 4/10 1/21/22, 10:02 AM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result Dudleya viscida sticky dudleya perennial herb May-Jun None None 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
bluff scrub,
Coastal
scrub
Rocky 35 1805 Yes
Eryngium
aristulatum var.
parishii
San Diego
button-celery
annual/perennial Apr-Jun
herb
FE CE 1B.1 Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland,
Vernal
pools
Mesic 65 2035
Erythranthe diffusa Palomar
monkeyflower
annual herb Apr-Jun None None 4.3 Chaparral,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
Gravelly 4005
(sometimes),
Sandy
(sometimes)
6005
Geothallus
tuberosus
Campbell's
liverwort
ephemeral
liverwort
None None 1B.1 Coastal
scrub,
Vernal
pools
35 1970 Yes
Harpagonella
palmeri
Palmer's annual herb
grapplinghook
Mar-May None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Clay,
Openings
65 3135
Hesperocyparis
forbesii
Tecate cypress perennial
evergreen tree
None None 1B.1 Chaparral,
Closedcone
coniferous
forest
Clay,
Gabbroic
(sometimes)
260 4920
Holocarpha virgata
ssp. elongata
graceful
tarplant
annual herb May-Nov None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
195 3610 Yes
Hordeum
intercedens
vernal barley annual herb Mar-Jun None None 3.2 Coastal dunes,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland,
Vernal
pools
15 3280
https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1&quad=3311763:3311774:3311773:3311772:3311762:3311752:3311753:3311754:3311764: 5/10 1/21/22, 10:02 AM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula
mesa horkelia perennial herb FebJul(Sep)None None 1B.1 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub
Gravelly 230
(sometimes),
Sandy
(sometimes)
2660 Yes
Juglans californica Southern
California
black walnut
perennial
deciduous tree
Mar-Aug None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Riparian
woodland
165 2955 Yes
Juncus acutus ssp. southwestern
leopoldii spiny rush
Juncus luciensis Santa Lucia
dwarf rush
Lasthenia glabrata Coulter's
ssp. coulteri goldfields
Lathyrus splendens pride-ofCalifornia
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
annual herb
annual herb
perennial herb
(Mar)MayJun
Apr-Jul
Feb-Jun
Mar-Jun
None None 4.2
None None 1B.2
None None 1B.1
None None 4.3
Coastal
dunes,
Marshes
and
swamps,
Meadows
and seeps
Chaparral,
Great Basin
scrub,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Meadows
and seeps,
Vernal
pools
Marshes
and
swamps,
Playas,
Vernal
pools
Chaparral
10 985
5 655
2955
6695
4005
5005
Yes
Lepechinia
cardiophylla
heart-leaved
pitcher sage
perennial shrub Apr-Jul None None 1B.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Closedcone
coniferous
forest
1705 4495
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass
annual herb Jan-Jul None None 4.3 Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub
5 2905
https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1&quad=3311763:3311774:3311773:3311772:3311762:3311752:3311753:3311754:3311764: 6/10 1/21/22, 10:02 AM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result Lilium humboldtii
ssp. ocellatum
ocellated
Humboldt lily
perennial
bulbiferous herb
MarJul(Aug)None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Riparian
woodland
Openings 100 5905 Yes
Lilium parryi lemon lily perennial
bulbiferous herb
Jul-Aug None None 1B.2 Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Meadows
and seeps,
Riparian
forest,
Upper
montane
coniferous
forest
Mesic 4005 9005
Limnanthes alba
ssp. parishii
Parish's
meadowfoam
annual herb Apr-Jun None CE 1B.2 Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Meadows
and seeps,
Vernal
pools
Vernally
Mesic
1970 6560 Yes
Microseris
douglasii ssp.
platycarpha
smallflowered
microseris
annual herb Mar-May None None 4.2 Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley and
foothill
grassland,
Vernal
pools
50 3510
Monardella
hypoleuca ssp.
intermedia
intermediate
monardella
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Apr-Sep None None 1B.3 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
1310 4100 Yes
https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1&quad=3311763:3311774:3311773:3311772:3311762:3311752:3311753:3311754:3311764: 7/10 1/21/22, 10:02 AM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result Monardella
macrantha ssp.
hallii
Hall's
monardella
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Jun-Oct None None 1B.3 Broadleafed
upland
forest,
Chaparral,
Cismontane
2395 7200 Yes
woodland,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Myosurus minimus
ssp. apus
little mousetail annual herb Mar-Jun None None 3.1 Valley and foothill
grassland,
Vernal
65 2100
pools
Navarretia fossalis spreading
navarretia
annual herb Apr-Jun FT None 1B.1 Chenopod
scrub,
Marshes
100 2150
and
swamps,
Playas,
Vernal
pools
Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate
vernal pool
navarretia
annual herb Apr-Jul None None 1B.2 Coastal
scrub,
Meadows
10 3970 Yes
and seeps,
Valley and
foothill
grassland,
Vernal
pools
Nolina cismontana chaparral
nolina
perennial
evergreen shrub
(Mar)MayJulNone None 1B.2 Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub
460 4185 Yes
Orcuttia californica California
Orcutt grass
annual herb Apr-Aug FE CE 1B.1 Vernal
pools
50 2165
Phacelia keckii Santiago Peak
phacelia
annual herb May-Jul None None 1B.3 Chaparral,
Closedcone
1790 5250 Yes
coniferous
forest
Polygala cornuta
var. fishiae
Fish's milkwort perennial
deciduous shrub
May-Aug None None 4.3 Chaparral,
Cismontane
330 3280
woodland,
Riparian
woodland
https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1&quad=3311763:3311774:3311773:3311772:3311762:3311752:3311753:3311754:3311764: 8/10 1/21/22, 10:02 AM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbittobaccoperennial herb (Jul)AugNov(Dec)None None 2B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
0 6890
scrub,
Riparian
woodland
Quercus
engelmannii
Engelmann
oak
perennial
deciduous tree
Mar-Jun None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Riparian
woodland,
Valley and
foothill
165 4265
grassland
Romneya coulteri Coulter's
matilija poppy
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
MarJul(Aug)None None 4.2 Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub
65 3935
Scutellaria
bolanderi ssp.
austromontana
southern
mountains
skullcap
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Jun-Aug None None 1B.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Lower
1395 6560 Yes
montane
coniferous
forest
Sibaropsis
hammittii
Hammitt's
clay-cress
annual herb Mar-Apr None None 1B.2 Chaparral,
Valley and
foothill
2360 3495 Yes
grassland
Sphaerocarpos
drewiae
bottle
liverwort
ephemeral
liverwort
None None 1B.1 Chaparral,
Coastal
295 1970 Yes
scrub
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San
Bernardino
aster
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Jul-Nov None None 1B.2 Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
5 6695 Yes
scrub,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Marshes
and
swamps,
Meadows
and seeps,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Tetracoccus dioicus Parry's
tetracoccus
perennial
deciduous shrub
Apr-May None None 1B.2 Chaparral,
Coastal
540 3280
scrub
https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1&quad=3311763:3311774:3311773:3311772:3311762:3311752:3311753:3311754:3311764: 9/10