HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Merged 10.10.12 Ridge CEQA report textVTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
I. ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
The project applicant and landowner, Castle and Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc.,
proposes a Vested Tentative Tract Map No. 35001 (VTTM), located within a portion of
the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment # 1 area, (ARSP # 1 Brighton), for future
mixed land use development. The VTTM encompasses an approximate 400.3-acre
area, within a portion of the overall ASRP Amendment #1, 998 total acres, for future
construction of 1,401 dwelling units in: 1) two (2) minimum lot sizes for single family -
5,000 (SF I) and 4,200sq. ft. (SF II) areas on 334.4 gross acres (307.1 net area) with a
total of 1,056 dwelling units; 2) one (1) high density multi-family residential (HDMFR)
area with 225 units, maximum of 30 DU/acre on a 11.5 gross acre lot, (7.5 acre net
pad area); 3) two areas of Suburban Village (SV), for the mixed commercial, office,
and residential use areas; the first SV area, is a 9.8 gross acre lot (4.3 acre net pad
area) and the second area is a 34.6 gross acre lot (23.1 acre net pad area), which
totals 44.4 gross acres (32.9 net pad areas) of SV. Within the two SV areas, there is a
potential of approximately 120 dwelling units of high density residential, at 30 DU/acre,
and 1,358,000 square feet of commercial/office land use; 4) there are two (2) Public
Parks, one being a 6.90-acre area and the other is proposed as a 3.1-acre area, that is
exclusive of a 1.1 acre underground water tank site; 5) a 14.6 gross acre area, (13.0
net acres), for an 850 student schools site, which is reserved within the 77-unit lotted
SFR II residential area, next to the 6.90-acre public park1; and 6) a 38.8-acre linear
park and restored perennial stream is to be located along the east side of Lake Street.
The Ridge VTTM No. 35001 400.3 acres overlays the current zoning described in the
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 (Brighton), encompassing a 998-acre
area. No Specific Plan land use changes are proposed with the VTTM No. 35001. The
remaining approximately 600 acres of the Brighton SP area is currently owned by the
County of Riverside and designated in the land sale purchase agreements, (Tri-Valley
Agreements), for permanent future Multiple Species Habitat Conservation. With the
County 600-acre land purchase, approximately 1,334 dwelling units and 1,364,500
square feet of commercial land uses were “removed” from the Brighton Specific Plan
and consequently reduced the environmental impacts previously described within the
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
The Vested Tentative Tract Map No. 35001 includes 1,056 Single Family lots. Zoning
will permit 2,027 D.U.s, and the majority may be multi-family in three (3) areas. The
purpose of the VTTM is to conditionally approve 1,056 Single Family D.U.s and
locating future multi-family and commercial areas, which will be required additional
review and approvals with additional conditions of approval.
1 The two land ownerships (County/C & C) within the 998 SP area cuts through and divides certain SP land use
areas. A pro-rated ratio between the 2 land ownerships was used to determine the respective maximum
square footage allowed per planning area for commercial/office/light industrial and residential uses.
These respective land uses by land owner are noted in Exhibit 23 below.
1
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The following pages I-1 through I-10 are reprinted from the original Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan (ARSP) 89-2 and re-adopted in the Brighton Specific Plan, Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and Addendum #1 summarizing the existing conditions, project impacts and
mitigation measures for each environmental topical area that may be affected by the
proposed Vested Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 35001 described in this EIR Addendum
# IV to ARSP. This Brighton Specific Plan - VTTM No. 35001 Addendum #IV is prepared to
provide information to the City decision makers on changes to the environmental impacts
analyzed in the previous environmental documents of the proposed VTTM No. 35001
project areas. The results of this EIR Addendum #IV analysis note no significant
environmental changes as a result of adopting the VTTM No. 35001 project. This
conclusion is based on two primary factors. First, the proposed VTTM No. 35001 proposes
no changes to the adopted Specific Plan land uses that were analyzed and mitigated
through the ARSP EIR and Brighton EIR Addendum. Second, the County acquisition of the
remaining 600 acres of the Specific plan area for conservation has reduced the total
dwelling units and commercial square footage for the entire Specific Plan area. This 60%
reduction in Brighton Specific Plan land use area resulting from the County 600-acre
acquisition for conservation has lessened the intensity of potential human urban impacts
from the planning area in all topical CEQA analysis areas. Since the environmental impacts
have not been increased, but lessened, with the proposed VTTM No. 35001, the CEQA
Addendum is the appropriate document to describe to the City decision makers the
proposed project. The following Addendum analysis will describe the entire ARSP area, the
historical entitlement activity within this ARSP Specific Plan area, and topical analysis of
CEQA impacts proposed with the proposed VTTM No. 35001.
This reprinted Mitigation section is a summary of the full ARSP EIR analysis of each
environmental element contained in Section IV, Description of Environmental Setting,
Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Pages IV-1 through IV-120) of DEIR dated April 1989
that was adopted August 18, 1989 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore via
Ordinance No. 862 – adopting the ARSP and certifying Final EIR No. 89-2 (SCH No.
88090517) for the 1,853-acre property of which the proposed VTTN No. 35001 is a 400.3
acres area. In taking this entitlement action, the City of Lake Elsinore (“City”) satisfied
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the Guidelines for the
Implementation of the CEQA, as amended (“State CEQA Guidelines”) adopted as the City
CEQA Guidelines, establishing a basis for the future subsequent discretionary actions upon
the project area, including this VTTM No. 35001.
Section 1.1, pages 14 through 26 within this VTTM No. 35001/EIR Addendum #IV provides
an overview of the ARSP area entitlements, governmental activities affecting the land uses
and history of those subsequent discretionary actions that have occurred within the 1,853-
acre ARSP property area since adoption of the Specific Plan.
The following reprinted pages are from the ARSP #1:
2
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
3
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
4
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
5
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
6
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
7
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
8
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
9
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
10
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
11
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
12
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview of the Alberhill Specific Plan Area Entitlements and
Governmental Activities Affecting the Land Uses
The original baseline Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan No. 89-2 (“Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan”) was approved and the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) SCH
#88090517 was certified by the City of Lake Elsinore (the “City”) on August 8, 1989.
These City actions zoned the Specific Plan area which was annexed on May 5, 1990
as part of a larger 2,667-acre annexation area. The City also adopted amendments to
the City’s General Plan Land Use Element and zoning code as a result of these
entitlement actions.
The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) covers approximately 1,853 acres generally
bisected by the Nichols Road, and Terra Cotta Road, and bordered by Interstate 15 on
the east and north, and Lake Street on the west. (See Exhibit 1 – Regional Map,
Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Map of 400.3 acre VTTM No. 35001, Exhibit 3 – Aerial Vicinity
Map), and Exhibit 4 - Location Map and VTTM No. 35001).
13
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
14
Exhibit 1 - Regional Map
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
2
–
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
o
f
4
0
0
.
3
A
c
r
e
V
T
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
15
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Exhibit 3 - Aerial Vicinity Map
16
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
17
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
4
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area originally consisted of three ownerships:
Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership; Brighton Alberhill Associates; and Long
Beach Equities, and proposed 3,705 dwelling units, 254 acres of commercial use, 531
acres of open space, 30 acres of park, and 50 acres of school/park sites. Please refer
to the following land use exhibit from the ARSP, Exhibit 5.
18
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
5
–
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
1
9
8
9
A
l
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
N
o
.
8
9
-
2
(
A
R
S
P
)
19
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
__________________________________________________________________________________
In 1991, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan was amended by Brighton Homes of Orange
County to separate a 998-acre area from the ARSP area and redesign an entirely
different Specific Plan (sub area) out of the original 1,853 acre Specific Plan area. The
amendment became known as the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1
(Brighton ARSP #1). It was the intent of the City in approving this Specific Plan
ndment #1 to add dwelling units and permit development of a maximum of 2,735
ential units, incorporating the first 18-hole championship golf course inside the
and 89 acres in three locations of a Suburban Villages which would be mixed
of commercial shopping, office and higher density residential opportunities,
ding affordable housing. The Specific Plan Amendment #1 area shares a
on boundary of Nichols Road and the common corner with Lake Street,
ding a common collector Road (Alberhill Ranch and Ridge Road) with the
ent Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area. The ARSP #1 provides for
ler public parks, compared to the original SP, as an open space/park trade off for
djoining 34 acre, now 22.4 acre, Murdock Alberhill Ranch Community Park at the
er of Lake Street and Nichols Road and for the 144-acre Golf Course-Open Space
newly added to the Specific Plan area in 1991. Please refer to the following
P #1 Land Use Plan, Exhibit 6.
ARSP #1 City entitlements included a Development Agreement (D.A.) approved
uly 11, 1990 and D.A. Amendment #1 approved on September 10, 1991 that
d the development’s rights and terms for 15 years or until July 11, 2005. The
al D.A. secured the development rights for 2,235 residential dwelling units,
2,500 square feet of commercial, industrial uses, open space and related uses.
parties to the D.A. include the City of Lake Elsinore and Brighton Alberhill
ciates and their assigns. The D.A. and Amendment #1 was supplemented on
ember 10, 1991 with a General Plan Amendment to the Lake Elsinore General
by Resolution No. 91-67 and ARSP Amendment No.1, which by Resolution No.
8 on August 27, 1991, increased the number of allowable dwelling units to 2,735
98 acres shown in ARSP #1 and the D.A. Amendment #1 detailed the
lopment timing of the proposed golf course and alternate actions if the golf course
not built.
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was adopted on June 17,
by the County and City, some 13 years following the ARSP #1 and “Brighton”
adoption and within the 15 year term of the D.A. (July 11, 2005). The MSHCP
tion by the City had the effect of “de facto” modifying the Specific Plan land uses
D.A. directed fees by removing certain development areas and replacing them
permanent open space pursuant to MSHCP criteria cell and cell group
riptions, and, according to the new VTTM No. 35001 owner, Castle & Cooke,
Lake Elsinore West, Inc., arguably, “staying” or stopping the development agreement
terms from expiring, on the date the MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003. The
effect of the MSHCP on the ASRP #1 was to effectively modify the plan’s residential,
commercial and open space/golf course areas by placing large amounts of the
Specific Plan area into MSHCP open space conservation and with a levy of new
MSHCP development fees, contrary to the D.A., over the remaining areas outside
Ame
resid
City,
uses
inclu
comm
inclu
adjac
smal
the a
corn
area
ARS
The
on J
veste
origin
2,72
The
Asso
Sept
Plan
91-6
on 9
deve
was
The
2003
D.A.
adop
and
with
desc
20
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
6
–
1
9
9
1
Al
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
#
1
(
A
R
S
P
#
1
)
21
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
__________________________________________________________________________________
the newly designated Criteria Cell and Cell Group locations. The ARSP #1 area
owners (Brighton, and successor in interest Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc.,)
had previously made, through the ARSP #1 and the accompanying D.A. and D.A. 1st
Amendment, land use open space and fee trade-offs with the City in exchange for
open space preservation, a golf course, and a 34-acre community park, all on
oximately 180 acres of open space/park.
County and City adopted the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program in
prior to the termination date of the Brighton D.A. of July 11, 2005. This new
ram also added new fees not contemplated in the D.A. and D.A. 1st Amendment.
following D.A. bullet point analysis provides a comparison between TUMF fees
MSHCP fees under the ARSP # 1 (Brighton):
● “Fees, conditions and dedications
appr
The
2004
prog
The
and
. Developer shall make only those
dedications and pay only those fees expressly prescribed in this
Agreement, the Existing Development Approvals, and subsequent
Development Approvals, provided that such fees are imposed on a city-
wide basis.” (Brighton D.A., §9.5.)
* Under the Brighton D.A., only fees expressly prescribed in the
Brighton D.A. are permitted. Accordingly, new fees (generally)
are prohibited by the D.A..
