Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item No. 16 (4 of 6)CITY OF LADE e6'1 LSIIYOIZE DREAM EXTREME FINDINGS OF 1' ACT operational emissions through compliance with the General Plan's goals and policies. Where project- specific analysis determines that air quality standards may be exceeded, the City shall require mitigation measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent practicable. All applicants for future development shall comply with AQMP control measures so as to reduce this impact to the greatest extent possible. Finding(Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less- than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RP -EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that GPU buildout within the boundaries of the 3rd Street Annexation would exceed project -level emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The discrepancy between thresholds and estimated emissions are somewhat misleading, however, as the thresholds are intended to identify individual projects that emit excessive amounts of regulated pollutants, and the GPU and the 3rd Street Annexation is a larger endeavor than a stand -alone development project. Buildout would also result in emission of pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in nonattainment of federal and /or state standards. Implementation of the policies set forth in the GPU and the above -cited mitigation measure would reduce air quality impacts associated with future development in the 3rd Street Annexation Area; however, considering that the region is in federal and state nonattainment status for certain criteria pollutants, such policies do not ensure that future development and associated emissions will not continue to contribute to regional nonattainment status for these pollutants. As a result, no mitigation is available that would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level. References: RP -EIR, pages 3.6 -14 through 3.6 -20 and 3.6 -34; General Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) Goal 6, Policy 6.4, Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related Implementation Program, Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare), Goal 1, Policy 1.1, Goal 2, Policies 2.1 through 2.3 and related Implementation Programs, Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation) Policy 14.2. d. Impact: New development under the GPU could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants. Mitigation: The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s): (_. z'. N r: It ,-. 1, 1 "' 1, :k 1 L.r If' 1 N : i 1.: P 12 (Y CG 12 .h lot 1 LC:'r:N1BrR ?01 1 11,8 C 1,_ 1 0 1 CITY OF , F IN I f�S OF Fa C'F LADE LSINOR E DREAM EXTREME In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required: MM Air Quality 5: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts on air quality emissions associated with sensitive land uses. Where project- specific analysis determines that air quality emissions will adversely affect sensitive receptors, the City shall require mitigation measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent practicable. Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less- than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RP -EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that new development under the GPU could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants. Commercial land uses are planned in proximity to sensitive receptors such as residential and recreational land uses. The SCAQMD and the CARB monitor most stationary sources of air pollutants that would be associated with commercial and industrial development through the issuance of emissions permits and monitoring of operations. Goals and policies within the GPU would mitigate the potential effects of exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants by providing buffers between emissions sources and sensitive receptors and requiring that air quality mitigation measures are incorporated into design features for sensitive receptors. However, even with the assessment of implementing development projects for potential air quality impacts upon sensitive receptors, implementation of mitigation measure MM Air Quality 5 and compliance with the goals, policies and implementation programs of the proposed GPU, impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations may not be reduced to below the level of significance. Therefore, this impact would be considered to be significant. References: RP -EIR, pages 3.6 -14 through 3.6 -20 and 3.6 -34; General Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) Goal 6, Policy 6.4, Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related Implementation Program, Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare), Goal 1, Policy 1.1, Goal 2, Policies 2.1 through 2.3 and related Implementation Programs, Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation) Policy 14.2. e. Impact: The policies would reduce the impact of implementation of the GPU in association with the future development process. However, the regional and cumulative C::ENERAL PLAN I <`Ih: ,k [_ Ptz0cvRAM F :IR i x_` c U: N11 u; 'f,. 11 2 0 1 1 CITY OF LADE LSINOIJE -�: DREAM EXTREME FINDINGS OF FAC'F impacts on other criteria pollutants concentrations related to conflicts or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan, violation of air quality standards set forth by the SCAQMD AQMP and contributions to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant in a nonattainment region would be considered significant. Mitigation: The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s): In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the proposed GPU, implementation of mitigation measures MM Air 1 through MM Air 6 is required. FindingNacts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed project which will reduce potentially significant effects on the environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available that will lessen these significant impacts to a less - than - significant level. Based upon the analysis presented in the RP -EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that additional development under the proposed project would contribute to regional growth and increase the emission of criteria pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Emission sources would increase with additional development. The emission sources from anticipated development by the GPU would include stationary sources, consumer products, and mobile sources. The emissions associated with mobile sources would be attributable to a population increase, causing increased traffic within the City limits and trips originating outside the City limits. Increased traffic, lower average speeds, and increased idling times can lead to an increase in local CO concentrations. The portion of the SCAB within which the project area is located is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone (03), PM,o and PM2.5 under State standards. Under federal standards, the area is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone (03), PM,o and PM2.5 and serious maintenance for carbon monoxide (CO) under federal standards. As shown in Table 3.6 -10 of the RP -EIR, GPU buildout would drastically exceed project - level emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD for all criteria pollutants resulting in significant adverse impacts. The goals, policies and implementation programs contained within the proposed GPU include measures that will reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including the reduction of vehicle trips through compatible land use planning, encouragement of alternative transportation methods, and improvement of traffic infrastructure to increase efficiency through coordination with regional and state governments. Future development projects in the City will be evaluated for conformance with the GPU policies related to air quality These measures include D C - -.NInErt 2011 1 0 3 CITY OF F 1 1 �S OF FACT LADE -,)) LSINOI_E DREAM EXTREME cooperating with regional and state governments to develop mitigation measures region -wide, and reducing air quality emissions from future development. However, implementation of the GPU policies related to air quality do not ensure that increased traffic and operational emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan would not contribute to future nonattainment of federal and state standards for criteria pollutants. Therefore the impact of buildout of the GPU related to increased air quality emissions is considered to be significant and not fully mitigated. References: RP -EIR, pages 3.6 -14 through 3.6 -20 and 3.6 -34, and 4.0 -4 through 4.0 -7; General Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) Goal 6, Policy 6.4, Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related Implementation Program, Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare), Goal 1, Policy 1.1, Goal 2, Policies 2.1 through 2.3 and related Implementation Programs, Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation) Policy 14.2. 3.4 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that the RP -EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the "...discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." The proposed project has been compared to three alternative development scenarios, including the No Project alternative as prescribed by CEQA. These alternatives include: 1) No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative; 2) Alternative 1 - Low Density Alternative and 3) Alternative 2 - High Density Alternative. A comparison of the alternatives is presented below. k;ENEIZAI- PI-AN i'tNA1, P1traG1aAM E:1 E2 D jr, c 1 :mi�r :R 201 1 1",,, <. r_ 1 0 4 CITY OF LADE " LSINOR-E DREAM EXTREME Alternatives Comparison 3.4.1 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT (NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE) CEQA requires that the EIR address a No Project Alternative. For purposes of this RP -EIR, the No Project Alternative is defined as the existing conditions plus the projects that had received planning approvals but were not completed prior to preparation of the Draft GPU. The No Project Alternative also consists of implementing the existing General Plan, zoning and other City regulations, and ordinances without a GPU. At buildout of the existing General Plan, there would be approximately 103,395 dwelling units and a population of 287,400 people. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Under the No Project Alternative, the City would continue to function under the direction of the existing adopted General Plan policies. As a result certain policies of the proposed project that may result in a reduction of impacts from those associated with the existing general plan, including those in the proposed GPU, Housing Element, Downtown Master Plan and Climate Action Plan, would not be implemented. Considering that implementation of the No Project Alternative would also allow for increased development within the City that would exceed that proposed as a part of the Proposed Land Use Plan the No Project Alternative would not reduce the severity of impacts from that identified for the Proposed Land Use Plan. Additional details regarding potential impacts of the No Project alternative compared with that of the Proposed Land Use Plan and the GPU are provided in Section 5.0 of the RP -EIR. The following is a summary comparison of the No Project Alternative with the Proposed Land Use Plan as well as the new goals and policies of the GPU. • Greater aesthetic impacts. This alternative would not include General Plan policies that would include improvements to the visual quality of the City or creation of well - defined (.rt;;N F RA 3., I'I,AN Ls I'I)A`2'is Dc( I;NiIii�'iz 2 ii11 QUANTITY DWELLING UNITS NO PROJECT/ PROPOSED EXISTING GENERAL ALTERNATIVE 1 - ALTERNATIVE 2 - SOCIo- ECONOMIC LAND USE PLAN LOW DENSITY HIGH DENSITY VARIABLE PLAN ALTERNATIVEI ALTERNATIVEz ALTERNATIVEz Total Dwelling Units 94,616 103,395 45,099 99,559 Projected Population 318,856 287,400 151,984 335,514 1 Source: City of Lake Elsinore 1990 General Plan, page III -15. Assumes 2.78 persons per dwelling unit. z Assumes 3.37 persons per dwelling unit. 3.4.1 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT (NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE) CEQA requires that the EIR address a No Project Alternative. For purposes of this RP -EIR, the No Project Alternative is defined as the existing conditions plus the projects that had received planning approvals but were not completed prior to preparation of the Draft GPU. The No Project Alternative also consists of implementing the existing General Plan, zoning and other City regulations, and ordinances without a GPU. At buildout of the existing General Plan, there would be approximately 103,395 dwelling units and a population of 287,400 people. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Under the No Project Alternative, the City would continue to function under the direction of the existing adopted General Plan policies. As a result certain policies of the proposed project that may result in a reduction of impacts from those associated with the existing general plan, including those in the proposed GPU, Housing Element, Downtown Master Plan and Climate Action Plan, would not be implemented. Considering that implementation of the No Project Alternative would also allow for increased development within the City that would exceed that proposed as a part of the Proposed Land Use Plan the No Project Alternative would not reduce the severity of impacts from that identified for the Proposed Land Use Plan. Additional details regarding potential impacts of the No Project alternative compared with that of the Proposed Land Use Plan and the GPU are provided in Section 5.0 of the RP -EIR. The following is a summary comparison of the No Project Alternative with the Proposed Land Use Plan as well as the new goals and policies of the GPU. • Greater aesthetic impacts. This alternative would not include General Plan policies that would include improvements to the visual quality of the City or creation of well - defined (.rt;;N F RA 3., I'I,AN Ls I'I)A`2'is Dc( I;NiIii�'iz 2 ii11 FINDINCS O ' CI CITY OF LADE LSII`�OI�E DREAM EXTREME public space. Overall, impact would be greater than the proposed project due to having fewer policies to protect scenic resources. • Greater impacts to air quality. The No Project Alternative would permit as much or more development than the Proposed Land Use Plan and would result in increased air quality impacts; • Greater greenhouse gas emissions impacts. The No Project Alternative would not include a Climate Action Plan with strategies and measures that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below the overall service population target. • Greater impacts to biological resources. The No Project Alternative would result in greater biological impacts than the Proposed Land Use Plan. The GPU has specific policies that implement the MSHCP which protect biological resources in the region that are not contained in the No Project Alternative and includes open space within and outside the MSHCP planning area which would not be included in the No Project Alternative. • Similar historic, cultural and paleontological resources impacts. • Similar impacts to geology and soils and mineral resources. • Similar impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. • Similar impacts to population and housing. • Greater impacts to hydrology and water quality. The No Project Alternative would increase offsite runoff due to increased surface coverage by pavements and structures, and the increase could be greater due to unregulated growth in the City. • Similar impacts to land use. • Similar agriculture and farmland impacts. • Similar noise impacts. • Greater impacts to public services, parks and recreation, and utilities and service systems. Under the No Project Alternative, existing General Plan policies would apply and development would continue to increase, putting additional demand on public services. There may be a larger increase in demand than for the Proposed Land Use Plan with this alternative, considering the projected housing level at buildout is higher. • Greater impacts to transportation and circulation. Buildout of the City in accordance with the existing General Plan would result in greater impacts on traffic compared with the Proposed Land Use Plan. As shown in Table 5.0 -4 of the RP -EIR, the existing General Plan's total number of housing units is greater than the Proposed Land Use l ► c Pit( >c: FA R Nj t3 t. 2 2 0 1 1 CITY OF , LADE LSINOIIE -� DREAM IXTREME FINDINGS OFFACT Plan. As a result, the traffic levels anticipated under the existing General Plan would be greater than the Proposed Land Use Plan. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not meet the objective of the General Plan Update to create a General Plan consistent with state law that guides city planning until 2030. Specifically the City is required by state law to periodically update the General Plan. In addition, under the No Project alternative, the City would continue to function under the direction of the existing adopted General Plan policies. Certain policies of the proposed project that may result in a reduction of impacts from that associated with the existing general plan would not be implemented. As a result, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not allow the City to achieve the following objectives of the proposed project: • Update the City's environmental baseline (i.e., existing) conditions to the year 2005 (2007 for the Housing Element). • Update the Housing Element of the General Plan. • Establish District Plans as part of the Land Use Element to allow for more focused planning of the City's many diverse neighborhoods. • Incorporate a Downtown Master Plan into the Historic District Plan to guide the future development of the City's historic downtown core. • Establish new land use designations including Gateway Commercial, Downtown Recreational, Commercial Mixed Use, Residential Mixed Use, and Lakeside Residential. • Create a Land Use Plan that encourages the creation of a vibrant and active downtown and a lake destination. • Create a plan to preserve the unique topography and visual character of the City through the preservation of steep slopes, ecologically significant areas, and public open space. • Incorporate a program for sustainable development into the General Plan, drawn from the City's Climate Action Plan (2011). • Create a General Plan that recognizes the rich history of the City and seeks to preserve its historical resources. • Create a user - friendly plan for City officials, staff, residents, and stakeholders of the City of Lake Elsinore. GR? N E RA, R. P 1,AN LT R"DATE I 1 N A1, P R20c RANI Ij1 E2. CITY OF ,^_-�,,q FINIANG S OFFACT LADE LSINORE —� DREAM EXTREME In addition, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not eliminate or substantially reduce impacts of the Proposed Land Use Plan. Considering that implementation of the No Project Alternative would also allow for increased development within the City that would exceed that proposed as a part of the Proposed Land Use Plan the No Project Alternative would not reduce the severity of impacts from those identified for the Proposed Land Use Plan. FEASIBILITY This alternative is feasible. COMPARATIVE MERITS Implementation of the No Project Alternative which consists of implementation of the existing General Plan has no comparative merits to implementing the Proposed Land Use Plan and the goals and policies of the proposed project. Certain policies of the proposed project that may result in a reduction of impacts from that associated with the existing general plan would not be implemented. Considering that implementation of the No Project Alternative would also allow for increased development within the City that would exceed that proposed as a part of the Proposed Land Use Plan, the No Project Alternative would not reduce the severity of impacts from that identified for the Proposed Land Use Plan. 3.4.2 ALTERNATIVE 1- LOW DENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Low Density Alternative allows for up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The Low Density Alternative includes the low end of the ranges of permitted density/ intensity of use per acre in each land use designation. The Low Density Alternative differs from the Proposed Land Use Plan because the densities are lower than the mid -range densities of the Proposed Land Use Plan. This alternative would allow for fewer dwelling units for those lands designated residential, including hillside, low, low- medium, medium, high, residential mixed use, and commercial mixed use. The Low Density Alternative includes commercial, industrial, and other non - residential. Under the Low Density Alternative, there would be approximately 45,099 dwelling units and a population of 135,159 people at buildout. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following is a summary comparison of Alternative 1 - Low Density Alternative with the Proposed Land Use Plan as well as the new goals and policies of the GPU. • Less aesthetic impacts. I':1c 1 108 i F N A 1, ' 1z 0 C 1z A ;v1 13 c '1_ »Hr.1z 201 t CITY OF LADE LSINOR E -� DREAM EXTREME FINDINGS OFFACT • Less impacts to air quality. Significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality would not be avoided by implementation of this alternative. • Less greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Since the Low Density Alternative will generate a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions than that of the Proposed Land Use Plan, implementation of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) would enable the City to more easily meet or exceed the overall service population target set forth in the CAP. • Less impacts to biological resources. A uniform reduction in permitted density would not in and of itself result in substantially different impacts compared to those anticipated under buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan. If development on more environmentally sensitive parcels was more highly restricted, this alternative could have less impact than the proposed project on those parcels; however, these impacts would still be potentially significant. • Similar historic, cultural and paleontological resources impacts. • Similar impacts to geology and soils and mineral resources. • Less impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. • Less impacts to population and housing. • Less impacts to hydrology and water quality. • Less impacts to land use. At its maximum, the Low Density Alternative allows for up to 18 dwelling units per acre. This alternative includes the low end of the ranges of dwelling units per acre in each land use designation. The Low Density Alternative differs from the Proposed Land Use Plan because the residential land use densities are lower than the mid -range densities than the Proposed Land Use Plan. As a result there would be substantially less housing units than that proposed by the Proposed Land Use Plan. Overall, the community character of the area would not significantly change with the implementation of the Low Density Alternative Land Use Plan, but rather would be enhanced, updated, and improved. Established communities will not be divided or changed significantly in a negative way with the implementation of the Low Density Alternative. • Similar agriculture and farmland impacts. • Less noise impacts. • Less impacts to public services, parks and recreation, and utilities and service systems. • Less impacts to transportation and circulation. CITY OF ^ FINDINGS O FACT LADE ) LSINOKE DREAM EXTREME PROJECT OBJECTIVES Implementation of Alternative 1 - Low Density Alternative would not meet the objective of the General Plan Update to Create a General Plan consistent with state law that guides City planning until 2030. The proposed project is intended to provide adequate housing and commercial services for the anticipated growth within the City and surrounding Sphere of Influence. Implementation of the Low Density Alternative and the associated reduction in the number of housing units would not allow the City to achieve housing goals anticipated for the City and Sphere of Influence as a part of the proposed Housing Element. The goals and policies of the proposed project would not change with implementation of the Low Density Alternative. As a result, it is anticipated that the following objectives of the proposed project could be achieved with implementation of the Low Density Alternative: • Update the City's environmental baseline (i.e., existing) conditions to the year 2005 (2007 for the Housing Element). • Create a General Plan consistent with state law that guides City planning until 2030 and update the General Plan development projections for the year 2030, including projections for dwelling units, non - residential square footage, population and employment. • Update the Housing Element of the General Plan (separately bound). • Establish District Plans as part of the Land Use Element to allow for more focused planning of the City's many diverse neighborhoods. • Incorporate a Downtown Master Plan into the Historic District Plan to guide the future development of the City's historic downtown core. • Establish new land use designations including Gateway Commercial, Downtown Recreational, Commercial Mixed Use, Residential Mixed Use, and Lakeside Residential • Create a Land Use Plan that encourages the creation of a vibrant and active downtown and a lake destination. • Create a plan to preserve the unique topography and visual character of the City through the preservation of steep slopes, ecologically significant areas, and public open space. • Incorporate a program for sustainable development into the General Plan, drawn from the City's Climate Action Plan (2011) • Create