● “Future tentative maps, specific plan amendments and development
impact fees. Developer will be subject to conditions as a result of
tentative map review or specific plan amendments and to any
development impact fees that may be adopted by City on a city-wide
basis.” (Brighton D.A., §9.5 (4).)
* City-wide Development Impact Fees (DIF) are
contemplated by the Brighton D.A. as an exception to the
general prohibition against new fees – or fees that are not
expressly prescribed in the Brighton D.A..
* TUMF and MSHCP fees do not fall within the category of
“development impact fees that may be adopted by the City
on a City-wide basis.”
* Three major distinctions exist between the TUMF and
MSHCP fees and a fee imposed on a City-wide basis: (1)
the establishment of the MSHCP is based upon
fundamental “regional” concepts and applies County-wide;
(2) the MSHCP is fundamentally a Federal law process
applied at a local level and it provides “take” authority
under both the Federal and State Endangered Species
22
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
23
exclusively by, and at the discretion of
t
if the term of such a Development
ents, as does TUMF.
es of the limitation of the exemption.
This MSHCP conse
transportation fees re n
Agreement. There is a
stipulates when outside e other public agencies makes the
achievement of thepec
governmental entitlent a
or toll, the term from run
actions which modified o
Agreement terms. This t
agency, (City of Lake Els
parties to the D.A. deem
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Acts (e.g., the MSHCP Implementing Agreement and EIR
reflect that the MSHCP is modeled after the Natural
Communities Conservation Plan), and; (3) TUMF and
MSHCP fees are not imposed on a City-wide basis where
properties are not equally assessed. Comparatively, the
City DIF is applied
the City, and applied equitably among property and is
therefore imposed on a City-wide basis.
● “Development Projects which are the subject of a Developmen
Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code, Section 65864 et
seq. prior to the effective date of this ordinance, if new fees are expressly
prohibited, provided, however that,
Agreement is extended after the effective date of this Ordinance, the
TUMF shall be imposed. (See City TUMF Ordinance §4.F.v.)
* Because the Brighton D.A. was executed prior to the
effective date of the TUMF Ordinance, it is exempt from
TUMF fees.
* The MSHCP Resolutions and Ordinances pertaining to the
MSHCP fee do not contain the same explicit exemption for
Development Agreem
* Because the Brighton D.A. is being “tolled” in accordance
with State law governing development agreements and
changes imposed on the project area and D.A. by State
and Federal laws, the term of the Brighton D.A. would be
extended for purpos
* TUMF and MSHCP fees are “new fees” that are not
prescribed or contemplated by the Brighton D.A. and are
therefore prohibited by the Brighton D.A..
rvation land use changes, MSHCP fees, and new County-wide
weot contemplated in the Specific Plan or the Development
body of development agreement law in California that
ffects by the city or
Sific Plan and the D.A. terms impossible or by de facto
mections modifies the Specific Plan, the net affect is to stop,
ning out as of the date of the subsequent governmental
r otherwise affected the Specific Plan and Development
olling of the D.A. term, by state law, permits the public
inore), to take whatever time and legal action the two (2)
acceptable to rectify the D.A. contract and other related
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
24
entitlement documents
(MSHCP/TUMF).
TOLLING OF BRIGHTON
and actions, in view of these intervening actions
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ARSP #1
t Agreement Statute as set forth at California Government
. recognizes that unexpected circumstances or subsequent
s, policies, etc., may interfere with the
The California Developmen
Code Section 65864 et seq
governmental actions, law compliance of the
provisions of a development agreement. Post-enactment of law and regulation can
affect a
development
Section 6586
“In the
develo de
mpliance with one or more provisions of the development agreement,
such provisioof th
be necessary to com
While, the City-adopted MSHCP is a locally implemented regional plan, it is also
founded upon and implem
MSHCP only has authority
(County/City) implementat rnia Regional
Water Quality Control Board implementing the Federal Clean Water Act Sections 401
and 402. With the ited
Biological Opinion and inc
MSHCP, the MSHCP is “s
law. California Governm
modification or suspensio w
prohibits compliance with any provision of a development agreement. According to
the VTTM applicant'as
mandatory modification or
strong argument for tolling on the VTTM No.
001 project area and require the City Council to revisit the D.A. in light of the
the bility to implement a development plan, and thus, requires that a
agreement be modified or suspended. In particular, Government Code
9.5 states that:
event that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after a
pment agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclu
co
ns e agreement shall be modified or suspended as may
ply with such state and federal laws or regulations.”
ents the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts. The
for conservation under Federal and State law. This local
ion of a Federal law is not unlike the Califo
UnStates Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issuance of a
idental take permit being a prerequisite to effectuating the
tate or federal law or regulation” pursuant to the D.A. State
ent Code Section 65869.5 establishes a mandatory
n requirement when subsequent State or Federal la
s, Ctle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., failure to address the
suspension requirement of Section 65869.5, results in a
the term of the Development Agreement
35
MSHCP effects.
Government Code Section 65869.5 provides the opportunity to extend the term of the
Brighton (Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc.) Development Agreement and
allow the City Council to consider a functional term that will allow Castle & Cooke,
Lake Elsinore West, Inc., as the subsequent owner of the Brighton property, to
exercise its acquired vested development rights underlying VTTM No. 35001.
Following the Brighton Specific Plan Amendments and D.A. adoption, in 1992, the
adjacent land owner, Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership, requested an
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
ib
i
t
7
–
1
9
9
2
M
u
r
d
o
c
k
A
l
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
(
M
A
R
S
P
)
25
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
amendment to its 511-acre portion (“Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan”) of the
previously approved Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, (See Exhibit 7, above). This
separate Murdock ownership, adjacent to the Brighton ownership, held within the
original 1,853 Specific Plan area, like Brighton, separated the 511-acre area out of the
original 1,853 Specific Plan area with the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and
the Plan’s 2nd Amendment, its own D.A. and its separate accompanying CEQA
ndum. The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (MARSP) proposed a number
inor technical revisions and modifications to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89-2
use plan, circulation plan, phasing plan, zoning standards, and design guidelines,
proposed a maximum of 1,819 residential dwelling units in various land use
ories, an elementary school, open space, private recreational, public community
uses (shared with the ARSP #1 for open space credit) and commercial uses. The
ock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area is divided into three general planning
s: residential, commercial and schools/parks. Please refer to the following MARSP
use plan, Exhibit 7.
e time the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan entitlement was undertaken in
, the City, pursuant to Public Resources Code CEQA § 21166 and 14 California
of Regulations CEQA §§ 15162 and 151632, determined that a supplemental
was not required because changes proposed to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
ot have potentially significant environmental effects different from those analyzed
art of the original Alberhill Ranch Final EIR. The impacts were determined to the
as or reduced from that analyzed in the original ARSP EIR. As a result, the City
ared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164, and adopted in June 1992, an
ndum to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR (“EIR Addendum #II”). The
Addendum #II noted only minor technical revisions and modifications to the
rhill Ranch Specific Plan and concluded that no new significant environmental
ts were identified and no new mitigation measures were proposed or necessary.
arch of 1997, the project applicant, Horizon Group, Inc., requested approval of a
ific Plan Amendment #3 (following Brighton 998 acres and Murdock 511 acres)
e eastern 202-acre portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area, north of the
and is bisected by Nichols Road. On June 10, 1997, ARSP Amendment #3 was
oved by the City of Lake Elsinore providing additional phases of outlet center
ercial uses as an extension to the existing Lake Elsinore Outlet Center located
Collier Avenue across the freeway, along with providing general commercial
and open space. In accordance with CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared to evaluate those land uses with the Specific Plan Amendment #3 area.
See Exhibit 8, below, for the ARSP #3 Plan area.
Adde
of m
land
and
categ
park
Murd
area
land
At th
1992
Code
EIR
did n
as p
same
prep
Adde
EIR
Albe
effec
In M
Spec
for th
I-15
appr
comm
along
uses
was
2 For the Purposes of this Addendum, Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., will be referred to as the California
Environmental Quality Act or “CEQA” for short. Additionally, 14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq., the
State implementing Guidelines for CEQA, will be referred to as “the CEQA Guidelines.”
26
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Exh
i
b
i
t
8
–
1
9
9
7
A
l
b
e
r
h
il
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
A
m
en
dm
e
n
t
#
3
(
A
R
S
P
#
3
)
27
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
__________________________________________________________________________________
In October of 2003, the project applicant, Murdock Development Company, on behalf
of Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership, requested approval of another third
Addendum to the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR (“EIR Addendum #III”) for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.’s (“VTTMs”) 30836 (Hoist) and 28214 (Ranch). The
EIR Addendum #III described two VTTMs. VTTM No. 30836 for 208 lots, 1 private
, school and 1 park site; and VTTM No. 28214 for 970 single family lots, 3 private
s and a public park, all as shown on Exhibit 9. On January 13, 2004, Addendum
as adopted (Resolution No. 2004-9) and was found complete and adequate by
ity Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, fully complying with the requirements of
A, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s environmental analysis procedures.
equent to the January 13, 2004 approval, an Administrative EIR Addendum #I to
urdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan was approved by the City on December 27,
and a Specific Plan Amendment #II was approved by the City Council on
mber 25, 2008 along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2008-12. As of
ember 2012, there are three (3) Tentative Maps within Alberhill Ranch Specific
: VTTM Nos. 28214, 30836, and 35773. Subsequent Substantial Conformance
s were prepared for both VTTM Nos. 28214 and 30836. VTTM No. 28214
ists of 913 SF home sites, 25.6 acres of multi-family sites, a 22.4-acre Community
along with various private parks, an elementary school site and a community
ming center. VTTM No. 30836 consists of 280 single-family home sites, a 4.6-
public park and a private park. In 2009, VTTM No. 35773 was approved for 72
Family home sites. VTTM No. 35773 is located within the boundaries of VTTM
30836. See Exhibit 9 below showing the recorded phasing map for VTTM Nos.
4, 30836 and 35773. VTTM No. 28214 is currently shown to be developed in 18
rding phases. As of September 2012, five (5) phases have been recorded at the
ty Recorder’s office.
park
park
#III w
the C
CEQ
Subs
the M
2005
Nove
Sept
Plan
Map
cons
Park
swim
acre
Sin
No.
2821
reco
Coun
gle
28
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
hi
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
E
I
R
A
d
d
e
n
ac
t
M
a
p
No
.
’
s
(
V
T
T
M
s
)
3
0
8
3
6
a
n
d
2
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
9
–
2
0
0
4
M
u
r
d
o
c
k
A
l
b
e
r
Ve
s
t
i
n
g
T
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
8du
m
I
I
I
f
o
r
21
4
29
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
__________________________________________________________________________________
In 2004, the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
was adopt erside County, including the City of
Lake Elsinore and the 1,853 ARSP areas, including the ARSP three Amendment
areas. The MSHCP covers the ASRP #1 area and includes essentially an
environmental land use overlay program converting, in many cases, urban land uses
to permanent open space and imposing additional fees on areas devoted to
development. Murdock/Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc. ownerships at the
time of MSHCP adoption were excluded from the MSHCP pursuant to litigation and a
legal settlement agreement. These MSHCP excluded ownerships did not include the
Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc. 400.3-acre ARSP # 1 area that is the subject
of VTTM No. 35001 due to it’s acquisition following approval of the legal settlement
agreement
The MSHCP, as previously noted, is fundamentally a “de facto” land use entitlement
“permit” process; which, when completed through a habitat acquisition process, allows
applicants, public or private groups, to “take, harm or harass” endangered species
under the Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a) Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) program, usually, in exchange for open space land and/or money. This
MSHCP 10(a) take permission was agreed to by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, in exchange for setting aside long term conservation areas for protection of
an assortment of endangered and non-endangered species and their respective
habitats. The MSHCP, covering approximately 146 species, of which most are not
listed as federally endangered, is primarily administered by the local land use authority
“permittee” – the City or County - depending upon the property location of an
applicant’s project within Western Riverside County or the incorporated areas, such as
Lake Elsinore. Without the USFWS 10(a) Federal “take” permission adopted through
the MSHCP there would be no MSHCP program.
ThroughouSHCP process, there is a limited State and Federal Resource and
Wildlife Agency oversight with no final discretionary land use authority by the County
over the City or Wildlife Agencies over local decisions, except in limited circumstances
when the MSHCP requires modification for Criteria Refinement (MSHCP Section 6.5,
pp. 6 – 74), or for Minor or Major Amendments (MSHCP Section 6.10, pp. 6-112-6-
115). Only when the City processes criteria refinement or a MSHCP Plan amendment
do State and Federal agencies, through the County RCA, (which have otherwise
transferred the entirety of their permit authority to the local land use authority
Permittee-City of Lake Elsinore), have discretion over local land use decisions.
Criteria Refinement is a process that involves modification to the acreage criteria of a
particular cr cell group that requires Wildlife Agency approval to assure that the
MSHCP Conservation Goals and Objectives will be achieved with the refinement. To
date, the Criteria Refinement procedure of the MSHCP has been sparsely utilized by a
local land use authority within Riverside County. Instead, local authority, usually in the
County of Riverside, has been exercised in a “creative” manner that avoids the need
for Criteria Refinement. The “creativity’ usually involves the discretion of local
lawmakers to direct staff to interpret the MSHCP, within the confines of the MSHCP,
ed for all areas throughout western Riv
.
t th
ell o
e M
30
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
31
lace the more commonly used Section 7 Federal Endangered Species
y of Lake
___________________________________________________________________________________________
so that the more intricate MSHCP Criteria Refinement or Amendment procedures are
not exercised.
The MSHCP program is intended to streamline the endangered species permit
process for both public and private projects at the local government level. The major
reason for the new MSHCP endangered species process, according to the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors, is to accelerate the countywide road building process in
order to accept the increasing population growth occurring in Riverside County. The
MSHCP, however, was not intended to be another layer of zoning, tract map or
conditional use permit entitlement delay and bureaucratic paperwork in attaining “take”
permission for endangered species on public and private lands. The MSHCP was
eant to repm
Permit process commonly associated with a Corps of Engineers Section 404
streambed filling or grading permit. However, the MSHCP does not obviate the need
to conduct Corps 404 and CDFG 1602 permit reviews for impacts to State and Federal
waters. This is the case with VTTM No. 35001 which is governed by the MSHCP
program through a separate Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS)
process described in the Tri-Valley Agreements.
In 2004, as the MSHCP was being adopted by cities throughout the County, the
County entered into a series of open space directed land acquisition agreements with
Tri-Valley 1 Group, prior owners of the 998-acre ARSP #1 area which includes the
Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc. VTTM No. 35001 area. The Tri-Valley three
“transactions” or agreements, (1 Acquisition Agreement and 2 Memorandums of
Understandings - MOU’s), included a sale of 598 acres of the 998-acre ASRP #1 to
the County for conservation and included 2 additional Memorandums of
nderstanding between the County, Tri-Valley 1 partnership and the CitU
Elsinore to describe the conditions of the sale or transaction. These three agreements
essentially constitute a Habitat and Negotiations Program under the MSHCP. The 3
agreements finalized all biology requirements under the MSHCP, CEQA and NEPA.
No further biology analysis or mitigation under CEQA is now required for this VTTM
No. 35001 or subsequent discretionary actions within the VTTM area according to the
agreements. Brief descriptions of the 3 “Tri-Valley 1” agreements covering VTTM No.
35001 are summarized below:
Acquisition Agreement, February 10, 2004 between Riverside County and Tri-
Valley Partners. (This Acquisition Agreement is the original “contract” between
the County and Tri-Valley 1 for the County’s acquisition of 598 acres. This
initial agreement does not include the City as a party and sets the terms of the
sale and the MSHCP mitigation for the remaining 400.3 VTTM No. 35001
acres).
Memorandum of Understanding, February 10, 2004 between Riverside County,
Tri-Valley and the City of Lake Elsinore. (This MOU adds the City of Lake
Elsinore as a party to the agreement, clarifies the Acquisition Agreement, and in
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
32
the 400.3 Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., VTTM No. 35001
and the County 598 acres.)
gram, for MSHCP purposes, was not
rovided for within the ARSP #1 and the Brighton Development Agreement. The City
one important area, notes the process to clarify and finalize the boundaries
between
Addendum to MOU between the County of Riverside, Tri-Valley I, and the City
of Lake Elsinore with respect to the 598 acres of property within the City of Lake
Elsinore. (This MOU Addendum deals with the application, terms and
finalization of the conservation easement to the 598 acre County property once
the east-west cross County transportation corridor is finalized and the County
transfers their property to the RCA).
Payment of an MSHCP fee, provided in the Tri-Valley Acquisition Agreement,
completes the MSHCP process, providing “Take” permission of any protected species
under the MSHCP and Endangered Species Act over the VTTM No. 35001 area. No
additional CEQA biology assessment is required within the VTTM No. 35001 area after
payment of the MSHCP fee for subsequent entitlement procedures.
This Tri-Valley/County land exchange and fee pro
p
of Lake Elsinore was a party to the two MOU’s, but did not amend the Brighton D.A. or
ARSP #1 to accommodate the subsequent agreements land use actions.
In May of 2006, the project applicant, Pacific Aggregates, a subsidiary of Pacific Clay
Products, Inc., prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Nichols Mine
Reclamation Plan Permit, within ARSP #3 area for the purpose of temporary extraction
of clay and other raw materials within approximately 99 acres of the ARSP #3 211.40-
acre site (Nichols Canyon Mine – under Pacific Clay’s mining rights covered under
Reclamation Plan No. RP-112). The Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified and
the final Reclamation Plan was approved by The City of Lake Elsinore City Council on
November 14, 2006. The approved ‘Mine Plan’, Exhibit 10, plus ‘Mining and
Reclamation Plan’, Exhibit 11, are shown below and on the following pages.
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
2
0
0
6
N
i
c
h
o
l
s
C
a
n
y
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
1
0
–
on
M
i
n
e
P
l
a
n
f
o
r
R
e
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
33
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
34
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
1
1
–
2
0
0
6
N
i
c
h
o
l
s
C
a
n
y
o
M
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
n
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
__________________________________________________________________________________
The project applicant, Castle and Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., owners of property
within the ASRP #1 area, proposes a Vested Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 35001,
as shown below, encompassing an approximate 400.3-acre area, a portion of the
overall ASRP Amendment #1, 998 total acres, for 1,056 single family lots, a high
density multi-family residential area with 225 units, a 44.4 gross acre lot (32.9 net pad
area) Suburban Village mixed use area (using a pro-rated formula to determine the
maximum square footage allowed per planning area for commercial/office/light
industrial and a percentage ratio for determining a total residential land use ratio),
there is a potential of 120 dwelling units of high density residential and 1,358,000
square feet of commercial/office land use), and 10-acres within two (2) public parks.
Development of the tract will include 334.4 potential gross acres of single family (SFI &
SFII) residential development; and the 6.9-acre public park will be adjacent to a
possible alternate use of an Elementary School site of 14.6 gross acres (for 850
students with 77 single family residential lots, 4,200 square feet in size as a residential
land use overlaying the school site. With this land use inclusion of an Elementary
School, the 77 single family residential lots, could be rearranged through a future Tri-
Valley Agreement described Lot-Line Adjustment and Substantial Compliance
administrative review or tract map amendment that will allow the 77 lots to be re-lotted
into other areas of the single family lot land use area, pursuant to the Tri-Valley
MOU’s. See page 38 for further discussion on the Lot-Line Adjustment.
The 400.3-acre VTTM No. 35001, depicted below, substantially follows the ARSP #1
land use areas noted on the graphic which is taken directly from the adopted ARSP#1
text, Figure 6. For purposes of comparing the ARSP # 1 land use areas to the
proposed VTTM No. 35001, the number of dwelling units, the densities, and
commercial areas square footage are shown on the graphic. The ARSP#1 land use
categories have been given Planning Area (PA) numbers identifying the VTTM
nomenclature and location. The subsequent Table 1, following the land use graphic
Exhibit 12, indicates the VTTMs planning areas and ARSP #1 land uses. The ARSP
#1 land uses and densities (D.U.s and commercial square footage) that remain within
the 598 County area are shown on Exhibit 13 and are further described within Table 2.
35
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
1
2
–
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
r
d
A
l
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
p
e
V
e
s
t
i
n
g
T
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
T
ci
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
#
1
E
I
R
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
–
ac
t
M
a
p
(
V
T
T
M
)
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
PA
1
PA
2
PA
8
PA
4
PA
3
PA 5
36
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ta
b
l
e
1
L
1
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
s
(
P
.
A
.
)
pe
r
V
T
T
M
N
o
.
35
0
0
1
La
n
d
U
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
(L
a
n
d
U
s
e
s
a
r
e
p
e
r
A
R
S
P
#
1
)
C&
C
VT
T
M
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
Ma
x
.
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(U
n
i
t
s
/
A
c
.
)
/
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
A
R
M
a
x
.
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
S. F.
an
d
U
s
e
s
,
D
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
&
D
.
U
.
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
op
o
s
e
d
A
l
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
#
E
I
R
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
–
V
e
s
t
i
n
g
T
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
c
t
M
a
p
(
V
T
T
M
)
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
1
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
(
S
V
)
9.
8
30
D
U
/
A
c
.
/
2.
0
F
A
R
40
29
9
,
7
3
9
2
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
I
(S
F
R
I
I
)
16
1
.
2
6
D
U
/
A
c
.
5
3
4
3
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
(
S
V
)
34
.
6
3
0
D
U
/
A
c
.
/
2.
0
F
A
R
80
1,
0
5
8
,
2
6
1
4
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
I
(S
F
R
I
I
)
18
.
7
6
D
U
/
a
c
.
7
1
5
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
H
D
M
F
R
)
11
.
5
3
0
D
U
/
A
c
.
2
2
5
8
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
(S
F
R
I
)
16
4
.
5
5
D
U
/
A
c
.
4
5
1
To
t
a
l
s
40
0
.
3
a
c
.
--
1,
4
0
1
D
.
U
.
/
1,
3
5
8
,
0
0
0
S
.
F
.
No
t
e
s
:
1
.
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
2
:
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
6
.
9
g
r
o
s
s
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
S
i
t
e
;
a
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
u
s
e
a
s
o
f
a
S
F
R
I
I
1
3
.
0
a
c
r
e
s
a
r
e
a
a
s
a
n
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
o
f
8
5
0
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
6
.
0
-
a
c
r
e
P
a
r
k
S
i
t
e
.
2
.
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
8
:
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
3
.
1
g
r
o
s
s
a
c
r
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
S
i
t
e
.
3
.
A
3
8
.
8
n
e
t
a
c
r
e
a
r
e
a
L
i
n
e
a
r
P
a
r
k
i
s
s
h
a
r
e
d
b
y
t
he
s
e
P
.
A
.
s
,
:
P
.
A
.
#
2
(
2
7
.
3
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
S
F
R
-
I
I
)
,
a
n
d
P
.
A
.
#
3
(
1
1
.
5
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
S
V
)
.
4.
F
A
R
=
F
l
o
o
r
A
r
e
a
R
a
t
i
o
–
D
e
f
i
n
e
d
a
s
t
h
e
T
o
t
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
T
o
t
a
l
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
o
f
S
i
t
e
.
5
.
T
o
t
a
l
D
.
U
.
s
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
p
e
r
Z
o
n
i
n
g
2
,
0
2
7
.