a General Plan that recognizes the rich history of the City and seeks to preserve its historical resources. E' I N :,k 1. I' It c0 G It ,% i1l E? I R F) I c I�: ivi n t<; rt 2 0 1 1 CITY OF LADE LSINORE FINDINGS Of FACT �ry DREAM EXTREME • Create a user - friendly plan for City officials, staff, residents, and stakeholders of the City of Lake Elsinore. FEASIBILITY Although initially identified as a potentially feasible alternative, this alternative is infeasible because it does not enable the City to meet its affordable housing targets under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the 2008 -2014 "fourth" planning period. The City's RHNA was addressed in the City's draft Housing Element which was recently approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Low Density Alternative is infeasible because it includes only 67 percent of the High Density Residential land uses that are permitted in the proposed Project which, in turn, reflects the approved Housing Element. The High Density Residential land use acreage shown on the proposed project is required because density is a critical factor in the development of affordable housing. As a practical matter, maintaining low densities typically increases the cost of construction and land per unit, decreasing the likelihood that the market will produce affordable housing and increasing the amount of public subsidy needed to induce such development. Conversely, higher density development lowers per -unit land cost, thereby facilitating affordable housing construction in a market - driven economy of scale. The highest residential density permitted by the City's General Plan is 24 units per acre in the High Density Residential land use designation. Density bonuses allow for a density of up to 35 units per acre in the High Density Residential categories. These density ranges encourage the development of housing for low- and very -low, income households given factors such as land values and construction costs in Lake Elsinore and the surrounding area are substantially lower than in other Metropolitan Statistical Areas, such as Los Angeles County. Therefore, the reduction in the amount of land designated for High Density Residential uses will adversely affect the City's ability to provide affordable housing and meet its RHNA targets. Additionally, this alternative is infeasible because although the Low Density Alternative Land Use Plan reflects most of the existing land use entitlements that were established by the City's 18 adopted Specific Plans and existing Development Agreements, it does not include all of the adopted Specific Plans and Development Agreements densities. Inasmuch as the Low Density Alternatives does not reflect all of these land use commitments it could not be implemented without amending Specific Plans and breaching existing Development Agreements, and therefore is found to be infeasible. (.gRNiiRAL PLAN L11 -DA'VI 1 I N N 1, P it()G It ,4 Al 1 )a(`E NiBr, ct 201 1 P.,% < is 1 I I CITY OF FINDING'S ACT LADE LSINOKE DREAM EXTREME COMPARATIVE MERITS Implementation of Alternative 1 - Low Density Alternative would reduce impacts of the Proposed Land Use Plan related to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, population and housing, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, transportation and circulation, public services, parks and recreation and utilities and service systems due to the decrease in the amount of housing and population anticipated within the City and Sphere of Influence. Potential impacts related to historic, cultural and paleontological resources, geology and soils and mineral resources, and agriculture and farmland would be similar to those of the proposed project. However, implementation of this alternative would not avoid significant and unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Land Use Plan related to air quality, noise and transportation and circulation. 3.4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 - HIGH DENSITY ALTERNATIVE The High Density Alternative allows for a buildout that reflects the high end of the ranges of permitted density/ intensity of use per acre in each land use designation described in the proposed GPU. This alternative is different from the Proposed Land Use Plan in that the densities for land use designations are higher and would allow a larger number of dwelling units for those areas designated residential, including hillside, low, low- medium, medium, high, residential mixed use, and commercial mixed use. The High Density Alternative includes commercial, industrial, and other non - residential uses. Under the High Density Alternative, there would be approximately 99,559 dwelling units and a population of 296,703 people at buildout. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following is a summary comparison of Alternative 1 - Low Density Alternative with the Proposed Land Use Plan as well as the new goals and policies of the GPU. • Greater aesthetic impacts. • Greater impacts to air quality. However significant and unavoidable impacts of the High Density Alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Land Use Plan. • Greater greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Since this alternative will generate a higher level of greenhouse gases than that of the proposed project, it would be more difficult for the City to meet or exceed the overall service population target described in the Climate Action Plan. • Greater impacts to biological resources. • Greater historic, cultural and paleontological resources impacts. +. FNI:FtA L P1...ANN U 11 I),1 "F'1� DF- C_'E1%9nI;rL 201 1 PAGE 1 12 CITY OF LADE " LSINOIZE r� DREAM EXTREME • Similar impacts to geology and soils and mineral resources. • Greater impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. • Greater impacts to population and housing. • Greater impacts to hydrology and water quality. • Greater impacts to land use. • Similar agriculture and farmland impacts. • Greater noise impacts. • Greater impacts to public services, parks and recreation, and utilities and service systems. • Greater impacts to transportation and circulation. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The goals and policies of the GPU would not change with implementation of Alternative 2 - High Density Alternative. As a result it is anticipated that the following objectives of the GPU could be achieved with implementation of the High Density Alternative: • Update the City's environmental baseline (i.e., existing) conditions to the year 2005 (2007 for the Housing Element). • Create a General Plan consistent with state law that guides City planning until 2030 and update the General Plan development projections for the year 2030, including projections for dwelling units, non - residential square footage, population and employment. • Update the Housing Element of the General Plan (separately bound). • Establish District Plans as part of the Land Use Element to allow for more focused planning of the City's many diverse neighborhoods. • Incorporate a Downtown Master Plan into the Historic District Plan to guide the future development of the City's historic downtown core. • Establish new land use designations including Gateway Commercial, Downtown Recreational, Commercial Mixed Use, Residential Mixed Use, and Lakeside Residential • Create a Land Use Plan that encourages the creation of a vibrant and active downtown and a lake destination. C u N 1�Ii 11.. 11 1.,AN U P1 ), 3 ris FtNA1, PIt0CtzA, N1 11IR 131 (:Itmiirn 20 11 P,,%< r 113 FINDINGS INNS OF FACT C IT Y ( F _. LAKE LSI1`IOR E DREAM EXTREME • Incorporate a program for sustainable development into the General Plan, drawn from the City's Climate Action Plan (2011) • Create a General Plan that recognizes the rich history of the City and seeks to preserve its historical resources. • Create a user - friendly plan for City officials, staff, residents, and stakeholders of the City of Lake Elsinore. However, visual impacts on aesthetics would be greater under the High Density Alternative than under the Proposed Land Use Plan. This alternative would allow for more development at a higher density, which would likely block more views because of height or proximity to adjacent development. Fewer view corridors would exist between buildings, which would impact views. Development of vacant or underutilized land under this alternative could also result in a significant change to the visual character of the City. Light and glare impacts associated with development of vacant land would be more than the proposed project. As a result, it is not anticipated that the following objective would be achieved with implementation of Alternative 2 - High Density Alternative: • Create a plan to preserve the unique topography and visual character of the City through the preservation of steep slopes, ecologically significant areas, and public open space. FEASIBILITY This alternative is feasible. COMPARATIVE MERITS Implementation of Alternative 2 - High Density Alternative would result in greater impacts than the Proposed Land Use Plan related to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, historic, cultural and paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, population and housing, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, public services, parks and recreation, utilities, service systems and transportation and circulation, due to the increase in the amount of housing and population anticipated with the City and Sphere of Influence. Potential impacts related to geology and soils and mineral resources, and agriculture and farmland would be similar to those of the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative would also result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the Proposed Land Use Plan related to air quality, noise and transportation and circulation. DF- - CEINAn r, xa 201 i P .a c:, r•. 1 1 4 CITY OF LADE LS I BOIJE -�: DREAM EXTREME 4.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FINDINGS € F FAC'1. For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum: • The November 15, 2005 and December 5, 2005 Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project. • All comments and correspondence submitted by public agencies and members of the public during a City- hosted public scoping meeting held on November 30, 2005. • The December 2007 Draft Program EIR and April 2008 Draft Final Program EIR, including appendices and technical studies included or referenced in the December 2007 Draft Program EIR. • All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45 -day public comment period on the Draft Program EIR which began on or about December 6, 2007. • All comments and correspondence submitted by members of the public during a City- hosted public meeting on the GPU and Draft EIR held on January 10, 2008. • All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the proposed project and the December 2007 Draft Program EIR during public hearings held before the Planning Commission and the City Council. • The May 26, 2011 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Reissued) distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties on or about May 26, 2011. • All comments received from the public and agencies during the public review period for the Reissued NOP. • The August 2011 Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("RDP - EIR") and December 2011 Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RP- EIR "), including appendices and technical studies included or referenced in the August 2011 RDP -EIR. • All comments and correspondence submitted by responsible and trustee agencies, interested parties and jurisdictions, or members of the public during the 45 -day public comment period on the RDP- EIR which began on or about September 7, 2011. I %' 1 :N .,', i_ P It () c. RANI 1 c: 1, Ni i3 I,- Iz 2 0 1 1 P.Acwl 1 15 CITY ()F ^ LADE L S I IYOIJE -�: DREAM ExTREME • The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the proposed project. • All findings and resolutions adopted by the City decision makers in connection with the proposed project, and all documents cited or referred to therein. • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the proposed project. • All documents and information submitted to the City by responsible, trustee, or other public agencies, or by individuals or organizations, in connection with the proposed project, the August 2011 Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") or the December 2011 Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RP- EIR ") through the date the City Council approved the proposed project. • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations. • Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above. • Any other materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the record of proceedings is the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division, whose office is located at 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. The City has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the proposed project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Council decision - makers as part of the City's files generated in connection with the proposed project. I IN A1. PR(,-)<.RA 1 F,IR DEC-VN1Brit 201 1 1 1 6 CITY OF LADE LSINORE DREAM EXTREME I I , INI)INGS OFFACT 5.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan Update has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the proposed project. With implementation of the proposed project including its goals, policies and implementation programs and project - specific mitigation measures identified for each environmental topic, most of the potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a level considered less than significant, except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed below and in Section 3.0 of the Findings. The City of Lake Elsinore has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. Impacts, in these and all other cases, have been mitigated to the extent considered feasible. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in this section. 5.1.1 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The City, County of Riverside, and Caltrans use different standards to define intersection deficiency. The majority of the study intersections are located within the City (and are thus subject to City criteria for intersection deficiency); four intersections are in the County of Riverside (subject to County criteria). Twelve intersections located on SR 74 have been evaluated based on Caltrans' LOS criteria. The City of Lake Elsinore, in general, requires that peak -hour intersections operate at LOS "D" or better to be considered acceptable. Therefore, any City intersection operating at LOS "E" or LOS "F" will be considered deficient. However, LOS "E" will be considered acceptable in both the Main Street Overlay area and the Ballpark District Planning Districts in an effort to increase activity and revitalize these areas. Any intersection operating at LOS "F" will be considered deficient. The Riverside County General Plan established, as a countywide target, a minimum LOS "C" on all County - maintained roads and conventional state highways. As an exception, LOS "D" may be allowed in Community Development areas, at intersections with any combination of Secondary Highways, Major Highways, Arterials, Urban Arterials, Expressways, conventional state highways, or freeway ramp intersections. LOS "E" may be allowed in designated 141-_ c: i,' iNi nt,:It 201 1 P :h c e_ 1 1 7 FINDINGS 01, ` C.I. CITY OF LADE LSIBOU M DREAM EXTREME community centers to the extent that it would support transit - oriented development and walkable communities. Caltrans defines LOS "D" with delay less than 45 seconds per vehicle (mid -point of LOS "D ") at signalized intersections to be acceptable; any delay longer than this is deficient. At buildout of the proposed GPU in 2030, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS during the peak hours with improvements that are consistent with the proposed roadway system and the implementation of the GPU Circulation Element and Capital Improvements Program. Therefore, with implementation of the improvements and goals and policies set forth by the Circulation Section of the Community Form Chapter and implementation of the City -wide Capital Improvements Program as a part of future development, impacts of the project on traffic levels would be reduced to less than significant. However, the actual construction of the required intersection and roadway improvements cannot be determined with certainty. It is anticipated that as development that implements the proposed Land Use Plan proceeds, each development will pay for and construct general plan level road improvements on roads adjacent to the development sites. However, the timing of road improvements needed to improve level of service on a regional basis will be determined by the City of Lake Elsinore, other cities in western Riverside County, the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Transportation Commission based upon need and the availability of funding. Thus, it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in time to mitigate the proposed project's traffic and circulation impacts to below the level of significance. Therefore, the proposed project will cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) and even after mitigation, project- related and cumulative impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. 5.1.2 NOISE An increase in traffic volume throughout the local and regional circulation system as a result of GPU implementation has the potential to generate noise levels along roadway corridors that would exceed standards set forth in the Zoning Code and the General Plan's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. The corridors of I -15, SR- 74, and Railroad Canyon Road are particularly sensitive to additional traffic noise due to the substantial noise levels currently generated along these routes. At 2030 traffic levels associated with buildout of the GPU, the ADT on the freeways and roadways would increase. As shown by comparing Figures 3.5 -2 and 3.5 -4 in the RP -EIR, the increase in traffic at GPU buildout would extend the 70 dBA, 65 dBA and 60dBA Ldn contours beyond existing conditions. As FINAL III, i R I_)Lc L-1an1,:R 201 1' :1 4r I.._ 1 1 8 CITY OF , LADE v LSIN ORE FINI)INGS OF 1. „ T DREAM EXTREME shown in Table 3.5 -4 and Table 3.5 -5 in the RP -EIR, residential uses are generally incompatible within the 65 Ldn contour. Considering that the 65 Ldn contour would extend beyond existing conditions, additional existing and planned residential areas in proximity to major public roadways could be subject to exterior noise levels that exceed City standards. As a result, traffic levels at buildout of the GPU could result in significant noise impacts on existing land uses. The intent of the GPU and the Zoning Code is to provide relevant objectives, policies, and standards that would be applied to individual development projects to reduce the traffic noise associated with buildout of the GPU to a less- than - significant level. Many future development projects implemented pursuant to the policies of the GPU and zoning regulations will require project -level analysis of traffic noise impacts, and any related impacts will require project - specific mitigation to assure that receptors are not exposed to traffic noise exceeding allowable levels. However, in some cases where realignments or upgrades of roadways are proposed or traffic levels will increase substantially, such as that anticipated for I -15, Riverside Drive, and Grand Avenue, there may be no mitigation that would adequately reduce future traffic noise as experienced by existing land uses or future development projects, leading to identification of significant and unmitigated impacts at the project level. Developments implemented in accordance with the GPU have the potential to place new receptors in areas that would receive traffic noise (both existing and future) exceeding standards set forth in the Zoning Code and the General Plan's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. GPU policy sets forth the City's intent to enforce the Zoning Code and other noise standards and to reduce traffic- related noise. Placement of new uses in areas subject to excessive traffic noise would be considered a significant impact. On a programmatic basis, all noise impacts would be less than significant if GPU policies are followed. It is the ultimate intent of the GPU policies and the mitigation measures detailed above to reduce significant noise impacts for GPU and 3rd Street Annexation projects to less - than- significant levels. However, due to the programmatic level of noise analysis for this EIR it is impossible to make a definitive statement that all noise - related impacts associated with increased traffic noise on existing land uses and future development projects would be reduced to a less- than - significant level through policies proposed in the GPU. This increased traffic noise would be contributing to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. 5.1.3 AIR QUALITY As shown in Table 3.6 -10 in the RP -EIR, GPU buildout would drastically exceed project -level emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD for all criteria pollutants resulting in significant adverse impacts. The goals, policies and implementation programs contained within 1NA1: P1t0r,1tAAl 1a;1 R 1 1_ C" 1,: il-1 11 V' 12 2 0 1 1 I':nfm1•; 1 19 F1N1;1 N GS c F FA C" , CITY OF . Lift DE^ LSINORE ^� DREAM EXTREME the proposed GPU, including those listed in Table 3.6 -8 and Table 3.4 -5 in the RP -EIR include measures that will reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including the reduction of vehicle trips through compatible land use planning, encouragement of alternative transportation methods, and improvement of traffic infrastructure to increase efficiency through coordination with regional and state governments. Future development projects in the City will be evaluated for conformance with the GPU policies related to air quality These measures include cooperating with regional and state governments to develop mitigation measures region -wide, and reducing air quality emissions from future development. The regional and cumulative impacts on CO, NOx, and Os concentrations related to conflicts or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan, violation of air quality standards set forth by the SCAQMD AQMP, and contributions to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant in a nonattainment region would be considered significant. The 2007 AQMP established a program to reduce the SCAB's emissions based on 2004 SCAG population projections. As discussed in Section 3.1 (Land Use and Planning) and Section 3.13 (Population and Housing) of this PEIR, the GPU would accommodate a population increase that surpasses current SCAG projections. The GPU would obstruct implementation of the AQMP by not contributing to its goals of regional reductions of air pollutant emissions in the region, and it would conflict with the AQMP in its inconsistency with AQMP projections for pollutant emissions. Control measures in the AQMP include: promotion of lighter color roofing and road materials; requiring clean fuels, supporting alternative fuels, and reducing petroleum dependency; pursuit of long -term advanced technologies measures; process modifications and improvements; best management practices; and market incentives. However, no mitigation is available that would make the GPU consistent with the AQMP and reduce this impact to a less - than- significant level. This obstruction and conflict are a significant air quality impact that cannot be mitigated through implementation of the air quality- related measures set forth in the GPU. Non - vehicular operational emissions resulting from activities associated with residential and nonresidential development anticipated under the GPU would incrementally add to total air emissions. Implementation of the policies set forth in the GPU would reduce operational emissions impacts associated with future development in the City; however, considering that the region is in federal and state nonattainment status for certain criteria pollutants, such policies do not ensure that future development and associated emissions will not continue to contribute to regional nonattainment status for these pollutants. As a result, the contribution of development and associated operational emissions anticipated with buildout of the GPU to violation of state and federal ambient air quality standards would be a significant impact on air quality. 1DI c_ v-Ni JLtl,,ax 201 1 P,,4. < a "t 2 0 CITY OF oot��t-- LADE C LSINOIJE FINDINGS ' A T �: DREAM EXTREME 5.2 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a), the City Council must balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits" of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks' in determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the proposed project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures; having considered the entire administrative record on the project; the City Council has weighed the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation in regards to air quality, noise and transportation and circulation. While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impacts regarding air quality, noise and transportation and circulation are significant under CEQA thresholds, the City Council finds that the unavoidable adverse impacts that will result from adoption and implementation of the proposed project are acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of the project. The City Council further finds that except for the proposed project, all other alternatives set forth in the RP -EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of project objectives and /or of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives. In making this determination, the factors and public benefits specified below were considered. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the proposed project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would be able to stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Records of Proceedings, as defined in Section 4.0. The City Council finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under CEQA Section 21081(a)(3), that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 5.2.1 PROJECT BENEFITS • The proposed project will create a General Plan that is consistent with State law and which will guide City planning until 2030. C= F' ti V It 1 1, P 1, A N U P 1) A'F U 1 1 N A 1_. P It 0 c, It A vt : 1 I2 DI) <, LNinx 1t 2Q 1 1 PAc E 121 FINDINCS OF FACT CITY OF , LADE LSINORE -�: DREAM EXTREME • The proposed project and Proposed Land Use Plan would create a user - friendly plan for City officials, staff, and the community of Lake Elsinore. • The Community Form chapter of the GPU would provide goals and policies as well as a strategic framework to ensure that future development will be designed to encourage land use compatibility, and implementation of an adequate transportation and circulation systems as well as provision of parks and recreation, housing, growth management strategies, and district plans. • The Public Safety and Welfare chapter of the GPU includes goals and polices to ensure that future development will address issues associated with the safety and welfare of the City's general public. The sections include air quality, hazards and hazardous materials (including natural disasters), community facilities and services and noise. • The Resource Protection and Preservation chapter sets forth policies and programs to ensure that future development will be designed to encourage preservation of biological resources, open space, water resources, cultural, historical and paleontological resources, aesthetics and a sustainable environment. • The proposed project and Proposed Land Use Plan would create a General Plan that recognizes the rich history of the City and preserves historical resources. • The proposed project would create a Land Use Plan and policies that encourage the creation of a vibrant and active downtown and a lake destination. • The proposed project includes the adoption of a Downtown Master Plan which creates a vision and strategy that benefits the City of Lake Elsinore by identifying the goals, objectives and desires of the community and developing an urban design framework and guidelines that implement them; thereby assuring that future development within the plan area will celebrate the lake, create a vibrant and sustainable downtown, create a civic identity, and improve walkability and connectivity. • The proposed project and Proposed Land Use Plan will provide housing for the City of Lake Elsinore and Inland Empire's growing population. • The proposed project and Proposed Land Use Plan will provide for a variety of housing opportunities, ranging in size and affordability to meet the housing needs of the region. • The proposed project includes an updated Housing Element that is consistent with State law and which will provide an action -plan for maintaining and expanding the housing supply for all income levels in the City of Lake Elsinore for the planning period of July 1, ia 2031 1 PA(� I 122 CITY OF LADE LSINOR E -�: DREAM EXTREME FINDINGS 01" FACT 2008 to June 30, 2014. The Housing Element includes policies and programs that provide for the Identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs, resources and constraints; a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for preservation, improvement and development of housing; Identification of adequate sites for housing; and adequate provision for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community, including both lower and higher incomes. • The GPU and Proposed Land Use Plan will provide for increased acreage for recreation uses and open space. • The proposed project establishes goals, policies and implementation programs that will reduce potential growth - related impacts by providing the framework for a growth management strategy that promotes and maximizes mobility, livability, prosperity, and sustainability in the City. Compliance with these goals, policies and implementation programs and with federal, State and local regulatory requirements will assure that necessary services and infrastructure sufficient to serve the planned growth will be development over the projected buildout period of 20 years. Therefore, the proposed project will direct growth and development so that it occurs in a manner that is manageable for the City and avoids significant physical impacts that result from population growth. • The proposed project includes a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which will be the City of Lake Elsinore's long -range plan to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Implementation of the CAP will guide Lake Elsinore's actions to reduce its contribution to climate change and will support the State of California's emissions reduction targets. The CAP is also intended to support tiering and streamlining of future projects within Lake Elsinore pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15183.5. • The proposed GPU provides for an estimated 19,420,687 square feet of commercial uses, 16,424,826 square feet of industrial uses and 9,344,617 square feet of public institutional uses. By GPU buildout in 2030, there would be an estimated 118,792 employees working within the City and its SOL The jobs -to- housing ratio based on the GPU would be 1.26, compared to 0.68 based on current SCAG projections. The proposed project's framework for improving the Jobs /Housing Balance in the City of Lake Elsinore will benefit the environment by reducing commute times and distances between residential areas and employment centers and associated environmental effects such as noise, air quality and traffic and will create a higher quality of life for current and future residents of the City. &aiN.AI. E'110GrzAn11 1 B12. 1EC: E-ldii3[,,iz 201 1 P.,% c i,_ 1 2 3 FINDINGS OFFA(.1' CITY OF LADE LSINOR E DREAM EXTREME • Implementation of the existing General Plan has no comparative merits to implementing the Proposed Land Use Plan and the goals and policies of the proposed project. The total number of housing units permitted with the existing general plan would be 103,395 compared with 94,616 for the Proposed Land Use Plan. The proposed buildout housing level represents a reduction in total housing units from that anticipated by the existing 1990 General Plan. The population projected within the City under the existing General Plan would be 287,400 compared with 318,856 for the Proposed Land Use Plan. However, this is due to an increase in projected average household size from 2.78 persons per dwelling unit to 3.37 persons per dwelling unit. Otherwise due to the overall reduction in the number of housing units, the projected buildout population level would be anticipated to be less than that anticipated by the existing 1990 General Plan. Considering that implementation of the Existing General Plan would allow for increased development and population growth within the City that would exceed that proposed as a part of the Proposed Land Use Plan, development in accordance with the existing General Plan alternative would result in greater impacts to the environment from that identified for the Proposed Land Use Plan. • The proposed project will facilitate completion of Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation') consisting of the proposed annexation of approximately 320 acres from the County to the City. The proposed annexation would allow increased efficiency in service provision to the area, which is almost completely surrounded by incorporated land, and would represent a more orderly planning and development pattern than would occur if the land remained in the County's jurisdiction. PROIGRAINt FAR .)t_.c E- Vtt1Eto 201 1 11 Ar-,i� 124 CITY OF LADE LSIIYOIZE FINDINGS OF FACT DREAM EXTREME n 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL RP -EIR The City of Lake Elsinore has reviewed and considered the Final RP -EIR in evaluating the proposed project. The City Council finds that the Final RP -EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et segJ, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines; and that the Final RP -EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Lake Elsinore; and that no new significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the City after circulation of the Recirculated Draft Program FIR which would require recirculation. The City Council certifies the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: 6.1 FINDINGS The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the RP -EIR and, although subject to all goals, policies and implementation programs set forth in the proposed project and all applicable and feasible mitigation measures, the impacts cannot be mitigated to less- than - significant levels: 6.1.1 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION a. Impact: With implementation of the Land Use Plan all roadways within the study area would be expected to have substantial traffic volumes and nearly all of the intersection analysis locations would require improvements. Therefore, implementation of the GPU and Land Use Plan could result in potentially significant impacts on traffic levels within the City and SOI. b. Impact: With implementation of the Land Use Plan all roadways within the study area would be expected to have substantial traffic volumes and nearly all of the intersection analysis locations would require improvements. However, the actual construction of the required intersection and roadway improvements cannot be determined with certainty. Thus, it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in time to mitigate the proposed project's traffic and circulation impacts to below the level of 6.1.2 NOISE a. Impact: Implementation of the GPU would increase the number of vehicles utilizing the local circulation system and place new receptors (including residences, commercial developments, etc.) near roadways that experience varying levels of traffic noise. Additional vehicles on roadways would result in additional noise generated along the affected roadways, and more receptors adjacent to noisy roadways would mean that more people would potentially be affected by traffic noise conditions. 1)LCEN /It1ER, 2011 V.AC F, 1 2 e CITY OF FINDf NGS OF FACT 1' LADE ` LSII`IOIZE DREAM EXTREME In accordance with the GPU, projects will be required to demonstrate their compliance with the relevant noise standards, but where projects do not comply, specific mitigation measures will be required. Due to the programmatic nature of noise analysis on this project, such impacts and mitigation measures cannot be identified at this time. b. Impact: Since the traffic associated with the proposed project in conjunction with the increased traffic generated by cumulative growth would extend the 70 dBA, 65 dBA and 60dBA Ldn contours beyond existing conditions, cumulative long -term traffic - related noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 6.1.3 AIR QUALITY a. Impact: The development shown in the proposed Land Use Plan will generate additional regional area- and mobile- source emissions over time from both stationary sources and mobile sources. GPU buildout would drastically exceed project -level emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The discrepancy between thresholds and estimated emissions are somewhat misleading, however, as the thresholds are intended to identify individual projects that emit excessive amounts of regulated pollutants, and the GPU is a much larger endeavor than a stand -alone development project. Buildout of the GPU would also result in emission of pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment of federal and /or state standards. The GPU would obstruct implementation of the AQMP by not contributing to its goals of regional reductions of air pollutant emissions in the region, and it would conflict with the AQMP in its inconsistency with AQMP projections for pollutant emissions. b. Impact: The regional and cumulative impacts on CO, NOx, and 03 concentrations related to conflicts or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan, violation of air quality standards set forth by the SCAQMD AQMP, and contributions to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant in a nonattainment region would be considered significant. C. Impact: The land use designation changes would result in more commercial areas, which could increase traffic emissions. Development proposed in accordance with the Land Use Plan within the 3rd Street Annexation could result in short- and long -term impacts related to air quality that would be considered significant. d. Impact: New development under the GPU could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants. e. Impact: The policies would reduce the impact of implementation of the GPU in association with the future development process. However, the regional and cumulative 1C,x Ie .\ ['. F2 rA I.e I' L A \ U 1' I> ,A FE, I' I NA 1.., P It C) f. It A VI L 1 R 11? I� C: I R'I I" I,- ]z 2 0 1 1 P � C> g; 1 2 6 CITY OF IIM 61-1 1 LAI-E LSINORE _� DREAM EXTREME FINDINGS O FACT impacts on other criteria pollutants concentrations related to conflicts or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan, violation of air quality standards set forth by the SCAQMD AQMP and contributions to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant in a nonattainment region would be considered significant. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed project have been identified in the RP -EIR and will be mitigated to less- than - significant levels with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, except for the impacts listed above and described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly achieve most of the basic objectives of the project have been considered. Some of the alternatives were feasible but did not meet the project objectives; others met the project objectives but were determined not to be feasible. Since the alternatives considered either did not serve to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts, or because the alternatives offer no feasible means of avoiding the significant effects identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the alternatives are rejected in favor of the proposed project. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the project. lF I N A I_: P it (7 C_g CY A ;,l PAGE, 127 FINAL RECIRCULATED PROGRAM EIR December 13, 2011 Attachment 17 CITY OF LADE LSIN0R,E DREAM EXTREME CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL RECIRCULATED PROGRAM EIR SCH #2005121019 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 CONTACT: RICHARD J. MACHOTT, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANT (951) 674 -3124, EXT. 209 PREPARED BY: RICHARD J. MACHOTT, LEER GREEN ASSOCIATE (WITH THE ALTUM GROUP) ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANT/ PROJECT MANAGER CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 DECEMBER 2011 This Page Intentionally Left Blank CITY OF LADE ' LSINORE ` DREAM EXTREME TABLE OF CONTENTS 'rable of Contents PAGE 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................... ..........................1.0 -1 1.1 Relationship to the Recirculated Draft Program EIR ................... ............................... 1.0 -1 1.2 Public Review Summary .................................................................. ............................... 1.0 -1 1.3 List of Persons, Organizations and Public Agencies Commenting on the Recirculated Draft Program EIR ............................................. ..........................1.0 -4 2.0 Response to Comments ................................................................... ............................... 2.0 -1 StateAgencies ...................................................................... ............................... 2.0 -2 Native American Heritage Commission .......................... ............................... 2.0 -2 Department of Toxic Substances Control ......................... ............................... 2.0 -9 Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse andPlanning Unit .............................................................. ............................... 2.0 -15 RegionalAgencies ............................................................ ............................... 2.0 -17 Riverside Transit Agency .................................................. ............................... 2.0 -17 Southern California Association of Governments ......... ............................... 2.0 -19 South Coast Air Quality Management District .............. ............................... 2.0 -32 LocalAgencies ................................................................... ............................... 2.0 -42 Riverside County Fire Department ................................. ............................... 2.0 -42 Cityof Canyon Lake .......................................................... ............................... 2.0 -43 Riverside County Waste Management Department ..... ............................... 2.0 -47 Riverside County Transportation Department .............. ............................... 2.0 -54 Cityof Menifee ................................................................... ............................... 2.0 -56 Other Comments Received ............................................. ............................... 2.0 -59 Pala Band of Mission Indians ........................................... ............................... 2.0 -59 Morongo Band of Mission Indians .................................. ............................... 2.0 -60 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians ..................................... ............................... 2.0 -61 Endangered Habitats League - Letter dated October 18, 2011 .................. 2.0 -65 Endangered Habitats League - Letter dated October 19, 2011 .................. 2.0 -75 Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians ................................. ............................... 2.0 -77 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ... ............................... 2.0 -102 RGP Planning & Development Services ....................... ............................... 2.0 -104 SierraClub ........................................................................ ............................... 2.0 -115 2.1 Copies of Comment Letters .... ............................... ...................... ............................... 2.0 -118 F atv,,,1. 12 It, c:r1z[ tf1.A.FED PJxc0c.;R <. U'll 1 LC3'Nt13Eit 2011 CITY OF able � f °�ntc� t 1, LADE LSIIYOIZE ` DREAM EXTREME 3.0 Corrections, Errata, and Changes from RDP -EIR Included in Final RecirculatedProgram EIR ................................................. ............................... 3.0 -1 3.1 Introduction ....... ............................... ................................................. ............................... 3.0 -1 3.2 Corrections /Errata and Changes .................. ............................... 3.3 Modified RDP -EIR Figures ............................. 4.0 Recirculated Draft Program EIR Notices and Distribution Information ............. 4.0 -1 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 5.1 .............. ........ ............................... 5.0 -1 on 52 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........................... ............................... 5.0 -3 I= E' N U t2,%!� 1' L A N l7 1'17,%`T j, 11:NA1_, CZ� c r1zc'�.?1.A'rL1'a F'1r0e =R AA /1 F1 R Da,c:1 Ev111F'R 201 CITY OF LADE ' LSI1`I�I�E Section I ,i - Intl °c�dt�clic�n - -, -` DREAM EXTREME 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") has been prepared to comply with the requirements of Section 15089 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). As required by Section 15132 of the Sate CEQA Guidelines, this Final EIR consists of the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP- EIR "), comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR, a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the RDP -EIR, the responses of the Lead Agency (City of Lake Elsinore) to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, and any other information added by the Lead Agency. Additionally, pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.) and Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.), public agencies are required to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP ") to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in an Environmental Impact Report are implemented. The MMRP for the subject EIR is included in Section 5.0 of this document. 1.1 RELATIONSHIP TO THE RECIRCULATED DRAFT PROGRAM EIR Minor changes that better clarify or correct minor inaccuracies in the RDP -EIR are described in the Corrections, Errata, and Changes from RDP -EIR to Final Recirculated Program EIR ( "RP- EIR") section of this document (Section 3.0). Together with the MMRP, the Environmental Findings and the other information in the Record of Proceedings (Administrative Record), these documents constitute the environmental disclosure record that will serve as the basis for the City Council decision - makers decision on the proposed project. 1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW SUMMARY The EIR process typically consists of three parts - the Notice of Preparation, the Draft EIR and the Final EIR. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR and a description of potential adverse impacts were distributed on or about November 15, 2005 and December 5, 2005. Pursuant to Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, recipients of the NOP were requested to provide responses within 30 days after their receipt of the NOP. A copy of the NOP and the NOP distribution list are located in Appendix A of the RDP -EIR. Copies of comments regarding the NOP, received by the City, are also included in Appendix A of the RDP -EIR. In addition, in compliance with Section 21083.9 of CEQA and Section 15082 (c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City held a public scoping meeting on November 30, 2005, to receive public and agency comments. Comments received from the public and agencies during the public review period for the NOP and the public scoping meeting were considered in the preparation of the PEIR prepared for the proposed project. FINAI. E:v(:11tO- UE:A'I'ED PE2C)4:RAVI FAR Dr;CI`N1BI�:1i 201 1 PAc:Ii i.o -1 Section 1.0 - Introduction CITY OF LADE LSINOIZE ` DREAM EXTREME In 2007, a draft Program EIR ( "PEIR ") was prepared for the proposed project in accordance with then - current CEQA regulations and guidelines. The first draft PEIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review period on or about December 6, 2007. Notification was provided to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), responsible and trustee agencies, and all interested parties and jurisdictions pursuant to the requirements of Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. In April 2008, a Final PEIR for the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update was prepared but was not certified by the City Council. Rather, City staff began work on a substantive revision of the proposed project. In addition to revisions to the Land Use Element and Land Use Map, and the updating of the Traffic Impact Study to reflect those changes, further revisions to the GPU were made in order to incorporate (1) an updated Housing Element that was not a part of the original General Plan scope; (2) the provisions of a Downtown Lake Elsinore Master Plan, impacting both the Historic District Plan and the immediately adjacent portions of the Lake Edge District Plan; and (3) a Climate Action Plan. The combined changes to the General Plan Update made between 2008 and 2011 triggered the need to update, revise, and where necessary expand upon the analysis of General Plan Update impacts presented in the first draft PEIR. As lead agency, the City determined that the new information added to the PEIR after its initial circulation in 2008, made in response to changes in the GPU is "significant" and that the first circulated PEIR has been changed so extensively that an updated and revised draft PEIR must be re- circulated so that the public might have a meaningful opportunity to comment upon identified new impacts and /or mitigation measures. Due to the combined changes made to the proposed project, the City of Lake Elsinore determined that it was appropriate to reissue the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (NOP). The reissued NOP for an EIR and a revised description of potential adverse impacts were distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties on or about May 26, 2011. The reissued NOP was posted by the Riverside County Clerk on May 27, 2011. Additionally, a notice advising of the availability of the reissued NOP was published in the Press - Enterprise newspaper on May 27, 2011. Pursuant to Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, recipients of the NOP were requested to provide responses within 30 days after their receipt of the reissued NOP. Copies of the reissued NOP and the NOP distribution list are located in Appendix A of the RDP -EIR. Copies of comments regarding the revised NOP, received by the City, are also included in Appendix A of the RDP - EIR. The RDP -EIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review period on or about September 6, 2011. The RDP -EIR and the Notice of Availability/ Notice of Completion were provided to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), and to more than 100 responsible and trustee agencies, and interested parties and jurisdictions pursuant to the requirements of Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Documents were distributed via U.S. Postal Service and /or FedEx. The required distribution to the State Clearinghouse was completed by FedEx on September 7, 2011. The official State Clearinghouse review period began on September 7, 2011 and ended on k <rv,et: lid :c.r�xc:e Pkt >c raAV1 UIR 2 0 1 1 CITY OF LADE LSINOR E DREAM EXTREME Section 1.0 - introduction October 21, 2011. The standard response letter confirming completion of the State Clearinghouse review period is included in Section 4.0 of this document. General public Notice of Availability/ Notice of Completion was given by publication in the Press - Enterprise on September 7, 2011. As required by Public Resources Code Section 21092.3, a copy of the Notice of Availability/ Notice of Completion was posted with the Riverside County Clerk on September 7, 2011. Copies of the published notice and the posted public notice are included in Section 4.0 of this document. As provided in the public notice and in accordance with CEQA Section 21091(d), the City of Lake Elsinore accepted written comments through October 21, 2011. Twenty (20) letters & e- mails were received during and immediately after the 45 -day public review period. Responses to all of the letters /e -mails received, prepared pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, are included in Section 2.0 of this Final Recirculated Program EIR. The City of Lake Elsinore will provide a written proposed response to each commenting public agency no less than 10 days prior to certifying the Recirculated Program EIR in compliance with the provisions set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) which states that "At least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report, the lead agency shall provide a written proposed response to a public agency on comments made by that agency which conform with the requirements of this division." C U-:Nt:14;X 1, P1,AN UP1>A'a 1-: FINAL R1- :4(AJZC:U1 Ara n P1t(._)Gr AV1 FAR E C" t NT 11 1� n 2 0 1 1 PAGU 1.0-3 CITY OF Section I nO - Introduction . LADE -;AF LSINOKE DREAM EXTREME 1.3 LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE RECIRCULATED DRAFT PROGRAM EIR State Agencies Native American Heritage Commission Department of Toxic Substances Control Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Regional Agencies Riverside Transit Agency Southern California Association of Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District Local Agencies Riverside County Fire Department City of Canyon Lake Riverside County Waste Management Department Riverside County Transportation Department City of Menifee Other Comments Received Pala Band of Mission Indians Morongo Band of Mission Indians Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Endangered Habitats League (2 letters) Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Metropolitan Water District of Southern California RGP Planning & Development Services Sierra Club f PLAN U PI F1 €v A I.., K F, C I Iz 2 0 1 1 CITY OF LADE LSINOI�—E Section 2.0 --- Response to Co nnnents DREAM EXTREME 2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the responses to comments presented in this section address specific, relevant comments on environmental issues raised in the submitted comment letters. For clarification, copies of the original letters, including all attachments, are included in Section 2.1 following the Responses to Comments. C EN E- RA I. I'E.AN U YID A'I'L 1'1N.AI.: RF,C:1HCI:tI..,R1. "I'E';I) PI2C)( =E2A'Y[ F "IR DI 4c En'l13U11 201 1 PACE 2.0-1 CITY OFD . Section 2.0 — Response to Comments LAKE LSMORE `v DREAM EXTREME STATE AGENCIES Response to Native American Heritage Commission Comment Letter dated: September 30, 2011 The State of California Native American Heritage Commission provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation "), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated September 30, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on October 3, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Native American Heritage Commission Comment #1 The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the State of California 'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. 3`d 604). The NAHC wishes to comment on the proposed project. This project is subject to California Government Code § §65352.3, 65352.4, 65560, et seq. (SB 18) This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as `consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9. Response to Native American Heritage Commission Comment #1 This comment sets forth the role of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as a "trustee agency" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). Additionally, this comment states that the proposed project is subject to the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 18 and states that the NAHC letter includes applicable state and federal statutes including Public Resources Code Section 5097.9. Section 3.2 (Cultural and Paleontological Resources) of the RDP -EIR discusses the proposed project's potential impacts upon cultural resources. SB 18 is discussed on page 3.2 -30 of the RDP -EIR. The discussion of SB 18 describes the City of Lake Elsinore's compliance with the IG FIN EtoAt. PI-A, N U1't',x-rt, FtNAt.: R2t;c rtzC't;t.:A- t!,' 1), PEY.0c tzAM [ RR I.DLc-r-nt13r]z 201 1 I'.�c. t< 2.0 -2 CITY OF LADE LSINOR E Section 2.0 -- Response to Comments lColl J DREAM EXTREME �ry provisions of SB 18 as it pertains to the proposed project. Section 3.2 of the RDP -EIR also provides summaries of many applicable state and federal statutes. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Native American Heritage Commission Comment #2 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA — CA Public Resources Code 21000 - 21177, amendments effective 3/18/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a `significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. The NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF) search resulted as follows: Native American cultural resources were identified in the USGS coordinates identified. Also, the absence of archaeological resources does not preclude their existence. Response to Native American Heritage Commission Comment #2 This comment summarizes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions regarding cultural resources. This comment states that CEQA requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, including archaeological resources, requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Additionally, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the area of potential effect, and if so, to mitigate that effect. The NAHC also states that it performed a "Sacred Lands File search" and identified Native American cultural resources in the project area. In compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Lake Elsinore prepared the RDP -EIR which assessed the proposed project's potential impacts upon historical resources, including archaeological resources, in Section 3.2 (Cultural and Paleontological Resources) and in Section 4.0 (Cumulative Impacts). These sections of the RDP - EIR include mitigation measures that reduce potential impacts to less - than - significant levels. Therefore, the City of Lake Elsinore has complied with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines referenced in this comment. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. FE NA -E. RI "<,tJzc-EfE_.A_ €'x.E> P €<0<.IzAVI U,IR 1-3 r: < t-, rvi n , Ex 2 O I 1 PAC ;e 7.0 -3 CITY OF -� Section 2.0 - -- Wsponse to Comments LADE LSINOI�E ` DREAM EXTREME Native American Heritage Commission Comment #3 The NAHC "Sacred Sites,' as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code § §5097.94(a) and 5097.96. Items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r). Response to Native American Heritage Commission Comment #3 The City of Lake Elsinore acknowledges that the items in the NAHC Sacred Land Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP - EIR are required. Native American Heritage Commission Comment #4 Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American contacts, to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Special reference is made to the Tribal Consultation requirements of the California 2006 Senate Bill 1059: enabling legislation to the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109 -58), mandates consultation with Native American tribes (both federally recognized and non federally recognized) where electrically transmission lines are proposed. This is codified in the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 4.3 and §25330 to Division 15. Response to Native American Heritage Commission Comment #4 This comment recommends consultation with Native American tribes and "urges' the City to contact the list of Native American Contacts on an attach list of Native American contacts. This letter also makes reference to specific requirements that mandate consultation with Native American tribes where electrical transmission lines are proposed. The proposed project does not propose electrical transmission lines and therefore the enabling legislation to the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 is not applicable. The list of Native American contacts attached to the NAHC comment letter includes nineteen Native American contacts representing twelve different Tribes. The City of Lake Elsinore, as Lead Agency, sent each of these twelve Tribes a copy of the "Notice of Availability/ Notice of Completion of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report" and a copy of the RDP -EIR on or about September 6, 2011. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. FtN.A, t. RF,c.ttoC:I1t.A.r.LrP PR0Gto,kAll F"IR Dt;c r.- vi t3t•:tx 2 OI 1 CITY OF `-• LADE , LSINOIJE Section 2.0 -- Response to Comments ��J DREAM E?TREME 1Wry Native American Heritage Commission Comment #5 Furthermore, pursuant to CA Public Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources. Response to Native American Heritage Commission Comment #5 The City of Lake Elsinore, as Lead Agency, sent each of the twelve Tribes identified on the NAHC- provided list of Native American contacts a copy of the "Notice of Availability/ Notice of Completion of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report" and a copy of the RDP -EIR on or about September 6, 2011. This documentation included a complete project description which contained all the pertinent project information necessary for the consulted Native American tribes to review and provide input regarding the RDP -EIR discussion of cultural resources. Mitigation measures MM Cultural/Paleontological Resources 2 through MM Cultural/Paleontological Resources 8 address any discovery and documentation of unknown archaeological resources discovered during ground disturbance activities. Mitigation measure MM Cultural/Paleontological Resources 6 specifically states that all "sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible." No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Native American Heritage Commission Comment #6 Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.0 4371 et seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to "research" the cultural landscape that might include the 'area of potential effect.' C;ENUR -..1, ['E,AN UP1),A'V1 E'ENAE: RECr:ERC'E €E.,A,E,E'E> PE2C > <3ExAi4YE E,112 D Eti C E. NJ 11 E n 2 0 1 1 CITY OF Section 2.0 -- Response to Comments LAKE LSINOPT ` DREAM EXTREME Response to Native American Heritage Commission Comment #6 Section 3.2 (Cultural and Paleontological Resources) of the RDP -EIR discusses the proposed project's potential impacts upon cultural resources. The "Regulatory Setting" portion of this section of the RDP -EIR describes the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and other federal, State and local laws and regulations. The NAHC recommends consultation conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106 and 4(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), NAGPRA and other federal requirements. However, these federal are not applicable to the proposed project. Instead, this proposed Project is subject to SB 18 and environmental analysis pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. As Lead Agency under CEQA, the City of Lake Elsinore is responsible for compliance with applicable State and local regulations. Because there is no federal involvement, the Project is not considered a "federal undertaking." Therefore regulations and guidelines set forth in NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA do not apply to the proposed project. However, the City acknowledges that any individual projects that are implemented in accordance with the proposed project will be required to comply with any applicable federal, State and local regulatory requirements. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Native American Heritage Commission Comment #7 Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and /or cultural significance identified in or near the APEs and possibility threatened by proposed project activity. Response to Native American Heritage Commission Comment #7 The NAHC recommends that confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should be considered as protected by California Government Code Section 6254(r). Section 6254(r) exempts from disclosure under the California Public Records Act the following: "Records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code maintained by, or in the possession of, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency." The City of Lake Elsinore concurs with this comment regarding the confidentiality of these types of historic properties. The RDP -EIR does not identify the specific locations of any cultural C I:NI•'.ItA I.. PLAN U 1'I)A "I'l, ' INA1: RU-1C IIt4:I.;1 A'FI•:D VIt0GItAt1ill E 1 R IE) I,: K tc: m I3 I? I2 2 0 1 1 2.0 -6 CITY OF LADE LSINOR E Section 2.0 -- Response to Con, DREAM EXTREME resources. Table 3.2 -3 (General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs) beginning on page 3.2 -32 of the RDP -EIR cites Policy 5.3 from Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation) of the proposed General Plan, which states: "It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act." Thus, the City will continue to consider any information regarding the location of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" to be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Native American Heritage Commission Comment #8 Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Government Code §27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a `dedicated cemetery'. Response to Native American Heritage Commission Comment #8 This comment references legal requirements pertaining to the discovery of human remains. Section 3.2 (Cultural and Paleontological Resources) of the RDP -EIR discusses the proposed project's potential impacts upon cultural resources. The "Regulatory Setting" portion of this section of the RDP -EIR describes federal, State and local laws and regulations including Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5, which address disturbance of human burial remains and the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Government Code Section 27491 pertains to coroner inquests and does not specifically address Native American remains. The RDP -EIR addresses the accidental discovery of human remains in Section 3.2 on pages 3.2- 49 through 3.2 -50. Mitigation measure MM Cultural/Paleontological Resources 10 addresses the accidental discovery of human remains during excavation and construction activities. This mitigation measure identifies the procedures to be followed if human remains are encountered, including compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5, and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. 1 INAI_: E: I:c.IIzI -:I I_Al'U,D Pk0GIz A Vr F,1 Fi ii V c I rvI 2 0 1 1 PA -GI:, 2.0 -7 CITY O1F^ Section 2.0 - Response to Comments LADE LSIN0RJE -` DREAM EXCREME Native American Heritage Commission Comment #9 To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies, project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship built around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects. Response to Native American Heritage Commission Comment #9 This comment expresses the NAHC's opinion regarding what constitutes effective tribal consultation. This comment is acknowledged by the City of Lake Elsinore. Table 3.2 -3 (General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs) beginning on page 3.2 -32 of the RDP -EIR cites Policy 5.2 from Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation) of the proposed General Plan, which states that the City will consult with Native American tribes for projects identified under SB 18 and Policy 5.4 which requires Native American consultation prior to development project approval whenever archaeological excavations are recommended on a project site. Through these policies, the City acknowledges the importance of timely consultation with Native American tribes. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. PLAN FrNAI_, 1-F,< rrzc rfr.ATED! PR01c.R AM U:I12 � ?EK'Cn -r23LR 201 1 CITY OF ------------ LADE LSII`IOI,E Section 2.0 — Ides oiise to C onnnents DREAM EXTREME Response to California Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment Letter dated: October 20, 2011 The State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation'), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated October 20, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on October 21, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #1 The EIR should evaluate whether conditions within the project area may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies: • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). • Envirostor (formerly CalSites): A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see below). • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. • GeoTracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. C;1 --,N -JkAL PEAN UPDA'1'1; 1auNAI_. RI c I1zCIfI,A'ILsa 'fZc>GRAfv1 F� 1R Li s: c:' I- Ns n [,: tz 2 0 1 1 !".tic=s, 2.0 -9 CITY OFD Sectioii 2.0 — Response to Coinnlents LAKE, LSINORT ` DREAM EXTREME • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452 -3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). Response to Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #1 As discussed on page 3.10 -23 of the RDP -EIR, an Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report was prepared for the project area and included as Appendix H of the RDP -EIR. The EDR report includes an environmental regulatory database search which reviewed all regulatory agency lists compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. The report shows that there were 28 "Cortese sites" located within the City and its Sphere of Influence at the time the report was prepared. However the records referenced therein do not indicate any active enforcement actions related to hazardous materials at those sites. A full discussion of the potential impacts of hazardous sites to the public or environment is included in Section 3.10 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of the RDP -EIR. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #2 The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and /or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to review such documents. Response to Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #2 A full discussion of the potential impacts of hazardous sites to the public or environment is included in Section 3.10 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of the RDP -EIR. The RDP -EIR addresses the mechanism for addressing potentially contaminated sites on page 3.10 -23 where it states that "individual development projects implemented pursuant to the proposed project could be affected by sites that once or in the future may be listed on a hazardous materials site list. The Implementation Program for Goal 3 in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter states that through project review and the CEQA process the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require compliance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and collaboration with its Department of Environmental Health." a.IN.A, [_, R[- :g.[ttc[-E:A'['[:D> P[tc0c;[tAV[ 1-1 IR j3 t,- [t 201 1 P .A (, i. CITY OF a LADE COLSII`[oiZE Section 2.0 --- Response to conlinents ` DREAM EXTREME No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #3 Any environmental investigations, sampling and /or remediation for a site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found above regulatory standards should be clearly summarized in a table. All closure, certification or remediation approval reports by regulatory agencies should be included ire the EIR. Response to Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #3 This comment describes DTSC's recommendations for environmental investigations conducted for development proposals. The subject RDP -EIR is a programmatic analysis of the proposed project and does not include any site specific development proposals. Therefore the inclusion of a Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment is not included as part of the subject RDP -EIR. Subsequent development proposals will be evaluated through project review and the CEQA process. Site specific Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessments will be prepared by project applicants as needed to comply with applicable regulatory requirements including CEQA, and with the goals, policies and implementation programs set forth in the proposed General Plan Update. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #4 If buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should also be conducted for the presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints (LPB) or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. Response to Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #4 The subject RDP -EIR is a programmatic analysis of the proposed project and does not include any site specific development proposals. Therefore the proposed project does not include any ['_, ;r V 14 A L I' I A. N L� 1' 1) :1 'E' 1 17ir_C`FMftE-R 201 1 CITY 01 Section z. — Response to o,I II , LADE LS I NOKE ` DREAM EXTREME proposal for the demolition of building or other structures or paved surface areas. Subsequent development proposals will be evaluated through project review and the CEQA process. Any development proposals implemented in compliance with the proposed project will require that any such demolition that is proposed will comply with applicable regulatory requirements including CEQA, and with the goals, policies and implementation programs set forth in the proposed General Plan Update. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #5 Future project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. Response to Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #5 This DTSC comment describes procedures for sampling and disposal of contaminated soil. The subject RDP -EIR is a programmatic analysis of the proposed project and does not include any site specific development proposals; therefore the proposed project does not include any construction that would require sampling and disposal of contaminated soil. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #6 Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during any construction or demolition activities. If necessary, a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency should be conducted by a qualified health risk assessor to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. Response to Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #6 The subject RDP -EIR is a programmatic analysis of the proposed project and does not include any site specific development proposals. Subsequent development proposals will be evaluated through project review and the CEQA process. Any development proposals implemented in compliance with the proposed project will comply with applicable regulatory requirements G I� '�. t} -� � L) r c 1- TV] B r: Ix 2 0 1 1 I'A CITY OF LADE ' LSIn0RE Section 2.0 - l espouse toy :i }11111Te1its ` DREAM EXTREME including CEQA, and with the goals, policies and implementation programs set forth in the proposed General Plan Update. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #7 If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618 -6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. Response to Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #7 The subject RDP -EIR is a programmatic analysis of the proposed project and does not include any site specific development proposals. Subsequent development proposals will be evaluated through project review and the CEQA process. Any development proposals implemented in compliance with the proposed project will comply with applicable regulatory requirements including CEQA, and with the goals, policies and implementation programs set forth in the proposed General Plan Update. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #8 DTSC can provide cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see www. dtsc. ca.gov /SiteCleanup /BrownfieIds, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484 -5489. >1rL� 11 P1xc>c.:rx aNI 1.11x ? 