37
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
38
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
1
3
–
A
l
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
#
1
59
8
-
A
c
r
e
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
/
O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
A
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
th
e
ay)
-
Co
u
n
t
y
E
I
R
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
–
V
e
s
t
i
n
g
T
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
ac
t
M
a
p
(
V
T
T
M
)
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
(a
s
a
n
O
v
e
r
l
9
8
1
4 7
4
6
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
_____________________________________________________________________________
39
Table 2
P #1 LAND USE THAT UNDERLIE THE 598-ACRE COUNTY
ACQUISITION/OWNERSHIP AREA
Lot Line Adjustment between Alberhill Ridge and County of Riverside
In 2010, CCLEW applied to the County of Riverside for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA)
between the 400.3 acre Alberhill Ridge site and the ±598-acre County of Riverside
property north and east of Alberhill Ridge. The LLA is contemplated pursuant to the
terms of the Tri-Valley Agreements. The proposed LLA calls for adjusting the common
property line between CCLEW and County to exchange approximately 50.8 acres of
net land on each property. The LLA will result in an estimated cost savings to the
County of Riverside in the amount of approximately $195,000 yearly easement
maintenance per the Tri-Valley Agreement. In addition, the LLA will minimize view
impacts of slopes higher than 175 feet and provide access of Alberhill Ridge Road to
Nichols Road through County owned land in accordance with the City’s General Plan
Circulation Element without utilizing the City of Lake Elsinore’s powers of eminent
domain of right-of-way acquisition.
Land Use
Acres
Max. Density
(DU/AC)
Commercial Density
FAR
Dwelling
Units/
Commercial S.F.
_____
ARS
Planning
Area
1 Suburban Village (SV) 27.7 30/
2.0 FAR
33/
666,558.25 S. F.
4 Single Family Residential II
(SFR II)
37.8 6.0 216
6 High Density Multiple
Family Residential
(HDMFR)
5.0 30 150
7 Suburban Village (SV) 29.0 30/
2.0 FAR
35/
697,941.76 S. F.
8 Single Family Residential I
(SFR I)
354.4 5.0 900
9 Golf Course/Open Space
(GC/OS)
144.00 0 0
TOTALS
---
598
2.23
1,334
1,364,500 S. F.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
________________________________________________________________________________
40
1.2
___________
nalysisAddendum Conclusion and A
In accordance with C
constitutes a “project” which is subject to CEQA and the CEQA guidelines. The
proposed development contemplated within the VTTM No. 35001 prooses no
cto t #1 and is, therefore,ed coth the AR
As described above, less residential (density) development within the ARSP #1 area
will our o e appro the VTTM than previously permitted
undee Al Plan. Tll resultction l
impacts previously analyzed in the ARSP #1 EIR Adden
The County quired 598 acres of the 998-acre ARSP #1 area for
open space.ates this 59e area
will be place conservation easement and, most likely, be transferred
to the Riverside Conservation Agency (RCA) to be a part of the Multiple Species
Habitat Plan program inside the City in hange for certain, yet unidentified,
City/County ese and conns could be things
as public access and use of the 598-acre area. The VTTM No. 35001 provides multi-
use ts int oth nd animal wildlife use.
It can be reasonably anticipated that no urban development, according to the ARSP #
1 land plan, other than open space, will owithin the-acre area durban
land use limitations contained in the three (3Tri-Valley Agreements. d
intensity of uses (1,334 dwelling units and 1,364,500 S.F. of commercial/office uses)
at underlie the County 598-acre ARSP #1 development area will not be constructed,
ven though the current zoning, ARSP #1, permits urban development. Therefore, the
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, prepared
ursuant to CEQA and under authority of CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, has
een prepared to:
EQA Guidelines § 15378(a)(3), the proposed VTTM No. 35001
p
hanges he ARSP deem nsistent wi SP #1.
cc
r th
verall, as result of th
berhill Ranch Specific
val of
his wi in a redu
dum.
of environmenta
of Riverside has ac
The County MOU agreement with the City indic
d in a permanent
8-acr
exc
terms and conditions. Th terms ditio such
rail o the MSHCP areas for b public a
ccur 598 ue to
) The density an
th
e
intensity of impacts associated with development for the ARSP and ARSP #1 area will
be significantly reduced in all topical CEQA categories.
While the 598 acres has been acquired by the County for conservation and future RCA
acquisition, the zoning for the 598 County owned acres remains ARSP #1. Absent a
General Plan change and a Zone Change or Specific Plan Amendment to the existing
ASRP #1, therefore, the land uses within the 598 acres strictly remain urban land uses
according to the ARSP #1 and as noted above on Exhibit 13 and Table 2.
The City, acting in the capacity of Lead Agency (as defined by CEQA Guidelines §
15367), has undertaken this environmental analysis for the purpose of identifying
those major or minor technical changes to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR,
EIR Addendum I through III, which may be required to accurately describe the
environmental effects resulting from the adoption of the now proposed VTTM No.
35001. This Addendum #IV to the
p
b
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
the adoption of the VTTM and other
discretionary actions in accordance therewith;
IR,
EIR Addendum I through Addendum #IV, resulting there from; and
ent.
nce (which were not previously addressed in the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #I through EIR Addendum #IV) have been
Provide an environmental basis for
Identify those physical changes which may occur to the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan areas resulting from the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and set
forth the technical changes to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final E
Provide an analysis of those potential environmental impacts associated
with the physical changes (as per CEQA Guidelines § 15358(b)), which are
proposed to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan.
The CEQA Guidelines (§15164(a) and §15162) allow the City, as Lead Agency, to
prepare an Addendum to a previous certified EIR if all of the following conditions are
met:
Changes to the project do not require major revisions to the previously
prepared EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
Changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken do not require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
No new information becomes available which shows new significant effects,
significant effects substantially more severe than previously discussed, or
additional or modified mitigation measures;
Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR
under consideration adequate under CEQA; and,
The changes to the EIR identified by the Addendum #IV do not raise
important new issues about the significant effects on the environm
As detailed below, EIR Addendum #IV, concludes that the proposed VTTM No. 35001,
if approved by the City, (1) will not require important revisions to the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #I through EIR Addendum #IV, in that no new
significant environmental impacts (not previously considered as part of the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #I through EIR Addendum #IV), have
been identified, (2) no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is undertaken have occurred, and (3) no new information or issues of
substantial importa
41
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Pla Addendum #II and #III and
roposed EIR Addendum #IV, it's technical appendices and the technical changes
Sp
ac
1.3 Intended Use of Addendum
identified through this subsequent environmental review. The Alberhill Ranch Specific
n Final EIR, EIR Addendum #I, together with EIR
p
identified herein, adequately analyze the proposed changes to the Alberhill Ranch
ecific Plan area, and provide an environmental basis for the City’s discretionary
tion of approving the VTTM No. 35001.
The follo
35 ill Ranch Specific Plan Final
IR and EIR Addendum #I through #III, as the environmental basis for subsequent
City of Lake Elsinore
wing planning and legislative bodies are anticipated to utilize this VTTM No.
001 EIR Addendum #IV, in conjunction with the Alberh
E
discretionary actions taken within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area:
. CEQA Guidelines § 15025(c) indicates that where an
advisory body (i.e., Planning Commission) is required to make a
-making body of the lead agency (i.e., City Council) shall
consider EIR Addendum #IV with the previously certified Alberhill Ranch
recommendation on a project to the decision-making body, the advisory
body shall review and consider the environmental documentation in either
draft or final form. CEQA Guidelines § 15169(c) requires that prior to taking
action, the decision
Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum I through EIR Addendum III.
Responsible Agencies. Prior to reaching a decision on a project,
Responsible Agencies having jurisdiction hereupon must consider the
environmental effects of the project as shown in the Alberhill Ranch Specific
EIR) may utilize the information contained in the Final EIR, as may be
1.4
Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #I through EIR Addendum #IV (CEQA
Guidelines §§ 15050(b) and 15096(f)). Those Responsible Agencies
(identified during the preparation of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final
modified by this EIR Addendum #IV, as evidence of CEQA compliance.
Incorporated by Reference
re which
In an effort to avoid replication and redundancy in the planning process, several documents
hereby incorporated by reference, as permitted by CEQA Guidelines § 15150, a
allows EIRs to incorporate by reference all or portions of other documents that are a
matter of public record. Where all or a portion of another document is incorporated by
reference, language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the
environmental impact report.
The information presented in this Addendum #IV is based, in part, upon other
environmental documents and technical studies (prepared subsequent to the
certification of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #I through
EIR Addendum #III), which include the project site or which address issues affecting
42
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
anch Specific Plan 89-2 Final Environmental Impact
Report (SCH No. 88090517) for the Alberhill Ranch”, April 1992, prepared by
28214” (SCH
No. 88090517), November 28, 2003, prepared by The Planning Associates, and
tewater
Reclamation Plan (SCH No. 90020247), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
991;
the project area. These documents, incorporated herein by reference and found on
file at the Planning Department counter in the City of Lake Elsinore, include:
“Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report” (SCH No.
88090517), June 1989, prepared by Douglas Wood and Associates, and
adopted August 28, 1989;
“Addendum to the Alberhill R
The Planning Associates, and adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore, June 1992;
“EIR Addendum II to Alberhill Ranch Plan EIR (No. 89-2) for Murdock Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.’s 30836 &
adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore on January 13, 2004;
Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
for Section 10(a) Permit to Allow Incidental Take of the Endangered
Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in Riverside County, California (SCH No.
89061909), County of Riverside EIR No. 3041, March 19903;
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Regional Was
District, December 19, 19904;
“Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment”, prepared by The
Planning Associates, June, 1992;
"Brighton Homes Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1, prepared by J.L.
Webb Planning, Inc. in association with The Planning Associates, UltraSystems
Environmental Services and Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., March 19, 1
and
3 The Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (“Joint EIR/EIS”) presents an
analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the issuance of a permit under Section 10(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (“ESA”), as amended, to allow the incidental taking of the Stephens’ kangaroo
rat (“SKR”) in certain areas in western Riverside County and the adoption and implementation of both a
Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”) and an Implementation Agreement pursuant to the ESA. The Short-
term Habitat Conservation Plan is an interim program for the protection of habitat areas occupied by
KR within western Riverside CS
in
ounty. The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area was
otherwise occur within the service area of that facility.
corporated within the area analyzed under the Joint EIS/EIR and included in the HCP.
4 The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alberhill Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plan
provides an environmental analysis of the impacts associated with the development and operation of a
wastewater reclamation facility to accommodate service demands associated with development
activities authorized under both the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and development which may
43
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
nsultants,
June 10, 1997.
As
Planning Department (130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California 92330).
ap
“Acquisition Agreement, February 10, 2004 between Riverside County and Tri-
, Inc. Environmental
Services Division, adopted September 10, 1991;
91;
“Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis for Pacific Clay & Alberhill Ridge”, Report by
“Traffic and Circulation – CEQA Consistency” by Kyle Maberry of Linscott Law &
Other Archaeologists and Paleontologists for the Castle & Cooke, Inc.,
Properties within the City of Lake Elsinore;
” (PWQMP)
“Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Number 3” – Lake Elsinore
Outlet Center Expansion at Nichols Road, prepared by KTC Co
noted above, copies of these documents are available for review at City Hall
For the purpose of the EIR Addendum #IV, the following are attached as technical
pendices to this addendum:
Valley Partners;
“Final EIR Addendum to Alberhill Specific Plan” (for Brighton Homes),
prepared by UltraSystems Engineers and Constructors
“Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment Number 1” (for Brighton Homes),
prepared by UltraSystems Engineers and Constructors, Inc. Environmental
Services Division, March 19, 1991, adopted September 10, 19
“Geotechnical Summary of Geologic Conditions” Letter by Petra Inc., Grayson R.