0 1 1 1'A(.uc 2.0 -13 CITY OF `section 2.0 — Response to Cnlnments LADE LSINOP E DREAM ExTREME Response to Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment #8 This comment indicates that DTSC can provide cleanup oversight services. This comment is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. PLAN UPLIA-FE E IN.A, r: R V C InRc:I;x.,A'1'E1a PRca(� €RAM E I R DEC:'c- .ranuiz 201 1 2.0 -14 CITY OF LADE LSINOP E Section 2.0 - Response to C onnnents -` DREAM EXTREME Response to Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Comment Letter dated: October 24, 2011 The Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation'), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated October 24, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on October 26, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. State Clearinghouse Comment #1 The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on October 21, 2011, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. C VNEItAL I'1,e%,N UPr>A'FE H I fN A. I : R U: 4 C R C i r I_: A .r. is 1> E' it C) c� it A NI E, 1 R 1 c E NI 11 u, IZ 7 0 1 1 2_ #) —I5 CITY OF1. Section 2.0 — Response to Conirnents LADE LSINOR E ` DREAM EXTREME Response to State Clearinghouse Comment #1 This comment confirms that the State Clearinghouse received and distributed the RDP -EIR as required by CEQA. This comment also confirms the completion of the 45 -day RDP -EIR comment period. This comment is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP - EIR are required. (-: V'N L. RA. 1.: PI.A\ 111'LDA-UL C 1NAI_: RL:( 1R(.1.1.A UL; 1) PIzc) ( IY i,�V[ I�-,[ R DF( U-1FV1IILR 2011 2.0 -1.6 CITY OF LAC LSIIYORE Section 2.0 - Response to Connnents Z DREAM EXTREME . n REGIONAL AGENCIES Response to Riverside Transit Agency Comment Letter dated: September 23, 2011 The Riverside Transit Agency provided comments following its review of the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation'), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated September 23, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on September 26, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Riverside Transit Agency Comment #1 Thank you for the opportunity for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to review the Drall Environmental Impact Report for the City of Lake Elsinore. The current General Ilan includes a comprehensive set of goals and policies that is inclusive of ways to strengthen transportation and circulation. These include coordination efforts, improving corridors, allowing for multiple modes of travel and other policies encouraging transit. Response to Riverside Transit Agency Comment #1 This comment is acknowledged. This comment is regarding the proposed project and does not address the environmental analysis contained within the RDP -EIR; therefore no response is required. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. FI.N.AI.. 12F:C1R,C1_1.A_VV1a P12raGR A All 1a.iEZ 1Ai-1 c t,-rt 201 1 11 ,4. < F_ 2 . 0 - 1 7 CITY OF Section 2.€1— Response to .,o nrnents LATE LSII`IOIZE DREAM EXTREME Riverside Transit Agency Comment #2 Public transportation is an integral part to building sustainable communities and we appreciate the opportunity to work with the city to enhance public transit as a viable transportation alternative. Upon reviewing your draft General Plan, additional elements may be recognized to advance public transit. • Coordination of land use characteristics with transit corridors. Higher density designated areas are more likely to require public transportation and planning for more transit stops will be essential. • Integrate methods that will allow buses to stop at transit stops while not disrupting vehicular traffic. • One strategy is to having the outer traffic lane twenty feet wide, including the bike lane. While this creates a safer condition for the bus to stop, it also provides a greater distance between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. • In cases where the outer lane is less than twenty feet wide, consider a turnout for the bus at the stop location. (See Exhibit A for an example of turnout design). • Have transit stops located at far side locations from intersections where traffic is likely to be clear - allowing buses easier mobility (See Exhibit B for illustrations). • Similar to sidewalks, accessibility to transit stops must meet ADA requirements. A part of that requirement is having a continuous paved connection to and from the stop. Most commonly, these are sidewalks and at the stop itself, provide clearance for wheelchair movement (See Exhibit C for examples). • Provide amenities for transit users such as lighting, shelters and benches. For more information on design guidelines for transit bus service please see RTA's Design Guidelinesfor.Bus Transit document at http : / /www.riversidetransit com/about /�)-uideliiies litm. Response to Riverside Transit Agency Comment #2 This comment is acknowledged. This comment is regarding the proposed project and does not address the environmental analysis contained within the RDP -EIR; therefore no response is required. The City's general development procedures include the transmittal of proposed projects to the Riverside Transit Agency for review and comment. Where the RTA requests the incorporation of transit stops into projects, the City has, where feasible, incorporated transit stops into project design. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. PLAN ['1[VAL �:c:[►zr:� �.,�r�:r> E'xr>c at ��1 E.1 E2 I: t (::EMHL:1z 201 1 CITY OF LADE , LSINOI�E Section 2.0 — c l) t1 ss #o ► 'c�ntl et�fs = DREAM EXTREME Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment Letter dated: October 19, 2011 The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation'), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated October 19, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore ( "City ") on October 21, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #1 Thank you for submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81, Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, Climate Action Plan Project [120110137] to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter - Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12372 (replacing A -95 Review). Additionally, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083(d) SCAG reviews Environmental Impacts Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15125(d) and 15206(a)(1). SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080 and 65082. As the clearinghouse for regionally significant projects per Executive Order 12372, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. SCAG staff has reviewed this project and determined that the proposed project is regionally significant per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Sections 15125 and /or 15206. The proposed project involves a series of changes to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations and goals, policies and implement, which will set the standards for development within the City for the next twenty years. Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #1 This comment describes SCAG's authorization and role as a regional agency and regional clearinghouse regarding the review of CEQA documents related to regionally significant projects. This comment also states SCAG's conclusion that the proposed project is considered a regionally significant project pursuant to Sections 15125 and /or 15206 of the State CEQA ElV,('UNr11 E I2 ?0 t t 1':,c 2.t) -1 A) CITY O1F^ Section 2.0 - Response o CoInments LADE LSINOP E -` DREAM EXTREME Guidelines. This conclusion is acknowledged on page 1.0 -5 of the RDP -EIR, where it states: "The City of Lake Elsinore, as lead agency, determined that the proposed project is a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance pursuant to Section 15206(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines." Therefore, no new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #2 We have evaluated this project based on the policies of SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Compass Growth Vision Principles that may be applicable to your project. The RTP and Compass Growth Visioning Principles can be found on the SCAG web site at: http• / /scag ca gov /iqr. The attached detailed comments are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project within the context of our regional goals and policies. We also encourage the use of the SCAG List of Mitigation Measures extracted from the RTP to aid with demonstrating consistency with regional plans and policies. Please send a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) ONLY to SCAG's main office in Los Angeles for our review. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Pamela Lee at (213) 236 -1895. Thank you. Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #2 This comment notes that SCAG evaluated the proposed project based upon the policies of SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Compass Growth Vision Principals that it found may be applicable to the proposed project. Ms. Pamela Lee was contacted by the City on October 25, 2011 and Ms. Lee confirmed that the referenced SCAG List of Mitigation Measures are not required mitigation measures, but rather offered for consideration. The Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #12, below, address the suggested mitigation measures. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #3 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Lake Elsinore is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County. The City encompasses approximately 43 square miles (27,747 acres). Interstate 15 provides north -south regional access to the City and the Ortega Highway — State Route 74 extends in a northeast to southeast direction through the City. Surrounding cities include Canyon Lake and Menifee to the east and Wildomar to the south. The City of Lake Elsinore is also bordered to the north, east and southwest by unincorporated lands within the County of Riverside. United States Forest Service lands within the Cleveland National Forest border the City to the west. The City's Sphere of Influence is more than 72 square miles and includes the land within City boundaries as well as unincorporated land surrounding the City to the north, west and south. 14'1 N A 1, EZ r : { rz c.' r : r.t 't' r: t) F ra c) G tz A :ter U', 11 R DE( t -MBUR, 2011 4". ,k E.F_ ?.0 -20 CITY OF �"n LADE �.% LSINORJE ection 2.0 --- Response to C onitnents =` DREAM EXTREME PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of five separate parts: Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81, Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element and Climate Action Plan. General Plan Update: The City's General Plan Update is a large -scale planning update that covers all land within the city's corporate boundaries, its sphere of influence and certain other adjacent, unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside. The General Plan Update's planning horizon is 2030. While the General Plan Update does not present a specific plan for individual development, it establishes a framework for future projects and actions that may be taken in furtherance of the general plan's goals and policies. The proposed General Plan Update would • Replace the existing 1990 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan • Incorporate revisions to the City's Land Use Element and Land Use Map. The Plan will also include 16 District Plans that cover specific, defined geographic areas within the City, to provide a more precise focus and to recognize the unique and treasured asset of the individual communities that make up the City • Revise the format of the City's General Plan by dividing the Plan into an introduction and three topical chapters. Annexation No. 81: Also known as the "3'd Street Annexation" consists of the proposed annexation of approximately 320 acres from the County to the City. The 3`d Street Annexation entails pre- zoning the parcels for consistency with City zones. The action will require revision of the City's Zoning Ordinance to properly implement the pre- zoning conditions. The proposed annexation would allow increased efficiency in service provision to the area, which is almost completely surrounded by incorporated land, and would represent a more orderly planning and development pattern than would occur if the land remained in the County's jurisdiction. The 3rd Street Annexation territory is generally bounded by State Route 74 to the northwest, recent residential development in the Ramsgate Specific Plan Area to the north, a mixture of developed and undeveloped land to the east and south; and Dexter Avenue, Cambern Avenue, and Interstate 15 to the southwest. Downtown Master Plan: The Downtown Master Plan will provide a vision and strategic framework to guide the future development of the of the City's downtown area. The purpose of the Downtown Master Plan is to identify the goals, objectives and desires of the community and offer approaches to implement them. The Downtown Master Plan will establish five distinct walkable districts centered on Main Street: Gateway District, Garden District, Cultural District, Historic District and Waterfront District. Housing Element: Through its policies, procedures and incentives, the updated Housing Element will provide an action -plan for maintaining and expanding the housing supply for all income levels in the City of Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore's Housing Element for the planning period of July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2014 will describe policies and programs including: • Identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs, resources and constraints; • A statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for preservation, improvement and development housing; • Identification of adequate sites for housing; and 1411 N AL R [ ez c:: r_: L_ A 'I'V x> 1' z c> c it a P�q [ I E2 L3 t.c-1�Mt3r'rz 2 O 1 1 CITY OF Section 2,0 — Response to Colunielits LADE LSINOR E ` DREAM EXTREME • Adequate provision for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community, including both lower and higher incomes. Climate Action Plan: The Climate Action Plan (CAP) is the City of Lake Elsinore's long -range plan to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. The CAP will identify the activities in Lake Elsinore that generate greenhouse gas emissions, will quantify these emissions, and project their future trends. It will also describe local greenhouse gas emission targets for years 2020 and 2030, consistent with the with the State of California's emissions reduction targets, as well as strategies and measures to meet these targets. The CAP is also intended to support tiering and streamlining of future projects within Lake Elsinore. Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #3 This comment summarizes the project description information contained within Section S.0 (Executive Summary) and Section 2.0 (Project Description) of the RDP -EIR. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #4 RHNA IMPLICATIONS The annexation may involve the transfer of housing need determined by the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) process. Per state housing law, if the County and annexing city reach a mutually acceptable agreement on the number of housing units transferred after annexation, the parties are required to notify SCAG within 90 days after the date of annexation. In the event that both parties cannot reach an agreement, either party may submit a written request to SCAG for a determination on the RHNA allocation for the annexed area. SCAG is currently developing a policy as part of its 5th RHNA cycle methodology to address the determination of future housing need below the jurisdictional level related to an annexation. Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #4 This comment describes the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) process regarding any transfer of housing need from the County to the City related to Annexation No. 81 (also known as the 3rd Street Annexation). This comment also notes that SCAG is currently developing a policy to address annexations as part of its 5th RHNA cycle methodology. This comment is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. E­ I_ i4 E R A t: V LA 0. N U a' 11A I' 4 F1N.A, t. %z r;c'[xzc _EU,A I'r :11, ['fzcsc >rz E'.IR 3Ec a ]VI ar:tt 201 1 CITY OF LADE LSLLSSIN0R -E Section 2.0 — Response toy (.'on)111ents ` DREAM EXTREME Southern California Association of Governments Comment #5 CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Growth Forecasts The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should reflect the most recently adopted SCAG forecasts, which are the 2008 RTP (May 2008) Population, Household and Employment forecasts. The forecasts for your region, subregion, and city are as follows: Adopted SCAG Regionwide Forecasts' 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Population Households Employment 19,418,344 20,465,830 21,468,948 22,395,121 23,255,377 24,057,286 6,086,986 6,474,074 6,840,328 7,156,645 7,449,484 7,710,722 8,349,453 8,811,406 9,183,029 9,546,773 9,913,376 10,287,125 Adopted Gateway Cities WRCOG Subregion Forecasts' 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Population Households Employment 1,735,426 546,047 1,918,962 609,219 2,096,544 671,933 2,262,992 727,622 2,414,256 780,743 2,550,867 828,547 588,523 691,260 797,626 901,163 1,005,923 1,098,233 Adopted City of Lake Elsinore Forecasts' 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Population Households Employment 1. The 2008 RTP g 51,138 61,045 69,558 78,044 85,376 92,438 ii1 n5,239 18,149 21,022 23,898 26,448 28,662 rnudh fn , 152 . .x„ 15,006 ___ . 13,525 _ 16,487 18,012 19,297 SCAG Staff Comments: �y ODU, Vy1u1 KU, ena cny ievei was aaopteo by the Regional Council in May 2008. Page 3.1 -30 indicates that the DEIR population, household and employment analyses were based on 2008 RTP Regional Growth Forecasts. Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #5 This comment provides adopted forecasts for population, households and employment for the SCAG region, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) subregion and City of Lake Elsinore. As noted in this comment, the RDP -EIR considered the 2008 RTP Regional Growth Forecasts in its discussion of population, housing and employment in Section 3.1 (Land Use and Planning) and Section 3.13 (Population and Housing). FINA1: E2>;c:f>zc:r t_.,�rt;r> E'[z<.>c;rz vt EAR D1,(- Nra3 :rz 201 1 PA(.rE 2.0 -23 CITY OF Section 2.6 --- Response to Comments LAKE L S- MOKE ` DREAM EXTREME No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #6 The 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals and policies that are pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation- friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio- economic, geographic and commercial limitations. The RTP continues to support all applicable federal and state laws in implementing the proposed project. Among the relevant goals and policies of the RTP are the following: Regional Transportation Plan Goals: RTP G1 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. RTP G2 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. RTP G3 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. RTP G4 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. RTP G5 Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency. RTP G6 Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments. RTP G7 Maximize the security of our transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies. SCAG Staff Comments: Where applicable, SCAG staff finds that the proposed project generally meets consistency with Regional Transportation Plan Goals. The proposed project is not applicable to RTP G2, G3 and G7 because the proposed project is not transportation related. SCAG staff finds that the proposed project generally meets consistency with RTP G1. The proposed project includes implementation of individual bikeway, transit and roadway projects in accordance with the Land Use plan associated with future population growth. (Pages 3.4 -115 - 3.4 -116). Per RTP G4, the proposed project generally meets consistency. According to Page 3.4 -115, the proposed project plans to accommodate future travel demand including road improvements, new bikeways and public transit. SCAG staff finds that the proposed project is partially consistent with RTP G5. Per page 3.8 -17, the proposed project aims to protect and ensure conservation of the regional ecology, biological resources, wetlands, and other aquatic resources where feasible. However, the implementation of the proposed project would result in construction and operational air quality impacts including vehicular emissions and common emitters associated with residential and commercial development (Page 3.6 -24). SCAG staff finds the proposed project generally meets consistency with RTP G6. Page 3.4 -49 refers to General Plan Policy 9.1, which emphasizes interface when implementing the proposed project between existing and proposed transportation facilities. Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #6 This comment confirms that based upon information contained within the RDP -EIR that the proposed project is consistent with RTP goals RTP G1, RTP G4, and RTP G6 and partially 1' t z c> < t2 A M F I R LAI._c: u-,mni ,' R 201 1 CITY OF !' N LAKE LSINOI\E Section 2.0 -- Response to C €�n11nents = DREAM EXTREME consistent with RTP G5. SCAG also states that RTP goals RTP G2, G3 and G7 are not applicable to the proposed project. These consistency findings are acknowledged by the City. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #7 COMPASS GROWTH VISIONING The fundamental goal of the Compass Growth Visioning effort is to make the SCAG region a better place to live, work and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. Thus, decisions regarding growth, transportation, land use, and economic development should be made to promote and sustain for future generations the region's mobility, livability and prosperity. The following "Regional Growth Principles" are proposed to provide a framework for local and regional decision making that improves the quality of life for all SCAG residents. Each principle is followed by a specific set of strategies intended to achieve this goal. Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents. GV P1.1 Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive. GV P1.2 Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing. GV P1.3 Encourage transit - oriented development. GV P1.4 Promote a variety of travel choices SCAG Staff Comments: SCAG staff finds that the proposed project partially meets consistency with Principle 1. SCAG staff finds the proposed project generally meets consistency with GV P1.1. The proposed project contains policies to increase density of development, particularly around activity centers and transportation corridors. (Page 3.1 -24) Per GV P1.2, SCAG staff finds the project meets consistency. According to Page 3.1 -37, a goal of the proposed Business District will include intensification of commercial and industrial uses to supply jobs to the existing housing community. In regards to GV P1.3, SCAG staff finds the proposed project is consistent. The proposed project contains policies that encourage commercial and residential mixed -use designations in urbanized areas accessible to transit. (Page 3.1 -24) SCAG staff cannot determine consistency with GV P1.4 based on the information provided in the DEIR. Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #7 This comment states that SCAG has determined that the proposed project is partially consistent with Compass Growth Visioning (CGV) Principle 1 (Improve mobility for all residents). Specifically, SCAG confirmed that the proposed project is consistent with GV P1.1, GV P1.2 and GV P1.3. It is acknowledged that SCAG concluded that it did not make a consistency determination regarding GV P1.4 (Promote a variety of travel choices). It is noted that the RDP- c.x 1�.:v t•, Ic A t, t' U A N U P ►i A "I' 1_ i I NA, I: RJ•;< Irt<:I_EI.:,a'I'I:r> Pftr >( ;It `V1 14 "1 R EC'F:NI UF:It 20 1 1 P,.,C ✓ 2.0 -25 CITY OF Section z.� - R 1 o ot E >llxs LAKES LSINOR, JE ?= DREAM EXTREME EIR found that the proposed General Plan Update "contains policies to encourage alternative forms of transportation, including walkways and bikeways, and provide incentives for reducing travel time and vehicle miles traveled for residents (RDP -EIR, page 3.1 -23). Additionally, Section 3.4 (Transportation and Circulation) of the RDP -EIR includes a discussion of alternative means of transportation and finds that the proposed General Plan "meets the goals and policies of the Complete Streets Act" by increasing "the range of transportation options for travel within the City of Lake Elsinore and to adjacent western Riverside County jurisdictions by identifying a backbone network of bicycle and pedestrian routes." (RDP -EIR, page 3.4 -111) No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #8 Principle 2. Foster livability in all communities. GV P2.1 Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. GV P2.2 Promote developments, which provide a mix of uses. GV P2.3 Promote `people scaled, " walkable communities. GV P2.4 Support the preservation of stable, single- family neighborhoods. SCAG Staff Comments: SCAG staff finds that the proposed project generally meets consistency with Principle 2. Per GV P2.1, SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency. The proposed project contains policies to ensure cost - efficient land use planning that utilizes redevelopment and infill techniques. (Page 3.1 -22) SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency with GV P2.2. The proposed project will establish District Plans as a part of the Land Use Element to allow for more focused planning of many diverse neighborhoods and a mix of uses including resident, commercial and industrial (Page 2.0 -10). SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency with GV P2.3. Per page 3.4 -111, the proposed project increases the range of transportation options within the City and adjacent western Riverside County by identifying a backbone network of bicycle and pedestrian routes. Per GV P2.4, SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency. Both established neighborhoods and newer subdivisions will presence and include single - family neighborhoods (Page 3.1 -6). Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #8 This comment confirms that based upon information contained within the RDP -EIR that SCAG finds that the proposed project generally meets consistency with CGV Principle 2 (Foster livability in all communities.) This consistency finding is acknowledged. No new E:r;:.N'E RA t, 1'LAN LTvt>A-rt� E' I , t..: Rtcc rttc tft.A TVt> P€tc >GttAVI ERR I[)k r't: ottt:tt 201 1 CITY OF ^ LADELSINOIZE Section 2.€1 --- Response to Comments DREAM EXTREME environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #9 Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people. GV P3.1 Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all income levels. GV P3.2 Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth. GV P3.3 Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. GV P3.4 Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth GV P3.5 Encourage civic engagement. SCAG Staff Comments: SCAG staff finds that the proposed project partially meets consistency with Principle 3 where applicable. Per GV P3.1, SCAG staff finds the proposed project to be generally consistent. The Residential Mixed Use land use designation encourages a mix of residential and non - residential uses including affordable housing and higher densities thereby providing a variety of housing types (Page 2.0 -20). SCAG staff cannot determine consistency with GV P3.2, GV P3.3, GV P3.4 and GV P3.5 based on the information provided in the DEIR. Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #9 This comment confirms that based upon information contained within the RDP -EIR that SCAG finds that the proposed project is partially consistency with CGV Principle 3 (Enable prosperity for all people.) This comment is acknowledged. SCAG determined that the proposed project is generally consistent with GV P3.1, but states that it did not make a consistency determination regarding GV P3.2, GV P3.3, GV P3.4 and GV P3.5. Although SCAG did not make a consistency determination regarding GV P3.2 (Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth), Table 3.14 -1 (General Plan Public Services Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs) in Section 3.14 (Public Services) of the RDP -EIR cites Land Use Policy 1.6 of proposed General Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) and Goal 9 and Policy 9.1 of proposed General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) which state: Policy 1.6 - Encourage development of institutions including hospitals and educational campuses and facilities Goal 9 - Encourage all school districts serving Lake Elsinore to provide school facilities that are adequate to serve all students. ts1?:N1 12A 1 L. .. V1,AN ' P D A "1'1 FINAL, R 1':; C 112 4.: 1. i 1 . A '1' L: I) E.'. I 1; (: 1: Yi n l: i2 2 0 1 1 CITY OF ^01- — ., Section 2.0 - Response to Comments LAKE ,Jq LSMOKE DREAM EXTREME Policy 9.1 - Encourage the establishment and development of a trade school, junior college, and /or four -year college campus within the City boundaries." Therefore, the RDP -EIR includes information that shows that the proposed project supports educational opportunities. Under CEQA, an analysis of environmental justice is not required. Accordingly, the proposed project is consistent with GV P3.3. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #10 Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations. GV P4.1 Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational, and environmentally sensitive areas GV P4.2 Focus development in urban centers and existing cities. GV P4.3 Develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste. GV P4.4 Utilize "green" development techniques SCAG Staff Comments: Where applicable, SCAG staff finds that the project is partially consistent with Principle 4. SCAG staff finds the proposed project does not meet consistency with GV P4.1. Per page 3.1 -42, the proposed project converts agricultural lands to non - agricultural land uses, though the conversion of land will result in a less- than - significant impact. In regards to GV P4.2, SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency. The proposed project contains policies to increase density of development, particularly around activity centers and transportation corridors (Page 3.1 -24). SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency with GV P4.3. Per pages 3.6 -20 and 3.10 -18, the proposed project through the enforcement of ordinances and general plan policies, aim to control or mitigate pollution, reduce hazardous materials and diversion of construction waste. Also the proposed project includes a Climate Action Plan which aims to encourage sustainable development at the local level (Page 2 -1, Appendix G). Per GV P4.4, SCAG staff finds the proposed project meets consistency. The Climate Action Plan addresses green development techniques including Cool Roof Requirements and Energy Efficiency Building Standards (Pages C -9, C -8, Appendix G). Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #10 This comment confirms that based upon information contained within the RDP -EIR that SCAG finds that the proposed project partially meets consistency with CGV Principle 4 (Promote sustainability for future generations.) This comment is acknowledged. It is noted that SCAG F1 R C,C 1x<: UL, A1'LD ['R0GRAV1 Ea,IR 1711 r'1:yrl3rzti 201 1 2.0 -28 CITY OF LADE ('':), LSI1`�OIZE Section 2 c Response « Cron I ents DREAM EXTREME determined that the proposed project is consistent with GV P4.2, GV P4.3 and GV P4.3. Although SCAG determined that the proposed project does not meet consistency with GV P4.1 due to the planned conversion of the limited amount of agricultural lands to non - agricultural uses, it is noted that the RDP -EIR states that none of the farmland that is affected is considered to be 'important farmland" by the State of California (RDP -EIR, page 3.1 -42.) Both SCAG and the RDP -EIR acknowledge that the conversion of this small percentage of land dedicated to agricultural uses within the City and its Sphere of Influence will result in a less- than - significant impact. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #11 CONCLUSION Where applicable, the proposed project generally meets consistency with SCAG Regional Transportation Plan Goals and also meets consistency with Compass Growth Visioning Principles. Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #11 The City acknowledges SCAG's conclusion that the proposed project is generally consistent with SCAG Regional Transportation Plan Goals and also consistent with Compass Growth Visioning Principles. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #12 All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA. We recommend that you review the SCAG List of Mitigation Measures for additional guidance, and encourage you to follow them, where applicable to your project. The SCAG List of Mitigation Measures may be found here: http: / /www.scag.ca.gov /iqr /documents /SCAG IGRMMRP 2008.pdf Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #12 This comment requests that feasible mitigation measures which could mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA. As required by Section 21002 of CEQA and Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, all feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the RDP -EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project, prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6) and Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines has been completed and is located in Section 3.0 of this Final Recirculated Program EIR. DEc EIw►r3e1is 20 1 1 CITY OF �^n Section 2.0 — Response to Comments LADE LSINORT n DREAM EXTREME The first page of the referenced SCAG List of Mitigation Measures (page 7 -1 of the 2008 RTP Final PEIR Mitigation and Monitoring Program) states" "The purpose of this MMRP is to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures included in the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Program EIR (PEIR), in accordance with CEQA requirements. The 2008 RTP PEIR evaluates the transportation plan on a system -wide, regional scale, and includes feasible mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts. The MMRP for the 2008 RTP PEIR clarifies the process for implementing agencies to comply with these mitigation measures and designates responsibility for implementing, monitoring, and reporting mitigation. [Emphasis Added] "This MMRP applies to all projects in the 2008 RTP that are required to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a project, pursuant to CEQA. This MMRP calls for monitoring reports prepared for these individual projects to be submitted directly to SCAG and to the Lead Agency for each particular project." [Emphasis Added] As described in this language, the list of mitigation measures applies to projects in the 2008 RTP. A review of the 2008 RTP List of Projects ( http: / /www.scag.ca.gov /rtp2008 /final.htm) shows that the proposed project is not a 2008 RTP project. Therefore, the proposed project is not required to comply with the referenced SCAG List of Mitigation Measures. In its letter dated October 19, 2011, SCAG does not identify specific mitigation measures that it recommends be implemented by the proposed project. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Southern California Association of Governments Comment #13 When a project is of statewide, regional, or area wide significance, transportation information generated by a required monitoring or reporting program shall be submitted to SCAG as such information becomes reasonably available, in accordance with CEQA, Public Resource Code Section 21081.7, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 (g). Response to Southern California Association of Governments Comment #13 This comment refers to Section 21081.7 of CEQA and Section 15097(g) of the State CEQA Guidelines requirements regarding transportation information generated by a required monitoring and reporting program for a project of statewide, regional or areawide importance and the requirement that the information be submitted to the regional transportation agency and to the California Department of Transportation ( "Caltrans "). As discussed in the above Southern California Association of Governments Comment #1 and the response thereto, the proposed project is considered to be a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance. t? Fi A 1- I' i.- ,'i \ U k 1,),% -I' iii LDECt�- jai €, -ia 201 1 11.0.(; b, '2_0 -3i) CITY OF 0-t-IIN- Oi-N, LADE LSII`�OI�E Section - IZesllcB�se f cslIenis -- =� DREAM EXTREME A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project has been completed and is located in Section 3.0 of this Final Recirculated Program EIR. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the MMRP, no additional transportation information that would be submitted to SCAG and to Caltrans will be generated. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. C =EwE'RA:_ PUAry FIN.AV RE- ;<.iRC:1.i1..,A'rLD E'rz()Gt2ANI[ E.192 Ni B t, Ez 2 0 1 1 CITY OF Section 2.0 - Response to tv'c niments L A KJE LSINORE DREAM EXTREME Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment Letter dated: October 26, 2011 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation'), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated October 26, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on October 26, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #1 The AQMD staff is concerned about the potential health risk impacts to residents located adjacent to the proposed project's limited industrial land use designation. Specifically, the AQMD staff is concerned that toxic air pollutants typically emitted by industrial sources could adversely impact the sensitive land uses that surround the proposed industrial land uses identified in figure 2.0 -8 of the draft PEIR. Therefore, the lead agency should include conditions in the final PEIR that require health risk impacts to residents be evaluated and mitigated to a less than significant impact for any sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of the aforementioned industrial uses. Also, the AQMD staff is concerned about the effectiveness of the proposed plan's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions measures and the plan's consistency with AQMD's adopted and draft GHG thresholds and regional efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Further, AQMD staff recommends that pursuant to Section 15126.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines additional mitigation measures be considered to minimize the project's significant air quality impacts. Details regarding these comments are attached to this letter. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #1 This comment summarizes the SCAQMD comments that are detailed in following parts of their comment letter. This comment is acknowledged. Response to the detailed SCAQMD comments summarized in this comment are addressed in the below Responses to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comments #3 though #7. F I N ,A L. R EC I tt c: U t.., A _V L t) tt t) C; It A N1 I', t R D 2 0 1 1 PA(.u_ 2.0 -32 CITY OF LADE LSINOIZES ciion .6) Ilcsponse to €:.i }mln€ts - -�ry DREAM EXTREME South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #2 Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, AQMD staff requests that the lead agency provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the final EIR. Further, staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Dan Garcia, Air Quality Specialist CEQA Section, at (909) 396 -3304, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #2 In this comment, the SCAQMD requests that the City provide it with written responses to all comments contained within their comment letter. The City of Lake Elsinore will provide a written proposed response to each commenting public agency no less than 10 days prior to certifying the Recirculated Program EIR in compliance with the provisions set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) which states that "At least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report, the lead agency shall provide a written proposed response to a public agency on comments made by that agency which conform with the requirements of this division." No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #3 Based on the lead agency's discussion on pages 3.6 -31and 3.6 -34 of the draft PEIR the proposed project would include an increase in the city's source's of toxic air contaminant (TACs) and could result in exposure of sensitive land uses (i.e., residences) to these potentially significant levels of TACs. As a result, the AQMD staff is concerned about the potential future health risk impacts to residents from the proposed project. For example, in figure 2.0 -8 (Business District Land Use Plan) the lead agency indicates that additional industrial uses will be located adjacent to existing and future residential uses south of the 1 -15 Freeway. Given, the potential health risk impacts associated with emissions from industrial sources the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency ensures insignificant health risk impacts to residents and, at a minimum, follow the guidelines) specified by CARB for any new project built within the general plan boundaries. For any project that places sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of an industrial source, or 500 feet of a freeway, the lead agency should conduct a health risk assessment (HRA) to determine if the impacts are significant. If the impacts are significant, then mitigation measures should be employed to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. ' California Air Resources Board. April 2005. "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective." Accessed at: http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /ch/landuse.htm C EN 1�, RA I_ {} 1., A N 1_E I'D A 'F E 11 I NA, 1. IR V; C : 114 C If 1_. A '1' C 1) P It 0 C; It A N1 ICD1 C E. NI 11 EI2 201 1 PAC.. 2.0 -33 CITY OF Section 2.0 — Response to Coin nelits LADE `O-6',9`L SI11OKE DREAM E)CTREME Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #3 This comment recommends that the City, at a minimum, follow the guidelines specified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in their April 2005 document titled "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. SCAQMD also recommends that where future implementing development projects propose to place "sensitive receptors" within 1,000 feet of an industrial source or 500 feet of a freeway that a health risk assessment be conducted to determine whether there will be significant impacts that will require mitigation. The referenced "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook" is a joint publication of the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. This publication suggests that set -backs be considered when citing sensitive land uses near particular uses, such as freeways and distribution centers. (Table 1 -1 on page 4 of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook) It is noted that this document does not recommend setbacks for all industrial uses, but for only specific types of uses. This document also states that setbacks are merely "recommended" and not required, and the Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board point out that: "These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues." (Note to Table 1 -1 on page 4 of the Handbook) Mitigation measure Air Quality 5, on page 3.6 -34 of the RDP -EIR requires that "Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts on air quality emissions associated with sensitive land uses. Where project- specific analysis determines that air quality emissions will adversely affect sensitive receptors, the City shall require mitigation measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent practicable." Implementation of this mitigation measure will enable the City to evaluate each future development project for the potential air quality impacts upon sensitive receptors and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines to require mitigation measures that will reduce potential impacts to less- than - significant levels. As appropriate, such air quality analysis would include the preparation of health risk assessments. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. F1N.Av R►!..< irzc'U t_,<A'LLx> PK Of; tzA l F,1R DEC'ulivin[; :Yz 20 1 1 i'ACa[: 2.0 -34 CITY OF ----------- �. Section 2.0 --- Ides onse to €�€ mments LADE 3 LSIlYOI�E � n DREAM EXTREME South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #4 Given that the lead agency concluded that the proposed project will have significant construction related air quality impacts the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide additional mitigation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.4. Specifically, the lead agency should minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts by adding all feasible mitigation measures provided below. • Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow, Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off -site, Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas, Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on -site constriction activity including resolution of issues related to PM 10 generation, • Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization, and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers' specifications, • Use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under AQMD Rule 1113, • Construct or build with materials that do not require painting, • Require the use of pre - painted constriction materials, • Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use tricks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements, • During project construction, all internal combustion engines /constriction equipment operating on the project site shall meet EPA - Certified Tier 2 emissions standards, or higher according to the following: ✓ Project Start, to December 31, 2011: All offroad diesel - powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 2 offroad emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the BACT devices certified by GARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. C;F�.N V11AL, PLAN tII'1:).n'1'1: 1' 1vA1.. RF� c I R 4C 1_f1.A_r,F1) Prt (7)c:rtANd V1 R [ 1: c. u n/i 1� 1�. 1t ? O 1 1 2. 0 -- 3 S CITY OF Section 2.0 -- I esponse to Comments LADE LSMORE DREAM EXTREME ✓ Project Start, to December 31, 2011: All offroad diesel - powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 2 offroad emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. ✓ January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: All offroad diesel - powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 offroad emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. ✓ Post - January 1, 2015: All offroad diesel - powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall rneet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. ✓ A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. ✓ Encourage construction contractors to apply for AQMD "SOON" funds. Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who apply for AQMD "SOON" funds. The "SOON" program provides funds to accelerate clean up of off -road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty "construction equipment. More information on this program can be found at the following website: http: / /www.aamd.p-ov /tao /Implementation /SOONProgram.htm For additional measures to reduce off-road construction equipment, refer to the mitigation measure tables located at the following website: www. agmd. gov /cega /handbook/mitip-ation/MM intro.html. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #4 In this comment, the SCAQMD is requesting that development project - specific construction mitigation be added to the Recirculated Program EIR that was prepared for the proposed C.aENER,kI. PI- AN U P UJA FED ' / N A 1_, R L< I12C1 f 1:,, "1'I';1> P R 0 G EZA M i', I R D EK. ,- .m13vrz 201 1 PA(,E= 2.0 -36 CITY OF LADE LSIlYOIZE Section 2.0 — l esl)onse to Coniinents DREAM EXTREME project. As stated on page 3.6 -1 of the RDP -EIR, Section 3.6 (Air Quality) provides "a programmatic analysis of air quality issues associated with implementation of the proposed project. Given the programmatic nature of the PEIR, specific impacts resulting from individual projects are not identified or known at this time" The RDP -EIR also states that "Inasmuch as development project - related air quality impacts cannot be quantified without knowing the specifics regarding individual development projects in terms of their scale, duration and proximity to sensitive receptors, construction - related air quality impacts at any point in the future would be speculative and cannot be accurately determined as part of this PEIR." (RDP - EIR, page 3.6 -24) As required by mitigation measure MM Air Quality 1, future development projects will be evaluated for their potential construction- related impacts and where project - specific air quality analyses determine that air quality emissions may be exceeded, appropriate mitigation measures will be required. Additionally, the implementation program for Goal 1 in Chapter 3.0 (Public Health and Safety) requires the City to continue to condition projects to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's rules and regulations. The SCAQMD mitigation measures indicate the timing that certain Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) Certified emission standards are required for all internal combustion engines/ construction equipment operating of a project site. These standards apply to future development projects that implement the proposed project's Land Use Plan and become more stringent in the future. The applicability of these measures for individual development proposals would be determined as part of project - specific CEQA review and implementation of mitigation measure MM Air Quality 1. This comment also recommends that the City "encourage" the participation of construction contractors in the SOON (Surplus Off -Road Opt -in for NOx) program. As noted above, the proposed General Plan includes an implementation program that will require the City to condition projects to comply with SCAQMD rules and regulations. Additionally the implementation program for Goal 2 in Chapter 3.0 (Public Health and Safety) requires the City to "coordinate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding effective methods for improving local air quality." This coordination could include the encouragement of construction contractors to participate in the SOON program. F> it c'r-, Nix3a uz 201 1 &'A(.E 2.0 -37 CITY OF �� _. Section 2.0 — Response to Comments, LAKE LSMORE = DREAM EXTREME South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #5 The lead agency's operational air quality analysis demonstrates significant air quality impacts from all criteria pollutant emissions including NOx, SOx, CO, VOC, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. These impacts are primarily from mobile source emissions related to vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. However, the lead agency fails to adequately address this large source of emissions. Specifically, the lead agency does not require any mitigation measures in the draft PEIR and only states that the individual projects will be subject to a list of nominal goals and policies in the city's general plan that pertain to air quality. Therefore, the lead agency should reduce the project's significant air quality impacts by reviewing and incorporating transportation mitigation measures from the greenhouse gas quantification report published by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association in the final PEIR. 2 California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association. August 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Accessed at: http:// www .capcoa.org /wp- content/uploads /2010 /11 /CAPCOA- Quanti fi c ation- Report -9 -14 -Final . p df Response to South Coast Air Quali . Management District Comment #5 Table 3.6 -10 of the RDP -EIR provides an estimate of the total daily emissions for criteria pollutants within the City and its Sphere of Influence from area and mobile sources during the proposed General Plan's 2030 potential buildout conditions. The estimates shown in Table 3.6- 10 do not reflect emissions from individual development projects. It is noted that SCAQMD has only established thresholds of significance for individual projects and has not established such thresholds for General Plans or programmatic level analyses and that the established thresholds do not apply to cumulative developments or multiple projects. For this reason, the RDP -EIR noted on page 3.6 -27 that, "the thresholds are intended to identify individual projects that emit excessive amounts of regulated pollutants, and the GPU is a much larger endeavor than a stand -alone development project. Nevertheless, the estimates have been presented for informational purposes." The RDP -EIR identifies several goals and policies that would reduce operational emissions, including the maintenance of a system of bike lanes and multi use trails (General Plan Chapter 2.0, Policy 6.4), the encouragement of mixed -use developments to reduce public service costs and environmental impacts (GP Chapter 2.0, Policy 7.1) and the requirement to establish measures that aim to reduce emissions from City uses, community uses and new development (GP Chapter 4.0, Policy 14.2). Additionally, as shown in Table 3.7 -6 (Climate Action Plan Strategies and Measures) and the Climate Action Plan (Appendix G of the RDP -EIR), the City will be implementing measures that would reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated mobile source emissions. These CAP measures are designed to increase bicycle, pedestrian and public transit travel, increase efficiency of land use patterns, and reduce trips. F I N .A, E . R 1�', C I It C I ! I.. A 'T L- i) P It () (: It A fVl U', I R '} I- (:: i�_- ti 1 I3 L It .2 o l 1 PA .E 2 _o - 3 8 CITY OF -^n LADE LSII`�OIZE Section 2. Response t 'carrrrnents DREAM EXTREME As required by mitigation measures MM Air Quality 2. MM Air Quality 3 and MM Air Quality 4, future development projects will be evaluated for their potential operational- related impacts, and where project - specific air quality analyses determine that air quality emissions may be exceeded, appropriate mitigation measures will be required. South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #6 In the draft EIR the lead agency chose the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's GHG emissions significance threshold of 6.6 MT CO2e /SP for the project's emissions reduction target. Based on the emissions inventory analysis the proposed project could meet the target with the implementation of the climate change measures identified in Tables 3.7 -8 and 3.7 -9 of the draft EIR. However, the lead agency did not provide a technical analysis that explicitly demonstrates the nexus between the measures in Tables 3.7 -8 and 3.7 -9 and the emissions reductions anticipated of over 1.3 MMT /CO2e by 2030. Specifically, the lead agency provides simplified tables in the draft EIR that summarize the project's GHG emissions and GHG emissions reductions resulting from measures that are committed to in the Climate Action Plan (CAP), however, neither these summary tables nor the CAP provide the technical emissions calculations (i.e., methodology, baseline emissions assumptions, assumed effectiveness of each measure, etc) to substantiate the lead agency's GHG significance determination. Absent a technical analysis that demonstrates equivalence between the CAP's GHG reduction measures and GHG emissions reductions (e.g., assumptions for each measure) the effectiveness of the measures provided in climate action plan remains unclear. Further, the AQMD staff is unsure about the assumed effectiveness of some of the GHG reduction measures in the CAP. For example, Measure T -5.1 (Hybrid and Fuel- Efficient Vehicle) is a voluntary and incentive based measure that the lead agency assumes will provide over 53,000 MT /CO2e emissions reductions by 2030, however, the lead agency does not indicate how it will enforce this measure given its limited authority to require the use of vehicle incentives. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #6 In this comment, the SCAQMD makes the statement that "neither these summary tables nor the CAP provide the technical emission calculations ... to substantiate the lead agency's GHG significance determination. The City acknowledges this comment but disagrees. The details regarding the technical emission calculations are found in Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Appendix C: GHG Emissions Reduction Analysis Calculations of the Climate Action Plan (Appendix G of the RDP -EIR). The Climate Action Plan ( "CAP ") was incorporated by reference into Section 3.7 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of the RDP -EIR on page 3.7 -1 and on page 3.7 -17.) As set forth in Section 15150(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration" F'N F: [2A L VLA,N U I't'AA_1_i'. zNAr_, Rr:c:i1z <.rEr_.,A'rLD 1'Rc >c;1zAN1 E I lDr,c:' ry r; I,,az 201 1 1'sac:F. 2 -0 -31) CITY OF ro_�R Section 2.0 — Response to Coll-iments LADE LSINOIZE - - -`: DREAM EXTREME Therefore, the technical emission calculations found in Appendix A and Appendix C of the CAP are considered to be part of the RDP -EIR. Regarding this comment's reference to Measure T -5.1, this measure is to be considered in combination with Measure T -2.1, which would provide designated parking for fuel- efficient vehicles. Other incentives would be promoted on the City's website. Additionally, as described on page 6 -12 of the CAP, performance indicators are provided with each quantified GHG reduction measure so the City can verify that necessary reductions are being met. By evaluating whether the implementation measure is on track, the City can identify successful measures and reevaluate or replace under - performing ones. If through subsequent inventories the City determines that the CAP is not achieving established GHG reduction targets, the City will amend the document with revisions or additions to the emissions reduction measures. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #7 Also, to ensure that projects subject to the GHG Reduction Plan provide quantifiable "real" emissions reductions the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide all necessary metrics (e.g., density and mix of existing land uses and associated emissions profile) to be used in establishing the project's baseline emissions based on existing conditions. These metrics should be clearly defined for determining a project's GHG impacts. By providing the proper metrics for future emissions calculations the lead agency will ensure that all future projects tiering off of this plan will establish an equitable baseline. In addition to these revisions the AQMD staff is concerned about the proposed plan's consistency with the AQMD's adopted and draft GHG CEQA significance threshold's and regional efforts (e.g., SCAG's regional GHG emissions reduction targets of 8% by 2020 and 13% by 2030) to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the AQMD staff requests that the lead agency demonstrate how the proposed project will be consistent with regional efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #7 As discussed in the Response to South Coast Air Quality Management District Comment #6, above, the Climate Action Plan (CAP) was incorporated by reference into Section 3.7 of the RDP -EIR and the requested metrics are found in Appendix A and Appendix C of the CAP (Appendix G of the RDP -EIR). The CAP summarizes how the City will reduce emissions consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 375 and meet or exceed the SCAG regional GHG emissions reduction targets on page 5 -2, where it states that: SCAG's regional targets for passenger vehicles and light trucks include an 8% per capita reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 and a 13% per capita reduction c rz A r. V r. A ti U r> o,% r r: 1" rz c) G Ez A Vr FAR Di c r_:vrnr:rz 201 It".ac: r 2.0 -40 CITY OF ro-1-1-1 LADE , LSIHOIZE Section 2.1i 1 � 4 , - -, � DREAM EXTREME from 2005 levels by 2035. For Lake Elsinore, this is equivalent to reducing transportation emissions to 5.7 MT CO2e per capita by 2020 and 5.4 MT CO2e per capita by 2035. . . .[T]he local transportation and land use measures, identified in Section 5.2 below, will result in reductions that bring per capita emissions to 5.3 MT CO2e by 2020 and 5.2 MT CO2e by 2030, thereby exceeding these targets. As shown in Table 5 -1, state -level measures are expected to reduce emissions in Lake Elsinore by approximately 22.5 %, which translates to approximately 239,528 MT CO2e (or 1.7 MT CO2e /SP) in 2020 and to approximately 456,484 MT CO2e (or 1.5 MT CO2e /SP) in 2030. City -led actions, described below, are designed to achieve additional emissions reductions necessary to accomplish the City's GHG reduction targets. Therefore, the Climate Action Plan demonstrates how the proposed project will be consistent with regional efforts to reduce GHG emissions. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. >FINA, [, IT F,CIrtCtEr_.A'UCU) PxcarKTItAfV �?1R Ii.> b; K' 1, 1bi n it 2 0 1 1 P ,k G E 2.0 -41 CITY OF Section 2.0 — Response to C omments LADE (.� LSIAOKE DREAM EXTREME �TM LOCAL AGENCIES Response to Riverside County Fire Department Comment Letter dated: October 20, 2011 The Riverside County Fire Department provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( RDP -EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation"), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated October 20, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on October 20, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Riverside County Fire Department Comment #1 The Strategic Planning Bureau of the RCFD is in receipt of your letter dated September 6, 2011 requesting review and comments for the above referenced Project. Strategic Planning found the DEIR, and particularly the sections Public Services and Hazards and hazardous Materials to adequately address concerns of RCFD and those comments provided in a July 2011 letter concerning an earlier draft of this document. Response to Riverside County Fire Department Comment #1 This comment states that the Riverside County Fire Department has determined that the RDP - EIR adequately addresses the Fire Department's concerns. This comment is acknowledged. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. FINAL, R r: c: r rz <: r. r..: ,� .�. E?: rr P R «C R- A vi EAR I) r_-- c i,, -�v r 11 r: it 2 0 1 1 t ":1 c; r_ 2.0 -42 CITY OF LADE C 2 LSI I` 0R E Section ?. Response. (i C`c�n 7€ rs - -� = DREAM EXTREME Response to City of Canyon Lake Comment Letter dated: October 20, 2011 The City of Canyon Lake provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation'), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated October 20, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on October 20, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. City of Canyon Lake Comment #1 Aesthetics The impacts of planned land uses within the viewshed of the City of Canyon Lake should be considered. Preservation of prominent ridgelines and hillsides should be encouraged, if not required. Utilization of grading practices and design that respects the natural terrain should also be encouraged for developments that do grade in areas with substantial slopes. Particular attention should be paid to the hills and ridgelines in the northeast portion of the City of Lake Elsinore that are visible from Canyon Lake. Response to City of Canyon Lake Comment #1 This comment is acknowledged. This comment is regarding the proposed project and does not address the environmental analysis contained within the RDP -EIR; therefore no response is required. The issue of Aesthetics is addressed in Section 3.3 (Aesthetics) of the RDP -EIR. Mitigation measure MM Aesthetics 1 states that: MM Aesthetics 1: Future development projects will be required to prepare visual simulations demonstrating compliance with the applicable GPU goals and policies. Preparation of visual simulations demonstrating compliance with the GPU goals and policies would be required for future development projects located in scenic viewsheds along the I -15 corridor and other areas at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. Applicable aesthetics- related goals, policies and implementation programs from the proposed General Plan are listed in Table 3.3 -1 (General Plan Aesthetics and Scenic Resources Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs) on page 3.3 -25 of Section 3.3 (Aesthetics) of the RDP- i N A 1, FT, V, ( - 1 1$ C ` 1 1.. A 'V F' 1) P k 0 C; 12 A iV1 L' 1 DEC I mnt1 :ii 2011 PACE 2.O -43 CITY OF `section 2.0 — Response to Coinments LADE LSMORZE = DREAM EXTREME EIR. These goals, policies and implementation programs include preserving valued public views (General Plan Chapter 4.0, Goal 11), encouraging development designs that provide public views of Lake Elsinore and ridgelines (GP Chapter 4.0, Policy 11.1), requiring contour grading on steep slopes (GP Chapter 4.0, Policy 3.3) and preserving the City's visual character particularly in the surrounding hillsides. (GP Chapter 4.0, Policy 3.4). Through implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs and implementation of mitigation measure MM Aesthetics 1, the RDP -EIR concluded that potential aesthetic - related impacts can be reduce to less- than - significant levels. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. City of Canyon Lake Comment #2 Air Quality Consideration should be given to performing CO hotspot analyses for any intersection severely impacted by traffic projected by the buildout of the General Plan within the City of Canyon Lake. Response to City of Canyon Lake Comment #2 This comment suggests that consideration should be given to performing CO hotspot analyses for intersections within the City of Canyon Lake. This comment is acknowledged. However, according to the California Department of Transportation's "Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol" (accessed on November 8, 2011 at http: / /www.dot.ca.gov /hq/env /air /pa eg s /coprot.htm), a project which does not involve or lead directly to construction, such as a planning document, is considered exempt from CO hotspot analyses (page 2 -7). The proposed project consists of planning documents that do not include specific proposals for development. Therefore, no CO hotspot analysis is required. City of Canyon Lake Comment #3 Transportation and Circulation As is indicated on the Existing and General Plan ADTs (Figures 3.4 -6 and 3.4 -16), the ADT on Railroad Canyon Road east of Canyon Hills Road is expected to increase by approximately 23,000 ADT (over 70% increase). Please provide an analysis of volume to capacity as well as intersection Level of Service as to how this increase in traffic would impact Railroad Canyon Road further east within the City of Canyon Lake. Intersections analyzed should include Canyon Lake Drive South, Analysis should include anticipation of no further improvements (110' ROW — 4 lanes) as well as buildout of the roadway as designated by the County of Riverside as an Arterial roadway (128' ROW — 4 lanes). <;€ NI,'RAU PE.AN 1. P1)A VV F I NA r: R EC r rz c U [,A 1'1,: 1> P x ca <; It A -VI i% 1 R yy� // q q ! D 1,. c �� y [�. tz. 2 0 1 1 P A �r f`� 2. 0 - 4 4 CITY OF LADE LSINOR E Section 2.0 -- Response to Coninients DREAM EXTREME 44 Programmatic mitigation measures should be provided where appropriate to address these impacts outside of the City of Lake Elsinore's jurisdiction. Response to City of Canyon Lake Comment #3 The daily traffic volume on Railroad Canyon Road east of Canyon Hills Drive has varied as follows per the various transportation analysis reports that have been produced during the course of the General Plan update process and included in Appendix D of the RDP -EIR: DAILY VOLUME SCENARIO (VEHICLES PER DAY) Existing Conditions 31,200 Preferred Alternative 52,000 City Council Directed Alternative 50,000 Proposed Land Use Plan 54,000 In all of the General Plan scenarios that have been explicitly evaluated in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update process, future traffic volumes in excess of 50,000 vehicles per day (VPD) have been identified. Therefore, a cumulative impact due to areawide growth (including growth in the City of Lake Elsinore) can be expected. Given that the existing traffic volume on Railroad Canyon Road east of Canyon Hills Drive is already approaching the capacity of a four lane roadway, it appears that the projected cumulative traffic volumes will require future widening beyond a four lane roadway (either the existing 4 -lane section within a 110 foot right of way or the planned 4 -lane section within a 128 foot right of way) regardless of the land use alternative evaluated for the City of Lake Elsinore. As part of the City of Lake Elsinore development process, future development projects that contribute traffic in excess of 50 peak hour trips will be required to explicitly evaluate the potential impacts of their development on the arterial roadway system, including the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road at Canyon Lake Drive South. The City has added an additional policy to Goal 6 in the proposed General Plans Section 2.4 (Circulation) of Chapter 2.0 (Community Form). This new policy (Policy 6.6) will read as follows: Policy 6.6 As appropriate, coordinate City improvements with the efforts of the County and adjacent cities that provide a circulation network which moves people and goods efficiently to and from the City. Implementation of this policy will assure that there is adequate coordination between the City of Lake Elsinore and the City of Canyon Lake regarding future development projects within the City of Lake Elsinore that implement the proposed project. C F N E: R A a_ 11 1, :k N ivy I' CITY OF Section 2.0 — Response to Comments L A KJE LSINORE ` DREAM EXTREME City of Canyon Lake Comment #4 The peak hour intersection volumes indicated for Existing (Figures 3.4 -7 and 3.4 -8) and the General Plan (Figures 3.4 -17 and 3.4 -18) appear to present the same volumes (at least for the Railroad Canyon Road and Canyon Hills Road intersection). Please clarify this exhibit and the proper volumes or explain why the volumes have not changed. Response to City of Canyon Lake Comment #4 Figure 3.4 -7 of the RDP -EIR (Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes) inadvertently shows the same information contained on Figure 3.4 -17 (General Plan AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes). Figures 3.4 -8 (Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes) and 3.4 -18 (General Plan PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes) do not present the same traffic volumes. Figure 3.4 -7 is hereby amended to reflect the information contained on Figure 3 -G of the Urban Crossroads 2006 Traffic Study, which was updated in 2007. This traffic study is included as Appendix D of the RDP -EIR. The correction of Figure 3.4 -7 does not require any changes to the analysis contained within Section 3.4 (Transportation and Circulation) of the RDP -EIR.. The above - described edits merely provides a minor modification that clarifies the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP -EIR are required. E<thAt_: RLc rRc ::tA_.ATV'D PtzOc toAwt E11R Dt,_( *u-'rv1t3: viz 2011 k" 2.0 -46 CITY OF LAKE LSIlYOIZE 2. Response {I c,l�lalents '� DREAM EXTREME Response to Riverside County Waste Management Department Comment Letter dated: October 20, 2011 The Riverside County Waste Management Department provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation'), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated October 20, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on October 20, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Riverside County Waste Management Comment #1 This department is referred to as "Riverside County Waste Management (RCWM)" in a few places in Chapter 3.16 (page 3.16 -5). Please use the correct name of and acronym for the Department, as indicated in the above paragraph. Response to Riverside County Waste Management Comment #1 This comment requests that references to the Riverside County Waste Management Department within the RDP -EIR be revised from "Riverside County Waste Management (RCWM)" to "Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) ". In response to this comment, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs on page 3.16 -5 of the RDP -EIR are hereby revised as follows: CR &R is responsible for trash disposal in the City of Lake Elsinore as well as in Temecula, Canyon Lake, and parts of the unincorporated County of Riverside. Residents are provided a 60- gallon trash container for garbage. Trash is taken to either a landfill within Riverside County or the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). There are no landfills in the City. Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) manages the landfills used by the City of Lake Elsinore. Capacity levels of landfills within RCWMD's jurisdiction are calculated according to the system -wide capacity level. Landfills within their jurisdiction adhere to state guidelines, which specify that a minimum of 15 years of system- wide landfill capacity shall be provided. RCWMD facilitates waste management services for Riverside County. These services are provided on a countywide basis, and each private or public entity determines which landfill or transfer station to use. Typically, this determination is made based on geographic proximity. The landfills typically used by the City F1 NA, 1.. R F C 1 It ( : If 1_: A '1' 1; 1) P 1% () < K A N1 1:) 1 ^`, t E Ni n t; 12 2 0 1 1 CITY OF Section 2.0 Response to Comments el t` LADE LSINOIZE DREAM EXTREME of Lake Elsinore are the El Sobrante, Badlands, and Lamb Canyon Landfills. All three of the landfills are Class III municipal solid waste landfills. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Riverside County Waste Management Comment #2 The discussion on page 3.16 -5 about the El Sobrante Landfill contains numerous misinformation that needs corrections. The following correct information is provided: The existing landfill encompasses 1,322 acres, of which Fn 185 acres are permitted for landfilling. The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 184 : 9v, million tons, or .fag, 91 : 1: million cubic yards As of the end of 2010 2,909, the landfill had a remaining total capacity of approximately .1.0.7,83 4�1 million tons and an in- county disposal capacity of approximately 44.3.13 -5- 9-947 million tons. It should be noted that the El Sobrante Landfill is permitted at a maximum daily capacity of 10,000 tons, of which 4,000 tons are designated for in- County wastes (ICW). However, the current permit contains a special allowance that the landfill receive a quantity of refuse not to exceed 16,054 tons (of which up to 5,000 tons are in- County wastes) in any single day during a 7 -day week, as long as the total capacity received during the 7 -day period does not exceed 70,000 tons. In other words, the landfill is NOT permitted to receive a daily of 16,054 tons of refuse throughout the year. The annual total and in- County capacity of the landfill should be estimated using the permitted basic daily capacity of 10,000 tons and 4,000 tons, respectively. Response to Riverside County Waste Management Comment #2 This comment provides updated and corrected information regarding the operation of the El Sobrante Landfill. In order to incorporate this revised information into Section 3.16 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the RDP -EIR, the 4th paragraph on page 3.16 -5 of the RDP -EIR is hereby revised as follows: The El Sobrante Landfill is located east of I -15 and Temescal Canyon Road, south of the city of Corona at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The landfill is the only private landfill in Riverside County and is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. The existing landfill encompasses 1,322 acres, of which 435 468 acres are permitted for landfilling. The El Sobrante Landfill is currently permitted to receive a maximum of 70,000 tons per 7-day week of refuse, with a daily tonnage limit e€ that shall not exceed 16,054 tons (of which up to 5,000 tons are in- County wastes) in any single day. The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 3-9 184 million tons, or 484.93 209.91 million cubic yards. Pursuant to the Second Amendment to the Second Landfill Agreement between the County of Riverside and the landfill owner, a PLAN II IN.A1_: RI'::<:1RCUI,A'F1;D PROC >12.fk.vl U 1R I. >rc: l!;iot3Eit 2031 2.0 -48 CITY OF ! %--. LADE LSII`�OIZE Section 2.0 -- Response to Connnents —W DREAM ExTREME maximum of 52.32 million tons of the landfill's design capacity and 5,000 tons of the permitted daily capacity are reserved for refuse generated within Riverside County. As of the end of 2009 2010, the landfill had a remaining total capacity of approximately 125 11R 110.783 million tons and an in- county disposal capacity of approximately 5047 44.313 million tons'. The landfill is expected to reach capacity by approximately 2045. A similar modification has been made to the same text contained in the proposed General Plan in order to clarify the background information contained in the proposed General Plan Update. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Riverside County Waste Management Comment #3 Page 3.16 -30, beneath Table 3.16 -11. The estimate of the total annual capacity (9,144,310 tons per year) of all landfills (i.e., El Sobrante, Badlands, Lamb Canyon) currently serving the City is incorrect, due to the misunderstanding that El Sobrante is permitted to receive a maximum of 16,054 tons per day throughout the year, as explained in the above. Moreover, this combined annual capacity was an over - estimate from the wrong assumption that the three landfills operate 365 days a year. Actually, both El Sobrante and Badlands Landfills operate an average of 307 days and Lamb Canyon Landfill 321 days a year. Therefore, the realistic estimate for the total combined annual capacity should be 4,061,000 tons (i.e., 4,000 tpd (ICW) x 307 days + 4,000 tpd x 307 days + 5,000 tpd x 321 days). Response to Riverside County Waste Management Comment #3 This comment provides additional information regarding the annual operation of the landfills that currently serve the City of Lake Elsinore and provides a revised combined annual capacity. In order to incorporate this revised information into Section 3.16 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the RDP -EIR, the paragraph immediately after Table 3.16 -11 on page 3.16 -10 of the RDP -EIR is hereby amended as follows: As shown in Table 3.16 -11, implementation of the proposed project would generate an estimated total of approximately 412,039 tons of solid waste during buildout. However, pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act, the State of California has established 50 percent as the minimum waste reduction rate for all cities. Additionally, Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC mandates that a minimum of 50 percent of C &D debris to be diverted away from landfills. Thus recycling of construction and demolition waste generated during construction will greatly reduce the amount of such waste that is directed into landfills and the estimated maximum amount of C &D debris that will be placed into landfills would be 206,019.8 tons or an average of 10,300.99 tons per year over the next 20 years. This average represents approximately 04 0.25 percent of the total annual capacity (9,444,710 4,061,000 tons per year4) of all landfills currently serving the City. C F'NERAt., PEAN [+PtoA'rE 1 IN.nt_: 12 F,CIR<::1�I..Att?:t> P 14 0 C RAvt L[R I3t c t vtt t tz 201 1 11A(c i; 2.0 -49 CITY OF Section 2.0 — Response t o Comments LAKE LSINOi�E DREAM EXTREME Additionally, footnote 4 on page 3.16 -30 is hereby amended as follows: 4 capacity . Daily total tonnage of 4,000 tons on in- County waste for each the El Sobrante Landfill and the Badlands Landfills multiplied by 307 days of operation per year and a daily tonnage of 5,000 tons of waste for the Lamb Canyon Landfill multiplied by 321 days of operation per year No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Riverside County Waste Management Comment #4 As a result of the overestimation of the combined annual capacity, the percent proportions of the GPO's construction & demolition (C &D) and operational wastes need to be corrected, as follows: • C &D % = 10,301 tpy _ 4,061,000 tpy x 100% = 0.25 %, instead of 0.1 % • Operational wastes % = 84,747 tpy - 4,061,000 tpy x 100% = 2.1 %, instead of 1.4 % Response to Riverside County Waste Management Comment #4 This comment provides revised calculations regarding the percentage of total annual landfill capacity that will be attributable to the proposed project. In order to incorporate this revised information into Section 3.16 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the RDP -EIR, the revised calculations have been made to Section 3.16 of the RDP -EIR. See the Response to Riverside County Waste Management Comment #3, above for the revision to the paragraph immediately after Table 3.16 -11 on page 3.16 -10 of the RDP -EIR. The third paragraph on page 3.16 -31 of the RDP -EIR is hereby revised as follows: Therefore, the maximum estimated increase in solid waste that would be placed into landfills at general plan buildout (2030) would be 87,747 tons per year. This represents approximately 4:4 2.1 percent of the current combined daily permitted capacity (25,054 tons per day) of all landfills currently serving the City. Although buildout of the proposed project will result in an increase in the amount of solid waste that is sent to landfills, the remaining combined capacity at the landfills is sufficient to accommodate buildout of the proposed project. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP -EIR are required. 1E7e 2 O 1 1 VAC..E 2.0 -50 CITY OF LADE LSIf10RJE Section 2.0 --- Response to Comments ` DREAM EXTREME Riverside County Waste Management Comment #5 Page 3.16 -32, Third Street Annexation. The statement "service (waste collection) provide will change from Riverside County Waste Management to the City of Lake Elsinore under contract with CR &R, Inc." is incorrect. The current County franchise hauler for the annexation area is Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., and not Riverside County Waste Management. In accordance with California State law, the County franchise hauler for the annexation area will have a 5 -year "sunset" time period to relinquish the refuse collection and hauling right to the City's franchise hauler, whoever it may be then. Response to Riverside County Waste Management Comment #5 This comment provides additional information regarding the provision of waste collection services in the 3rd Street Annexation Area. In order to incorporate this information into Section 3.16 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the RDP -EIR, the discussion regarding the 3rd Street Annexation on page 3.16 -32 is hereby amended as follows: .The current waste collection service provider for the 3rd Street Annexation Area is Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. In accordance with California law, the County franchise hauler for the annexation area will have a 5 -year "sunset" time period to relinquish the refuse collection and hauling right to the City's franchise hauler. Currently, CR &R, Inc. provides solid waste collection and hauling services within the City under contract with the City of Lake Elsinore. No additional waste management facilities or staffing would be required to serve the proposed 3rd Street Annexation territory. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Riverside County Waste Management Comment #6 Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Table 3.7 -3 shows that the solid waste sector contributed to approximately 4.3% of the total community -wide emissions that included GHG emissions from organic waste sent to the landfills. Is this 4.3% contribution entirely from the decomposition of the City's waste buried in the landfills, or does it also include the GHG emissions from truck hauling of the waste to the landfills? The same clarification is needed for the forecasted solid waste GHG emissions for 2020 and 2030. Moreover, there is a discrepancy in the value of the total reduction potential from State and local measures for 2030 in Tables 3.7 -8, 3.7 -9, and 3.7 -10. The value is 768,105 MTCO2E in both Tables 3.7 -8 and 3.7 -10, but is 764,853 MTCO2E in Table 3.7 -9. Response to Riverside County Waste Management Comment #6 This comment requests clarification regarding information contained within Section 3.7 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of the RDP -EIR. Regarding Table 3.7 -3 and the projected 1`IN.A, 1 RF,C- IItCrf1.ATF'D PItC >C ;ItAYI ElIR L) I- it 201 1 PA(.1�, 2.0- 5 1 CITY OF Section 2.0 — Respons€° to Comments LAKE �-% LSMORE ` DREAM EXTREME Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions for 2020 and 2030, the solid waste sector does not include the GHG emissions from truck hauling of the waste to landfills. This approach is consistent with the Local Government Operations Protocol and the ICLEI International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol, upon which the GHG inventory is based. A review of Tables 3.7 -8, 3.7 -9 and 3.7 -10 shows that the values in Tables 3.7 -8 and 3.7 -10 are correct but that Table 3.7 -9 requires correction to reflect the values contained in the other tables. In order to incorporate these corrections into Table 3.7 -9 of the RDP -EIR, Table 3.7 -9 is hereby amended as follows: Table 3.7 -9, Reductions Relative to Targets These corrections shall also be made to Table 5 -4 and Table ES -3 in the Climate Action Plan attached as Appendix G of the RDP -EIR. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP - EIR are required. Riverside County Waste Management Comment #7 Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. This section should discuss the history of the ongoing cooperation between the City and Riverside County Waste Management Department in operating the City's permanent HHW Collecting Facility (PHHWCF) that facilitates the proper disposal of household hazardous materials generated by city residents. It should be noted that the County Department of Environmental Health is no longer involved in the County's mobile HHW collection program or the running of the PHHWCF of the City of Lake Elsinore. Response to Riverside County Waste Management Comment #7 This comment requests the inclusion of information regarding the operation of a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility in the City of Lake Elsinore. In order to CAE.• r.R AU PLAN UP1)A•r1 F1NA1_: KU"<:1Rc:[F1.A1ED E'.IR Y113r,iz 201 l PE N(.-E 2.0 -52 2020 (MT CO20 2020 (MT CO2E/ SPi) 2030 (MT CO2E) 2030 (MT CO2E/ SP) Total Projected Business -as -Usual Emissions 1,064,565 7.4 2,028,819 6.7 Total Reduction from State and Local Measures 399,224 2.8 767 2.5 Total Projected Emissions with CAP 665,341 4.6 1 263 Otis 4.2 1,2x6714 GHG Emissions Target 944,737 6.6 1,334,243 4.4 Amount Exceeding Target 279,396 2.0 773 529 0.2 Source: Appendix G (City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan, Table 5 -4). 1 SP = Service Population; 2020 service population = 143,142; 2030 service population = 303,237 These corrections shall also be made to Table 5 -4 and Table ES -3 in the Climate Action Plan attached as Appendix G of the RDP -EIR. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP - EIR are required. Riverside County Waste Management Comment #7 Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. This section should discuss the history of the ongoing cooperation between the City and Riverside County Waste Management Department in operating the City's permanent HHW Collecting Facility (PHHWCF) that facilitates the proper disposal of household hazardous materials generated by city residents. It should be noted that the County Department of Environmental Health is no longer involved in the County's mobile HHW collection program or the running of the PHHWCF of the City of Lake Elsinore. Response to Riverside County Waste Management Comment #7 This comment requests the inclusion of information regarding the operation of a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility in the City of Lake Elsinore. In order to CAE.• r.R AU PLAN UP1)A•r1 F1NA1_: KU"<:1Rc:[F1.A1ED E'.IR Y113r,iz 201 l PE N(.-E 2.0 -52 CITY OF oiisc to Section 2,0 — Res Co nineiits LAD � I`� E LSIOI�E 1 i& DREAM EXTREME 1W - incorporated information regarding this facility into Section 3.10 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of the RDP -EIR, the first full paragraph on page 3.10 -20 is hereby amended as follows: An increase in the generation, storage, and disposal of household hazardous wastes would be associated with buildout of the GPU. A household hazardous waste is any waste generated by households that can cause illness or death or pose a threat to health or the environment when improperly stored, disposed, or otherwise managed. Establishment of permanent collection centers or periodic collection events at temporary locations are the most common methods for gathering household hazardous waste for disposal other than through the municipal garbage collection system. Through ongoing cooperation between the City of Lake Elsinore and the Riverside County Waste Management District, the Lake Elsinore Regional Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility ( PHHWCF) serves City and County residents. The PHHWCF is located at 521 North Langstaff Street within the City of Lake Elsinore. Household hazardous waste collection and education programs will continue to operate in the City pursuant to Policy 3.4 of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter's Hazards and Hazardous Materials section. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP -EIR are required. 1 iN.A,i_: Ri:<:ii2a- ,i_[.,a "iris Ptztic;RAM FAR Di-�c'i�nvit3ri2 2.01 1 IE': Gi. 2.0 -53 CITY OF �^n Section 2.0 --- Response t o Comments L14KE� LSINORE ` DREAM EXrREME Response to Riverside County Transportation Department Comment Letter dated: October 20, 2011 The Riverside County Transportation Department provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation'), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated October 20, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on October 20, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Riverside County Transportation Department Comment #1 Based on a comparison between the County's General Plan Circulation Element and the proposed Circulation Element for the City of Lake Elsinore found in the RDP -EIR, there would be design inconsistencies if the City's plan were to be adopted. The design inconsistencies between the County and City Circulation Elements are related to paved roadway widths and /or number of lanes. At a number of locations both at the City /County boundary and within the City's Sphere of Influence, the proposed City Circulation Element classifies roadways with higher designations than their respective counterparts on the County Circulation Element. An example of this can be seen with Grand Avenue between Riverside Drive and Corydon Street. Under the City's proposed Circulation Element, Grand Avenue is designated as a six - lane Urban Arterial with a curb -to -curb with of 96 feet. In contrast, the County designates Grand Avenue as a four -lane Major Highway with a curb -to -curb width of 76 feet. There are also a few instances where the City's proposed Circulation Element includes roads that are not recognized as designated roadways in the County's Circulation Element. Potentially conflicting designations such as these may result in inconsistent improvements related to roadway design and transitions between the City and the County as well as right -of -way preservation issues. Response to Riverside County Transportation Department Comment #1 The City acknowledges the Riverside County Transportation Department comment that the proposed Circulation Element as shown in Figure 3.4 -14 of the RDP -EIR shows different roadway classifications and ultimate improvements for some road than those shown on the currently adopted Riverside County Circulation Element. The differences are due to the required capacities of these roads needed to accommodate the projected traffic levels that would occur at buildout of the proposed General Plan, as analyzed in the Traffic Studies located in Appendix D of the RDP -EIR. 1(. N [. K A 1., it I, A N 1._l F' t),,% "1' E 1 N ,A 1.: R 1": <: I tZ f 1_` 1_. A "U 1�' D P it C? C3 1Z A Nl 1', I R DE:t: L 1Yt13GAt 2:011 2.0 --54 CITY OF LPL LSIIYOI�E Section 2.0 — Res onse to Comments 44, DREAM EXTREME Following consultation with the Riverside County Transportation Department, as described below in the Response to Riverside County Transportation Department #2, the City has agreed to add an additional policy to Goal 6 in the proposed General Plan's Section 2.4 (Circulation) of Chapter 2.0 (Community Form). This new policy (Policy 6.6) will read as follows: Policy 6.6 As appropriate, coordinate City improvements with the efforts of the County and adjacent cities that provide a circulation network which moves people and goods efficiently to and from the City. Table 3.4 -4 (General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs) in Section 3.4 (Transportation and Circulation) of the RDP -EIR is hereby amended to add the new Policy 6.6 to the list of proposed General Plan policies. Implementation of this policy will assure that there is adequate coordination between the City and the County to address the ultimate design of roads at the points that City and County roads connect. The above - described edit merely provides a minor modification regarding proposed General Plan policies that clarifies the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. Riverside County Transportation Department Comment #2 The Transportation Department requests'to meet with the City to coordinate and resolve the inconsistencies between the County's and City's proposed Circulation Element prior to the approval of the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update and its associated plans. Response to Riverside Countv Transvortation Devartment Comment #2 In response to this comment, the City contacted the County Transportation Department to schedule a meeting. At the County Transportation Department's request a conference telephone call was held on October 31, 2011 to discuss the County's Transportation Department's comments. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. Uifv.A, 1. Rist tizc:1.1.AlrU.'D Ptz40< RAlvt E 1R Dt- c- F.mitviz 201 1 P 2.0 -55 CITY OF Section 2.0 -- Response- to Coinmelits LADE � LSIlYOBJE ` DREAM EXTREME Response to City of Menifee Comment Letter dated: October 21, 2011 The City of Menifee provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation "), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated October 21, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on October 21, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. City of Menifee Comment #1 Please make note of the City of Menifee's correct address. It changed from 29683 New Hub Drive to 29714 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. Response to City of Menifee Comment #1 This comment provides the City of Lake Elsinore with an updated address for the City of Menifee. This comment is acknowledged and the City's distribution list has been updated. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. City of Menifee Comment #2 The City of Menifee previously noted its concern with potential traffic impacts on Holland Road. We noted that we would like to coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore on any mitigation measures or future improvements on Holland Road. The City of Menifee also requested that the trails in the City of Menifee be shown on any General Plan Trails Maps where they connect or intersect with trails in the City of Lake Elsinore. Response to City of Menifee Comment #2 The City has added an additional policy to Goal 6 in the proposed General Plan's Section 2.4 (Circulation) of Chapter 2.0 (Community Form). This new policy (Policy 6.6) will read as follows: C: I v t Ia re z PLAN F1 N A I. R F, c: I Iz C- a ,a � I << r> P Iz c> c, �z � �r [. I R Zir.c_I!:nIna�IZ 2(3Y l PAIGE E 2.0 -56 CITY OF LADE ' LSINOB E Section 2.0 - Response to Comments ` DREAM EXTREME Policy 6.6 As appropriate, coordinate City improvements with the efforts of the County and adjacent cities that provide a circulation network which moves people and goods efficiently to and from the City. Implementation of this policy will assure that there is adequate coordination between the City of Lake Elsinore and the City of Menifee regarding future development projects within the City of Lake Elsinore that implement the proposed project. In response to this comment, the City has updated the proposed General Plan's Figure 2.6 (Elsinore Area Trails System) to show the currently adopted Riverside County Trails System, which includes trails within the City of Menifee. Figure 3.4 -24 (Elsinore Area Trails System) in the RDP -EIR is hereby amended in order show to show the currently adopted Riverside County Trails System, which includes trails within the City of Menifee. The above - described edits merely provides a minor modification that clarifies the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP -EIR are required. City of Menifee Comment #3 The RDP — EIR does not appear to have studied Holland Road at the southeastern city limit nor addressed the City's request regarding trails and future bikeway improvements along Holland Road. To ensure that the City of Menifee's concerns are recognized, we would ask to be added as agency to be consulted in future actions. The references are as follows: Transportation and Circulation Table 3.4 -4, General Plan Transportation and Circulation Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs, Goal 9, Policy 9.1 (Page 3.4 -49) add the City of Menifee. Response to City of Menifee Comment #3 This comment is acknowledged. As discussed in the above Response to City of Menifee Comment #2, an additional policy to Goal 6 in the proposed General Plan's Section 2.4 (Circulation) of Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) has been added (Policy 6.6) as follows: Policy 6.6 As appropriate, coordinate City improvements with the efforts of the County and adjacent cities that provide a circulation network which moves people and goods efficiently to and from the City. Implementation of this policy will assure that there is adequate coordination between the City of Lake Elsinore and the City of Menifee regarding trails and future bikeway improvements iD� E:'E;Ntt �.rx 201 1 P.4G1, 2.0 -ei7 Section 2.0 _ Response to Comments CITY OF LADE L LSINOKE DREAM EXTREME along Holland Road. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. City of Menifee Comment #4 Table 3.4 -5, District Plan Transportation and Circulation Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs, Lake Elsinore Hills District Plan, Goal 4, add a New Policy LEH 4.7 to read "Consider the development of a strategic plan with the City of Menifee to ensure that bikeway and trail construction is coordinated along Holland Road." Response to City of Menifee Comment #4 This comment is acknowledged. See the above Response to City of Menifee Comment U. City of Menifee Comment #5 Figure 3.4 -24, City of Lake Elsinore, Elsinore Area Trails System (Page 3.4 -113) add to the exhibit the City of Menifee Trail System easterly of Lake Elsinore's southeastern boundary line. Response to City of Menifee Comment #5 This comment is acknowledged. As discussed in the above Response to City of Menifee Comment #2, Figure 3.4 -24 has been amended to include the adopted Riverside County trails system, which includes the City of Menifee Trail System. The above - described edit merely provides a minor modification that clarifies the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no additional modification of the RDP -EIR are required. City of Menifee Comment #6 Parks and Recreation Table 3.15 -3, General Plan Parks and Recreation Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs, Goal 9, Policy 9.1 (Page 3.15 -11) add the City of Menifee. Response to City of Menifee Comment #6 This comment is acknowledged. See the above Response to City of Menifee Comment #3. #ir c ti-1 20 d 1 V,kf. V 2.0 --5 CITY OF LADE LSIIYOI�E:t�}n 2.c -��n� to ,n�nnt Z DREAM EXTREME OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED Response to Pala Band of Mission Indians Comment Letter dated: September 9, 2011 The Pala Band of Mission Indians provided comments regarding the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "RDP -EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019) for the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update, Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation "), Downtown Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan in its letter dated September 9, 2011 and received by the City of Lake Elsinore on September 12, 2011. The following discussion provides responses to those comments. The responses and any edits provided below merely clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already presented in the RDP -EIR. The environmental issues raised in the comment letter and responded to below do not present any substantial evidence showing any new or different potentially significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Pala Band of Mission Indians Comment #1 The Pala Band of Mission Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office has received your notification of the project referenced above. This letter constitutes our response on behalf of Robert Smith, Tribal Chairman. We have consulted our maps and determined that the project as described is not within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation. The project is also beyond the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area (TUA). Therefore, we have no objection to the continuation of project activities as currently planned and we defer to the wishes of Tribes in closer proximity to the project area. We appreciate involvement with your initiative and look forward to working with you on fixture efforts. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 760 -891 -3515 or by e -mail at sgauahennpalatribe.com. Response to Pala Band of Mission Indians Comment #1 The Pala Band of Mission Indians states that the project area is not located within the boundaries of the Pala Indian Reservation and is also beyond the boundaries of the territory that the Tribe considers its traditional use area. The City of Lake Elsinore acknowledges that the Tribe states that it has no objection to the continuation of the proposed project and that the Tribe defers to the wishes of Tribes in closer proximity to the project area. No new environmental issues have been raised by this comment and no additional mitigation measures and no modification of the RDP -EIR are required. G FN I;12.> 1_, P1,,;N 11Y1 ?A'1'[. 1< 1 NA, c.. R 1,; c : 1 1z < : 1 I 12 c> <; 12 !% -vi V 1 R 1_i 1- C 1�" N,1 11 1�: 12 2 0 1 1 PAGE 2.l1 -59