Walker and Doug Johnston , June 12, 2009;
KWC Engineers, Mike Taing, R.C.E. 64263 May 2009;
Greenspan, Engineers, December 21, 2011 and February 29, 2012;
Archaeology Present on Site – Reports prepared by Dr.. Christopher Drover and
Various
“Preliminary Water Facilities Plan” for Alberhill Ridge project prepared by
KWC Engineers, Mike Taing R.C.E. 64263, dated December 6, 2011;
“Preliminary Sewer Facilities Plan” for Alberhill Ridge project prepared by
KWC Engineers, Mike Taing, R.C.E. 64263, dated December 6, 2011;
“Project Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
dated August 23, 2012 by KWC Engineers Victor Elia, P.E.;
“Alberhill Villages and Alberhill Ridge Water Supply Assessment” (WSA) by
MWH Americas, Inc., March 2012;
44
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP)
VTTM
o. 35001) is required by the City of Lake Elsinore as part of the review and approval
ke Elsinore Municipal Code Section 7.D.1, the City of
ake Elsinore 2010 MS4 Permit (R8-2010-0033) and the County of Riverside Drainage
for ed August 23, 2012 has been filed with the City of Lake
Elsinore Public Works Department.
Th
Receiv ct proposes to mitigate for
these pollutants through: site design, source control and treatment control Best
De
(6)which will
provide more park area along the Lake Street Corridor. The proposed basins will
not gener Basins shall be owned and
maintained by the City of Lake Elsinore
a
to refine the details of the WQMP
l
Alb
Casle located in the Alberhill area within
Asses roved
The 'A ment'
stana water supplies
available during normal, sing
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan report on file with State of California
Water Board SMARTS website – WDID No. 8 33C351094
The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) for Alberhill Ridge (
N
of the VTTM No. 35001. A PWQMP is required for this project as part of the CEQA
application per the City of La
L
Area Management Plan (DAMP) dated April 2007. A Project Specific PWQMP Report
VTTM No. 35001, dat
e PWQMP addresses the Pollutants of Concern for the project based on the
ing Waters and development type, and how the proje
Management Practices (BMPs). Alberhill Ridge proposes eight (8) Extended Dry
tention Basins, for a total of +/- 6 acres with 10.6 acre-feet of storage, of which six
basins are proposed along the Lake Street Streambed / Linear Park
mitigate the 2-year, 24-hour incremental increase in storm runoff so the project does
ate a Hydrologic Condition of Concern.
, as described in the PWQMP and per the
Brighton D.A., and shall be planted with a native plant palette to encourage growth of
ntural habitat. A Final WQMP will be prepared during the project development phase
design, maintenance and operation.
A berhill Ridge Water Supply Assessment
In September 21, 2011, the City of Lake Elsinore requested that Elsinore Valley
Municipal Water District (EVMWD) prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the
erhill Villages(+/- 1400.3 Acre Pacific Clay site) and Alberhill Ridge (400.3-acre
t Cooke, Lake Elsinore West site) projects &
the City of Lake Elsinore. EVMWD had contracted with MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH) to
prepare the WSA. A report entitled 'Alberhill Villages and Alberhill Ridge Water Supply
sent (WSA)' was prepared by MWH in March 2012. The WSA was appm
by the EVMWD Board of Directors on March 22, 2012.
erhill Villages and Alberhill Ridge Development Water Supply Assesslb
was prepared in accordance with the California Water Code Section 10910 et seq.
(enacted as Senate Bill 9SB) 610 (Costa) in 2001). In accordance with the SB 610
d, the WSA evaluates whether EVMWD’s total projected rd
le dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year
projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project,
45
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
ag e Alberhill Ridge
evelopment has a projected potable water demand of 900 acre-ft/yr in the normal
ear. The total annual
ater demand for the Elsinore service area is 37,700 acre-ft/yr, 33,300 acre-ft/yr, and
are sufficient to meet existing and currently
ommitted future maximum day demands conditions including the Alberhill Ridge
ivity within the
uidelines of the current State’s Construction General Permit adopted by Order No.
General Permit went into effect on July
, 2010 and will expire on September 2, 2014 or until a new permit is adopted.
site to comply with the General
ermit. To date these sediment basins proposed as a BMP for the site have been
in addition to EVMWD’s existing and planned future water demands, including
ricultural and manufacturing uses. As identified in the report, th
d
year, 700 acre-ft/yr in the wet year, and 900 acre-ft/yr in the dry y
w
42,700 acre-ft/yr in the normal, wet, and dry year, respectively. The report further
analyzes EVMWD’s existing and future potable water supply sources and has
identified a projected total available water supply of 62,300 acre-ft/yr for a single dry
year, 60,800 acre-ft/yr in for multiple-dry years, and 59,500 acre-ft/yr for a single wet
year scenario.
Based on a comparison of the projected water demands and available water supply,
the existing and planned supplies
c
development during normal, single dry and multiple dry years over a 20-year period.
EVMWD has issued a will-serve letter for the VTTM No. 35001 Alberhill Ridge
development dated July 31, 2012.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Alberhill Ridge
The Alberhill Ridge project site is situated on a 400.3-acre former mining site, which is
currently undergoing reclamation. The site being reclaimed under RP 2011-1
(formerly RP 90-1) and has an approved reclamation plan for reclaiming 90 acres of
the 400.3 acres. The State Water Resources Control Board has issued a Waste
Discharger Identification (WDID) number for the site on March 10, 2008 and the WDID
number is 8 33C351094. This will allow the Discharger to discharge storm water
associated with any proposed onsite construction or grading act
g
2009-0009-DWQ on September 2, 2009. The
1
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Alberhill Ridge site and the
report can be found at the designated job site location. The report is currently on file
with the State under the State Water Board’s SMARTS website. As proposed on the
Alberhill Ridge SWPPP, 57 sediment basins were proposed as a Best Management
Practices (BMP) at various locations within the site to control the potential of sediment
leaving the site during construction and grading activities. Currently, all of these
sediment basins have been graded and are in place on-
P
effective in controlling the deposition of sediment and the discharge of turbid
stormwater offsite within the guidelines of the General Permit.
46
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0 JUSTIFICATION FOR EIR ADDENDUM #IV
2.1 Subsequent/Supplemental CEQA Analysis
CEQA Guidelines § 15162 provides direction for when a lead agency has to undertake
additional CEQA analysis for subsequent discretionary actions related to a project
such as this VTTM No. 35001. According to the CEQA Guidelines, where an EIR has
been prepared and certified by the lead agency (in this case the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR), a subsequent or supplemental EIR may only be required if
the lead agency, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record,
etermines one or more of the following: d
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects.
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
of the previous EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
n analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of
TTM No. 35001 conclusively demonstrates that development of the proposed VTTM
o. 35001 will not trigger any of the provision of CEQA Guidelines § 15162, and
erefore a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required. This is borne out by the
than shown in the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project;
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different
from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce
one or more significant effects on the environment.
A
V
N
th
47
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
action: (1) will not require
rta R, EIR Addendum #I
ant environmental impacts (not
reviously considered as part of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR
#III, together with EIR Addendum #IV, its
chnical appendices and the technical changes identified herein, adequately analyze
the pr
environme
35001. A
approved A ironmental impacts or changes
to the previous project.
As discus
potentially
Ranch Sp
Addendum #III. This analysis concludes that because the Single and Multiple family
residential, the Suburban Village mixed use and commercial development areas within
the VT
acres, due
indirectly in e
pact areas with the most potential for change, (traffic, hydrology and geology), since
they were
4.0 - Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of this EIR addendum
concludes through subsequent technical review that VTTM No. 35001 traffic,
hydrologica
that were previ
This propo
34-acre comm
Murdock Alber the ARSP #1 and Brighton D.A., a
smaller than normally required Public Park Quimby requirement within the VTTM No.
35001 area
The City of Lak that the Park Code
quires five acres of park land dedicated for every 1,000 residents. Based on a
fact that if the City approves the VTTM No. 35001, such an
pont revisions to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIim
through EIR Addendum #III in that no new signific
p
Addendum #I through EIR Addendum #III) have been identified, (2) no substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken have
occurred, and (3) no new information or issues of substantial importance (which were
not previously addressed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR
Addendum #I through EIR Addendum #III) have been identified through this
subsequent environmental review. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR
Addendum #I through EIR Addendum
te
oposed changes to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan areas, and provide an
ntal basis for the City’s discretionary action of approving the VTTM No.
dditionally, the VTTM No. 35001 area is substantially consistent with the
RSP #1 so as to produce no additional env
sed below, this VTTM No. 35001 EIR Addendum #IV reviews all 14
significant environmental impact areas analyzed in the original Alberhill
ecific Plan Final EIR and subsequent EIR Addendum #I through EIR
TM No. 35001 are reduced to only occupy the 400.3 acres from the original 998
to the Tri-Valley MOU’s, the VTTM No. 35001 project will not directly or
crease any impacts that were previously analyzed. In particular, for thos
im
last analyzed in 1991, this EIR Addendum #IV, as described within Section
l, and geological impacts will not directly or indirectly increase any impacts
ously analyzed.
sed VTTM No. 35001 area was given partial park credit for the proposed
unity park that was subsequently developed with 22.4 acres on the
hill Ranch, thus, permitting via
.
e Elsinore City Council Resolution No. 85-34 states
re
projected population of 8,766 (ARSP #1, Page 13, 3rd paragraph), a total of 43.8 acres
of parkland would be required for the entire 998-acre ARSP #1 area.
48
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
e Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #I
rough EIR Addendum #III. This conclusion includes environmental impacts, but not
The proposed VTTM No. 35001 would provide: 1) a centrally located public park (6.9
acres); 2) a 3.1 acre trail head/park site; 3) linear park and open space/corridor areas
(38.8 net acres) providing a connectivity of the outer northern portion of the 998-acre
areas to the corridors proposed along the major entry area and along the eastern
perimeter of Lake Street and northern perimeter of Nichols Road; 6) plus the additional
open space/ trails/slope areas (60.2 acres). The proposed VTTM No. 35001’s 400.3
acres would provide for an overall total of 59.3 acres of park and/or open space
including the partial 10.5 acre Murdock Alberhill Ranch park site credit. Adding the
County-owned and planned open space areas bring the total planned and developed
open space for the ARSP #1 area to approximately 646 acres with a net 269.165
acres developed for urban uses within the VTTM No. 35001 portion of the ARSP #1
area.
In the context of potential cumulative impacts, the existing ARSP environmental
baseline setting outside the VTTM No. 35001 project boundary area has not been
altered in any way to significantly impact or increase the environmental impacts
previously analyzed in th
th
limited to, biological resources, traffic, noise, hydrology, or geology in the VTTMs
immediate surrounding area. Furthermore, the following specific technical analyses,
which are included with this Addendum #IV, support the conclusion that, traffic,
hydrological, and geological impacts are substantially consistent with the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #I through EIR Addendum #III, and will
not significantly impact the VTTM area by any changed circumstances outside the
VTTM project area.
2.2 Addendum #IV Approach
EIR Addendum #IV, for the proposed VTTM No. 35001, will inform the City decision
makers of any significant impacts, if any are identified through this Addendum #IV
analysis, which were not previously reviewed or contemplated in previous entitlement
approvals for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. EIR Addendum #IV first provides a
rief overview of the overall project description as described in the Alberhill Ranch
IR Addendum #IV then compares the ARSP #1 project contemplated in 1991 (i.e.,
depicted in the
TTM No. 35001 or in the project area that were not previously contemplated and
addressed in EIR Addendum and covered by adopted mitigation measures. EIR
b
Specific Plan Final EIR, the minor changes to the project description as analyzed in
EIR Addendum #I through EIR Addendum #III for the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan, and the further minor changes to the project description resulting from the
proposed VTTM No. 35001 to the ASRP #1.
E
Multiple Family Dwelling Unit, High Density and Suburban Village Options), which was
analyzed in EIR Addendum #I to the project now proposed in 2012 (i.e., VTTM No.
35001) to determine if any significant changes or new “impacts” have occurred to the
more detailed project “design” contemplated in ARSP #1 and now
V
49
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
and 2003 in EIR Addendum #I through EIR Addendum# III, respectively. If as
result of this Addendum #IV analysis, additional or modified measures are deemed
tances have changed in the ARSP project area that would cause
e City decision makers to determine that new significant impacts are caused solely
o. 35001 project implementation, requiring the
reparation of a full, subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA § 21166 and
ding biological resources, traffic and
irculation, noise, geology, and hydrology impacts, for the proposed VTTM No. 35001.
Addendum #IV reviews the 14 environmental impact topical study areas addressed in
EIR Addendum #I through EIR Addendum #III, and specifically focuses, through
subsequent technical analyses, on the five environmental impact areas determined
through an Initial Study with having the most potential for changed circumstances
since the VTTM No. 35001 project area was last analyzed in 1992 and 2003 (i.e.,
biological resources, traffic and circulation, noise, geology, and hydrology).
EIR Addendum #IV also analyzes whether the mitigation measures previously
analyzed and adopted for the ARSP #1 are sufficient for City approval of the VTTM
No. 35001 or whether additional or modification to existing mitigation measures are
required to deal with any significant “changes” that have occurred since last analyzed
in 1992
a
necessary by the City decision makers, these additional or modified mitigation
measures can be added as part of the VTTM No. 35001 entitlement process, as
conditions of the VTTM approval.
No changes to the ARSP EIR are needed, as demonstrated below, and this EIR
Addendum #IV concludes that that the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is substantially
consistent with the approved ARSP #1 topical CEQA analytical category and in the
contemplated VTTM No. 35001 land use design. Further, because the VTTM No.
35001 design, density, and intensity of development, combined with the Tri-Valley
agreements will reduce the amount of residential development overall within the ARSP
#1 due to the land acquired for conservation, the EIR Addendum #IV concludes that
no significant circums
th
or cumulatively by the VTTM N
p
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15163. The conclusion of this EIR Addendum #IV is
that overall environmental impacts have been reduced below impact levels previously
analyzed in the ARSP EIR.
Finally, EIR Addendum #IV further concludes that the mitigation measures previously
reviewed and adopted by the City decision makers in EIR Addendum #I for ARSP # 1
and EIR Addendum #II and #III for the Murdock Alberhill Specific Plan and it’s
attendant two VTTMs, previously described, are adequate to cover all the
environmental impacts, specifically regar
c
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area forms the northwesterly boundaries of the City
of Lake Elsinore, extending the City northward along the I-15 Freeway corridor into
50
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
he Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan originally consisted of three ownerships: Murdock
Temescal Valley. The area governed by the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan consists of
approximately 1,853 acres and can generally be described as that geographic area
bounded on the north by the I-15 Freeway, on the south by Terra Cotta Road/Nichols
Road, on the east by El Toro Road, and on the west by Robb Road/Lake Street. The
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan boundaries are illustrated on Exhibit 5 .
T
Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership, now known as Castle and Cooke Alberhill Ranch,
LLC and Castle and Cooke Lake Elsinore West, Inc., Brighton Alberhill Associates;
and Long Beach Equities, and proposed 3,705 dwelling units, 254 acres of commercial
use, 531 acres of open space, 30 acres of park, and 50 acres of school/park sites.
3.2 Description of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan #1 and Changes to the
Original ARSP
As briefly explained in Section 1.1 of this EIR Addendum #IV, the original ARSP 89-2,
pproved on August 8, 1989, contained an approximate total of 1,853 acres, and
2. A 42-acre increase in land area assigned to a commercial use (i.e.,
uses within this area will not, however, result in an increase in the total
5 units authorized hereunder.
4± acre golf course within the project area.
a
proposed a broad variety of land uses. The ARSP #1, was Brighton Homes
separation of a 998-acre area out of the 1,853 acre Specific Plan area, redesigned an
entirely different Specific Plan out of the original 1,853-acre Specific Plan area. The
primary changes to the original 1,853-acre ARSP by the approved Brighton Specific
Plan and Development Agreement are listed below along on a two-page table
comparison [shown as Exhibit 6 (table)] taken directly from the adopted ARSP #1
FEIR addendum text (pages 2-10 through 2-13):
1. A 135-acre increase in the site area allocated for residential use. In
accordance with an executed Development Agreement between the
Applicant and the City of Lake Elsinore, the total number of residential
units may increase from 2,235 units to 2,735 units, representing a
potential increase of 500 dwelling units.
Suburban Village). No change in square footage of commercial
development was proposed.
3. Pursuant to the proposed amendment (ARSP #1) to the project’s zoning
regulations, residential uses are authorized within that area designated
for commercial use (i.e., Suburban Village). Development of residential
residential uses over the 2,73
4. Inclusion of a potential 14
5. Reduction in the land area allocated for natural open space and a
conversion of that acreage to other open space and/or recreational uses,
51
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
52
including a golf course, natural open space, riparian areas and a water
reservoir. Although project development would result in a minor
reduction in open space areas, the extent of that reduction was not
considered to be significant.
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
53
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
54
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
__________________________________________________________________________________
Within the ARSP #1 Brighton Specific Plan and D.A., there is a proposed public park
(open space area) reserved in a much smaller acreage requirement than required
under the City’s Quimby Act park dedication and development ordinance. The amount
of open space, including the 144-acre golf course and the adjoining Specific Plan
described 22.4-acre Murdock Alberhill Ranch Community Park at the corner of Lake
Street and Nichols Road were land use facts supporting the City Council findings for
requiring less Public Park within ARSP #1. The initial D.A., included as part of the
City’s approval, secured the development rights for 2,235 residential dwelling units,
2,722,500 square feet of commercial, industrial uses, open space and related uses.
The D.A. was amended and the entitlements were supplemented in September of
1991 with a General Plan Amendment to the Lake Elsinore General Plan by two
Resolutions which increased the number of allowable dwelling units by 500 to 2,735
shown in ARSP #1 and detailed the development timing of the proposed and potential
golf course.
3.3 Brighton Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 Comparison to the
Proposed VTTM No. 35001
As discussed above, the ARSP #1 was approved to allow 2,735 dwelling units and
2,722,500 square feet of commercial, industrial uses open space and related uses on
a 998-acre area of the original 1,853 acre Specific Plan area. The VTTM No. 35001,
an approximate 400.3- acre area of the 998-acre area of the ARSP #1, is proposed as
a ARSP #1 implementation project that will include 1,056 single family lots, a high
density multi-family residential area with 225 units, two Suburban Village areas with
mixed land uses including 120 DU’s of high density residential, commercial, office that
will permit for purposes of CEQA a pro-rated land uses with a potential of 1,358,000
sq. ft. of commercial/office/light industrial land uses). The overall dwelling unit count
and commercial square footage allowed within the VTTM No. 35001 area will remain
the same while the acreage numbers within the respective residential and commercial
planning areas may vary in small degrees within the proposed VTTM No. 35001. The
small difference in planning area acreage is due to the final location of the collector
road running through the proposed VTTM No. 35001, which is located closer to Lake
Street than the collector as graphically approved within the ARSP Amendment #1.
The only land uses shared in common and have relevance from the ARSP EIR
Addendums #I, #II and #III, are the community park/open space, school land use
areas, and traffic/ circulation roadway system. As discussed above, proposed VTTM
No. 35001 was given partial (47.2%) park dedication and development credit for the
Alberhill Ranch Community Park that was subsequently developed on 22.4 acres
within the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area located south of Nichols Road at
Lake Street by Castle & Cooke.
It can be reasonably anticipated that no development will occur within the remaining
ARSP #1 County owned 598-acre area due to the Tri-Valley Agreements negotiated
and finalized between the 3 parties to the agreement (County, Tri-Valley and City of
Lake Elsinore). The density and intensity of approved zoned land uses that underlie
55
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
__________________________________________________________________________________
the 598-acre ARSP #1 area will not be constructed according to the agreements but
for the zoned open space. Therefore, the intensity of impacts associated with
development for the ARSP and ARSP #1 area will be significantly reduced in all topical
CEQA categories with the reduced residential and commercial land uses within the
County ownership area.
3.4 Comparison Summary of ARSP #1 to the Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan
The following approved and permitted land uses, based on the current ARSP #1
zoning described in the ARSP Amendment #1 Specific Plan created by Brighton
Homes in March 19, 1991, are:
Currently Approved ARSP#1 Land Use Categories
: 2.7 million square feet on 89 acres
High Density Multiple Family 600 D.U. on 17 acres
Dwelling Units SFR zones I and II: 2,735 D.U. on a total on 748 acres
Mixed Use (Suburban Village)
Park Space: Included within SFR zones
School Space: Included within Residential zones
Golf Course and Open Space 144 ac. Golf course_______________
Totals 998 acres.
Within the Brighton ARSP #1 998 acres, the Suburban Village category, multiple
family, attached, residential structures, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments
developed at a density of up to 30.0 dwelling units per acre are permitted. Higher
density units, up to 30 D.U.s per acre and higher are permitted by the ARSP #1. The
affordable housing 25% density increase component is not part of the total 2,735 units
permitted within the S.P. area pursuant to the D.A. The additional affordable units
could be built out with a 25% additional density factor within the affordable areas
pursuant to state law and local ordinance. Within the Mixed-Use Suburban Village
District, 2,722,500 million square feet of neighborhood community commercial uses
are permitted including, but not limited to, general retail, office/professional, eating and
ersonal service establishments, hotels and entertainment centers and park and open p
space will also be permitted. Public educational uses will also be permitted; however,
they will include commercial opportunities within the same property. [ARSP
Amendment #1, page 10].
56
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
57
ple Family Residential D.U.s: 225 D.U.s on 11.5 acres
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan, for the 400.3-acre component, of the larger 998-
acre ARSP #1, has the following Land Use Plan areas and uses:
Single Family Residential I & II D.U.s: 1,056 D.U.s on 334.4 acres
High Density Multi
Suburban Village (Mixed- Use) D.U.s potential: 120 D.U.s on 44.4 acres
Commercial/office/light industrial land use: 1,358,000, Sq. Ft.
Total Residential D.U.s: 1,401 D.U.s
Total Commercial Sq .Ft. 1,358,000 Sq .Ft.
ithin the Single Family Residential I & II 334.4-acre land usWe areas, these following
also proposed:
lic
Elementa
r are
__
The
offi
occ n of the Brighton ARSP #1
ddendum #IV analysis, the assumption is made that the
evelopment Agreement remains active, the golf course could be built on the County
creage and the 500 additional dwelling units are permitted, in exchange for the golf
ourse construction, with a total of 2,735 D.U.s within the 998-acre area (Development
greement – Pages 5, 6, 7 and 17). Should the golf course not be built, then the pro-
ta share of the 2,735 D.U.’ s, minus the 500 D.U.s allotted per the D.A. for golf
land uses are
(2) Pub Parks : 10.0 acres
ry School: 14.6 acres
Additional Open Space: Linear Park, Open
ri Space Slope, and Wildlife Cordo as: 38.8 acres
_______________________________________________
Total Open Space within the 400.3-acre VTTM: 48.8 acres
1,4015 residential dwelling units and the 1,358,000 Sq. Ft. of commercial/
for VTTM No. 35001 Plance/light industrial permitted ARSP #1 land uses proposed
upysubstantially the same approximate lad use areas
plan. (See ARSP 31 Figure 6.) The proposed VTTM No. 35001 is substantially the
same permitted build-out for DU’s and commercial square feet, consistent with the
Brighton ARSP #1 land use plan. The reduction of overall ARSP #1 residential units
and commercial/office/light industrial land use area is the result of the Tri-Valley
agreements and subsequent 598-acre land sale to the County and the concomitant
reduction of the DU’s and commercial square footage permitted by the ARSP #1 in the
County areas.
The following chart, Exhibit No. 14, depicts the overall land use comparison of the
adopted ARSP #1 998-acre area [taken from portion of the two-page table, shown as
Exhibit 6, taken from the FEIR addendum text, as noted above on pages 2-12 and 2-
13) and the ARSP #1 with the VTTM No. 35001 Addendum changes for the overall
998-acre area.
or purposes of this EIR AF
D
a
c
A
ra
he residential land use components that make the 1,401 total of residential dwelling units within the VTTM No.
5001 are: 1,056 Single Family Residential I and II, 225 of Multi-Family, 40 of Suburban Village High Density
dwelling units and 80 of Suburban Village High Density dwelling units.
5 T
3
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
58
evert to the original
2,235 D.U.s. The VTTM No. 35001 area would lose approximately 200
i con se
ing
ies
plus ot
The go Page 7), was
eeme s
h
onsideration for the in lieu fee offset (Development
greem e otent l redution o500 f the overall Specific
in D.U.s per
gy impacts could be less impacting,
biology elements,
reas of the golf
ory (i.e., single family to high density). The D.U. density maximums
ave been set by the Development Agreement and the ARSP #1, which allows
NO. 35001 portion of the entire 998-acre S.P. area has reduced the
FR I & II in total acres by 16.1 acres primarily due to roadway alignments. This
course development, will reduce the overall allowable total of D.U.s within the VTTM
No. 35001. Within the 998-acre area the total reduction would r
D.A. permitted
D.U.s as a result of the golf course not bengstructed. This non-golf cour
construction would result in total D.U.s of 1,201, excluding any affordable hous
increases provided by law, i.e. 25% density increase for affordable housing categor
her incentives (Government Code Section 65915-65918).
lf course construction, according to the Development Agreement (
d to satisfy any and all deficiencies in the required park and recreational landd
and or in-lieu fees pursuant to SP 89-2. Civic use of the golf course clubhouse wit
the City is the “contract” c
Aent, Page 7). Thpia cf ewer units in
Plan area will have less impact in all sectors and will be less intensive
acre. In addition, without the golf course, the biolo
yet the golf course, arguably, could add positive impacting/mitigating
as it relates to the restoration and creation of habitat within certain a
course. (i.e., Native trees, scrubs, water elements, etc.)
It can be reasonably anticipated that no urban development, according to ARSP # 1,
will occur within the 598-acre area due to urban land use limitations contained in the
three (3) Tri-Valley Agreements. The density and intensity of uses (dwelling units and
commercial/office uses) that underlie the 598-acre ARSP #1 development area will not
be constructed, even though the current zoning, ARSP #1, permits urban
development. Therefore, the intensity of impacts associated with development for the
ARSP and ARSP #1 area will be significantly reduced in all topical CEQA categories.
In respect of what the approved ARSP #1 permits, a reduction of D.U.s may come
from any categ
h
flexibility in the land use categories (i.e., the planning rationale of why a D.U. range
with a maximum is provided for in the ARSP #1).
Exhibit 14 summarily demonstrates that the 400.3-acre development area of the
proposed VTTM
S
VTTM No. 35001 has increased the Suburban Village in land use area by 16.5 acres,
again due to roadway shifting according to more precise grading. The VTTM No.
35001 slightly modified all land use categories acreages/boundaries, but has strictly
maintained the maximum number of D.U.s and Sq. Ft. of commercial/office land uses
as permitted within the ARSP #1.
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
__
59
__
_
__
_
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
N
o
.
_
_
_
_
AN
D
U
S
E
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
S
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
L
Al
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
A
m
rh
i
lA
en
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
1
1
Al
b
e
l S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
1
/
E
I
R
dd
e
n
d
u
m
I
V
&
V
T
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
Difference
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
ro
s
Gr
La
n
d
U
s
e
G
ss
A
c
r
e
s
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
De
n
s
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Gr
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
De
n
s
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
os
s
A
c
r
e
s
Development Potential
{ {
2
,
1
3
5
u
n
i
t
s
{ {
6
0
0
u
n
i
t
s
2
,
7
3
5
u
n
i
t
s
4
4
8
9
.
8
2
4
2
.
1
1
6
.
8
1
0
5
.
6
8
5
4
.
3
Res
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
SF
R
I
SF
R
I
I
HD
M
F
3
0
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
42
2
Si
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Si
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Mu
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
95
.
0
53
.
0
16
.
0
89
.
0
3
8
53
.
0
5
d
u
/
a
c
r
e
6
d
u
/
a
c
r
e
30
.
0
d
u
/
a
c
r
e
30
.
0
d
u
/
a
c
r
e
5 d
u
/
a
c
r
e
6
d
u
/
a
c
r
e
30
.
0
d
u
/
a
c
r
e
30
.
0
d
u
/
a
c
r
e
1
,
2
2
9
u
n
i
t
s
8
9
5
u
n
i
t
s
2
,
1
3
5
u
n
i
t
s
4
8
0
u
n
i
t
s
1
2
0
u
n
i
t
s
2
,
7
3
5
u
n
i
t
s
(
5
.
2
)
(
1
0
.
9
)
0
.
8
1
6
.
5
1
.
2
{ { 0 units { { 0 units 0 units
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
5
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
89
.
0
89
.
0
2.
0
F
A
R
2,
7
2
2
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
2,
7
2
2
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
6
10
5
.
5
10
5
.
5
2.
0
F
A
R
2,
7
2
2
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
2,
7
2
2
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
16.5 16.5 0 s. f. 0 s. f.
Ot
h
e
r
ES
-
P
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
GS
-
O
S
cr
nc
l
pes
i
cr .C
El
e
m
en
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
/
P
a
r
k
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Go
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
/
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
O
t
h
e
r
(A IasRA G
ea
g
e
i
s
ud
e
d
ar
t
o
f
de
n
t
i
a
l
ea
g
e
)
7
.:
1
4
4
.
0
14
4
.
0
is
l
.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
(A
c
r
e
a
g
e
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
as
p
a
r
t
o
f
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
)
8
G.C
.
:
1
4
4
14
4
.
0
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.0 N/A N/A --
99
7
.
0
TO
T
A
L
9
2.
7
2,
7
3
5
u
n
i
t
s
2,
7
2
2
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
99
8
.
3
2.
7
2,
7
3
5
u
n
i
t
s
2,
7
2
2
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
1.3 0 units 0 s.f.
1
(
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
)
,
A
l
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
R
ll
a
g
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
o
t
h
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
ed
u
s
e
(
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
a
u
t
h
ci
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
A
l
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
p
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
,
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
s
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
o
f
6
0
0
u
n
i
t
s
o
f
H
i
g
h
D
e
ll
a
g
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
o
t
h
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
pm
e
n
t
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
1
5
8
a
c
r
e
s
;
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
–
2
3
es
;
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
–
1
3
.
0
a
c
r
e
s
:
o.
3
5
0
0
1
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
c
o
r
r
i
it
h
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
1 E
x
c
e
r
p
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
an
c
h
S
en
2Un
d
e
r
t
h
e
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
V
i
d
c
o
m
m
ut
te
g
o
r
y
nd
c
o
m
3 I
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
m
i
x
or
i
z
e
d
u
il
l
ac
r
e
s
)
nd
c
o
m
de
r
i
v
e
t
o
t
a
l
a
c
r
e
a
g
e
a
s
s
o
ci
f
i
c
P
l
cr
e
e
d
e
v
i
4 P
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
nu
m
b
e
r
er
e
u
esu
l
t
i
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
1
.
(
P
l
u
ns
i
t
y
M
5 U
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
V
i
nd
c
o
m
au
at
e
g
o
r
y
nd
c
o
m
6 T
h
i
s
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
i
s
p
u
r
s
en
ke
E
l
s
i
n
A
l
b
e
r
h
20
,
1
9
9
0
)
.
7Pa
r
k
s
a
n
d
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
–
a
c
r
e
s
.
8 P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
–
5
.
8
6
a
c
r
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
4,
st
m
e
n
t
nc
l
u
s
i
v
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
V
T
T
M
N
do
r
s
(
1
an
pr
i
v
a
t
e
n
t
h
e
s
l
of
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
w
a
c
r
e
s
.
9 A
v
e
r
a
pe
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
,
A
m
e
n
d
m
er
c
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
a
r
e
a
nd
e
r
t
h
e
“
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
V
an
N
o
.
1
,
t
h
e
s
e
8
9
.
0
a
o
f
u
n
i
t
s
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
h
ul
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
)
me
r
c
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
a
r
e
ua
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
iv
e
o
v
e
r
l
a
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
7
7
1.
2
8
6
a
c
r
e
s
)
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
t
N
o
.
1
.
ho
r
i
z
e
d
.
A
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
,
t
h
i
s
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
c
a
ag
e
”
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
a
t
a
c
r
e
a
g
e
(
8
9
.
0
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
o
n
l
y
o
n
c
e
i
n
th
nd
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
2
,
7
3
5
u
n
i
t
s
,
r
th
o
r
i
z
e
d
.
A
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
,
t
h
i
s
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
c
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
L
a
20
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
l
o
t
s
/
F
u
t
u
r
e
L
o
t
-
L
i
n
e
A
d
ju
tr
a
i
l
a
n
d
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
(
6
.
0
5
5
a
c
r
e
s
),
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
at
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
i
s
t
o
t
a
l
.
g
i
n
t
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
2
.
7
d
u
/
a
c
r
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
ore
a
n
d
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
l
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
an
d
S
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
;
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
–
I
p
a
r
k
s
(
8
.
5
8
a
c
r
e
s
)
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
i
mercial groupings. mercial categories herein. To Alberhill Specific Plan mercial groupings. ill Ranch Development (July e of the numerous Lots ope areas (60.224 acres) – All
ge
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y i
s
s
e
t
a
t
2
.
7
f
o
r
t
h
e
A
l
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
pec
i
No
.
fi
c
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
1
.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
1
4
10
1
.
1
10
1
.
1
Pu
b
l
i
c
Pa
r
k
10
.
0
10
.
0
8
99
8
.
0
51
5
.
8
21
0
.
8
16
.
5
10
1
.
1
84
4
.
2
1,
3
5
1
d
u
'
s
82
1
d
u
'
s
2,
1
7
1
d
u
'
s
37
5
d
u
'
s
18
8
d
u
'
s
2,
7
3
5
d
u
'
s
20.8
(4
2
.
2
)
0.5 12.1
(9.29)12.1 12.1 0.0
8
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
s
:
6
.
9
g
r
o
s
s
Lin
e
a
r
P
re
s
9
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
ec
i
f
i
c
P
l
ac
r
e
s
,
3
.
1
g
r
o
s
s
a
c
r
e
s
,
a
n
d
3
8
.
8
a
c
r
e
is
s
e
t
a
t
2
.
7
f
o
r
t
h
e
A
l
b
e
r
h
i
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
p
ar
k
c
o
m
p
r
i
s
e
o
f
1
1
.
5
a
c
an
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
1
.
o
f
S
V
a
n
d
2
7
.
3
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
S
F
R
-II
.
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
1
5
-
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
AR
S
P
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
#
1
a
s
t
h
e
B
a
s
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
I
R
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
&
V
T
01
(
a
s
a
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
A
c
e
t
a
t
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
)
TM
N
O
.
3
5
0
60
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
3.5 Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan Analysis
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Land Use Plan: The proposed VTTM No. 35001 land
use plan is substantially consistent with the currently adopted “Brighton” ARSP #1 plan
within the residential and commercial locations. The internal circulation system of the
main collector road (Alberhill Ridge Road), though slightly adjusted from the ARSP #1
Land Use Plan graphic #6 for grading and alignment with adjacent built roadways, has
created a consequent minor shift of planning uses within the ARSP #1 planning areas.
This re-alignment of roadways has been accommodated by moving the main access
collector loop road (Alberhill Ranch Road extension) northwest, southwest and
southeast of the previous internal circulation within the ARSP #1. This main collector
road can be characterized as the “general” dividing line between SFR I and SFR II
ARSP #1 land uses according to the Specific Plan, although SFR I and SFR II land
uses can be used interchangeably in some cases. There were no precise engineering
alignments, grading design or metes and bounds descriptions of roadway boundaries
adopted within the original ARSP #1 zoning, therefore, substantial consistency is the
standard by which this Addendum evaluates the land uses between the VTTM No.
35001 and ARSP #1.
As previously described in this Addendum, the major differences between the ARSP
#1 and the VTTM No. 35001 are small and cumulative over the entire 998-acre ARSP
#1 area including the reduction in the intensity of residential land uses, commercial
land use and the provision of park and schools sites, which will be discussed below in
a Planning area by area analysis.
The VTTM No. 35001 planning areas are illustrated below in Exhibit 16. Also included
in this Addendum Appendix, for the readers assistance, is a larger scale copy of the
Exhibit 16 graphic.
3anning Area 1 – Suburban Village (SV)
Planning Area (P.A.) 1, 9.8 gross acres, noted below, within the ARSP #1 western
Suburban Village area is depicted on the VTTM No. 35001 and located generally at
the northeast corner of Lake Street and the proposed central collector road extension
of Alberhill Ridge Road (adjacent to and along the southern boundary of P.A. 1). This
PA 1 area is located within the Suburban Village mixed-use commercial with a
maximum density of 30 D.U.s acre zoning category of ARSP #1. The VTTM No. 35001
has noted 40 high density multi-family dwelling units for this area and 299,739 square
feet of commercial/office/light industrial land uses. For purposes of determining the
maximum number of units for CEQA review, the Addendum has applied a pro-ration
between both the high density multiple-family and commercial/office/light industrial
land uses. No apartment project or commercial development is proposed with the
VTTM No. 35001 at this time.
.5.1 Pl
61
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
__
62
50
0
1
___
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
1
6
–
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
V
T
T
M
N
O.
3
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
______________________________________________________________________________________
63
The 9.8 gross acre Suburban Village area proposed by the VTTM No. 35001, as
compared to the ARSP #1 Suburban Village approximately 42-acre area is
considerably less in area due to the Tri-Valley land sale of a larger portion (33 acre) of
this total Suburban Village land use area to Riverside County. The result of this land
sale for open space is an overall loss of commercial/office/light industrial land use
opportunities and high density dwelling units which now reside on County owned
property.
As discussed above, the main collector road, Alberhill Ridge Road, within the VTTM
No. 35001 has been shifted, due to grading, slightly further north into the ARSP #1’s
Suburban Village area, reducing the size of the P.A. In summary, much of the existing
Suburban Village mixed-use area indicated as Suburban Village within the ARSP #1
land use plan is now occupied by the County of Riverside’s open space and future
MSHCP acquired land, which is located adjacent and north of the proposed VTTM No.
35001 plan’s P.A. 1 which maintains the ARSP #1 land use plan and is consistent with
this plan. See Exhibit 17 below.
3.5.2 Planning Area 2 – Single Family Residential II (6.9-Ac. Public Park)
_____
Planning Area 2 is similar in area location to the adopted ARSP #1 (along Lake Street
north and/centrally located within the proposed VTTM) and land use designation. The
VTTM No. 35001 does include four (4) sub-areas of Single Family Residential II with a
maximum density of 6.0 dwelling units per acre, as permitted by the ARSP #1. The
proposed P.A. 2 has also included a 6.9-acre Public Park site consistent with the
Specific Plan requirements and portions of the 38.8-acre linear park. The VTTM
proposes to include a 14.6-acre Elementary School site with capacity for 850 students
within a 77-lot residential zone that can be converted to an elementary school upon
land purchase by the School District. The ARSP #1 Brighton Specific Plan text notes
an elementary school site accounting for approximately 23 acres of the project area
with a portion of the site designated as a “combined” or shared public park area (5-
acres). The proposed VTTM No. 35001, as the ARSP #1 noted, has the alternative
elementary school site integrated or overlaid onto the residential portions of the
project, located away from major thoroughfares and is in close proximity to residential
developments, in order to reduce or mitigate vehicular trips. If the schools site is
acquired by the school district, the 77 lots will be relocated to the northern boundary
with the County of Riverside through a lot line adjustment. The area that the 77 units
will be relocated into is consistent with the ARSP #1 Suburban Village land use
category.
The proposed VTTM No. 35001 has created along its western perimeter, at Lake
Street, an approximate 1-mile+ restored drainage and wildlife passageway used for
pedestrian access/utility corridor. A northeast local street intersecting with this
restored drainage corridor contains an off street wildlife, multi-use corridor connecting
into the future MSHCP 598-acre County of Riverside land area.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
64
Exhibit 17 – Planning Area 1
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
1
8
–
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
2
65
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
______________________________________________________________________________________
66
The approximate 161.2 gross acre area of P.A. 2 proposed by the VTTM No. 35001,
compared to the ARSP #1 191-acre area is approximately 30 acres less in gross
acreage compared to the ARSP #1 due to roadway precise re-alignments and thus the
result is less SFR II residential land use units. These former SFR II units are now
located within the SFR I area due to the main collector road adjustment. Overall single
family dwelling unit count within the VTTM No. 35001 remains consistent with the
ARSP #1 (See Exhibit 16 below).
3.5.3 Planning Area 3 – Suburban Village (SV)
_____
Planning Area 3 of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is located within the northeast
corner of Lake Street and Nichols Road intersection adjacent to P.A. 2, and coincides
with the same location and land use as noted within the ARSP #1: Suburban Village
(Mixed Residential, Commercial, and related uses). The P.A. 3’s acreage illustrated
within the proposed VTTM is approximately 34.6 gross acres in size, which includes
an approximate 27.5 gross area for Suburban Village land use development (with a
net pad acreage of 23.1 acres), a Lake Street Detention Basin and a pedestrian
access/utility corridor that encompasses approximately 3.3 acres of the total P.A. The
ARSP #1 depicts 18 net acres for the Suburban Village land use. The VTTM P.A. 3
has consistently applied the adopted Suburban Village land use category (mixed use
commercial with a maximum density of 30 D.U./ac.). For purposes of determining the
number of units for CEQA analysis within this mixed land use area, the VTTM No.
35001 land plan has applied a pro-rated distribution of the land use densities between
the permitted high densities multiple family and commercial/office/light industrial use.
For example, this P.A. has allocated the commercial square footage as a percentage
of the total commercial square footage within the entire ARSP #1 area.
The approximate gross and net acre area proposed by the VTTM No. 35001, as
compared to the ARSP #1 gross/net acre area, is consistent except for the additional
detention basin, open space/wildlife and pedestrian corridors, which were are not
illustrated within the ARSP #1 Land Use Plan given the very general level of details of
the SP. (See Exhibit 19 below.)
3.5.4 Planning Area 4 – Single Family Residential II (SFR II)
Planning Area 4 within the ARSP #1 SFR II area of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is
located adjacent to and northeast of the proposed P.A. 3, located to the west of the
interior collector roadway. The VTTM P.A. 4 area is similar in location to the
designated land use area as shown within the ARSP #1: Single Family Residential II
(with a maximum density of 6 D.U. /ac. respectively with 4,200 sq. ft. minimum lot
sizes). The P.A.’4’s acreage shown within the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is
approximately 18.7 gross acres in size and is completely consistent with the ARSP #1
SFR II Land Use Category. As reviewed previously, the main collector road within the
VTTM No. 35001 has been shifted slightly north into the ARSP #1’s Single Family
Residential II area, reducing the size of the P.A. Also, an area once referred to as
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit 19 – Planning Area 3
67
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
2
0
–
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
4
68
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Single Family Residential II within the ARSP #1, is now occupied by the County of
Riverside MSHCP acquired land to the northeast of the proposed VTTM No. 35001
P.A. 4.
The approximate 18.7 gross acre area of P.A. 4 proposed by the VTTM No. 35001, as
compared to the ARSP #1 approximate 28-acre area is consistent with the ARSP #1,
given the SFR II land use absorbed by the County of Riverside into future open space,
(i.e. total ARSP#1 D.U.s of 2,735 with the VTTM No. 35001 portion of ARSP#1 of
1,422 D.U.s). (See Exhibit 20, above.)
3.5.5 Planning Area 5 – High Density Multi-Family Residential ( HDMFR)
Planning Area 5, proposed as a High Density Multiple Family Residential (HDMFR)
land use area within the proposed VTTM No. 35001, is located adjacent to and
northeast of Nichols Road along Alberhill Ranch Road and is in the same general
location of the ARSP #1 and has applied the zoned land use adopted as the ARSP #1.
The only change is precise location of the HDMFR area due to the slight relocation of
Alberhill Ranch Road where the HDMFR area continues to reside on the east side of
Alberhill Ranch Road, but is now adjacent to the higher traffic volume collector Nichols
Road due to the grading constraints and VTTM/County property line creation. The
proposed VTTM No. 35001 P.A. 5 has a 11.5 gross acre area compared to the
approximate 11.0 acres as shown within the ARSP #1. The maximum density shared
by both the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and the ARSP #1 is 30 D.U.s/ acre and the
VTTM is consistent with the ARSP #1 in this PA.
The 11.5 gross acre area of P.A. 5 proposed by the VTTM No. 35001, as compared to
the ARSP #1 11.0-acre area is substantially consistent in the overall area. The result
is a minor overall gain of residential dwelling units due to the VTTM/County lot line
location vis a vis the ARSP #1 land use category boundaries, (24 Du's); however, the
overall VTTM is consistent with the ARSP #1 pro-rated portion of total dwelling units
between the County and VTTM land use areas of 2,735 D.U.s. (See Exhibit 21 on the
following page.)
3.5.6 Planning Area 8 – Single Family Residential I (SFR I)
Proposed Planning Area 8 most resembles the land use category of the current
zoning, ARSP #1 Brighton Specific Plan, covering the developable land uses area,
adjoining the County owned property, to the east and northeast of the main collector
for the proposed VTTM No. 35001. The VTTM main east/west collector road (Alberhill
Ranch Road easterly extension) within the proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan has been
shifted southwest of where the main collector road was shown within the approved
ARSP #1’s land use plan. There were no precise alignments of this collector road and
an estimate of relocation of the roadway has been made based on relatively un-scaled
graphics from the ARSP #1.
69
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit 21 – Planning Area 5
70
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
71
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
2
2
–
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
8
__
_
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
_____________________________________________________________________________________
72
The proposed VTTM No. 35001 has the same single family residential I (SFRI) applied
land use category zoning and land use density adopted in the ARSP #1, showing a
maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre with minimum lot sizes of 5,000 S.F. Overall lot
sizes average more than 5,000 Sq. Ft. P.A. 8 of the VTTM No. 35001 occupies 164.5
gross acres, while the ARSP #1 SFR I total acreage for this land use category extends
into the County owned ASRP #1 Golf Course/Open Space interface area. As
previously noted above in P.A.s 1, 4 and 5, the 598-acre ARSP #1 Land use category
areas outside the proposed VTTM No. 35001 boundaries are now occupied by the
County of Riverside MSHCP acquired land.
The approximate 164.5 SFR I gross acre area of P.A. 8 proposed by the VTTM No.
35001, as compared to the ARSP #1 495-acre County area, is less in overall SFR I
zoned area contained within the County ownership. Thus the result is an overall
potential loss of residential land use SFR I dwelling units if the County chooses to not
develop housing within their ownership area. (See Exhibit 22 above.).
3.6 Transportation and Land Use
______
The Land Use Plan of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan is very similar with regard
to circulation or roadway elements and location to the land use categories. The
proposed VTTM No. 35001 and adopted ARSP #1 Brighton plan incorporates
commercial areas (Suburban Village) at the intersections of 2 major arterials, Lake
Street and Nichols Road. This transportation system includes the east/west collector
at Lake Street (northern portion of VTTM No. 35001), and the collector intersection at
Lake Street and Nichols Road (in the southern portion of VTTM No. 35001). Even
though the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and the ARSP #1, have both their Suburban
Village (mixed use high density multiple family residential, commercial, office, light
industrial) land use designations at these two intersections, the VTTM No. 35001, as
discussed above (within P.A. 1 and P.A. 3) will result in less acreage for the
development of multi-use and residential dwelling units. This VTTM lesser acreage is
a direct result of the bifurcation of these ARSP #1 land use categories by the County
land acquisition. This bifurcation results in the following: the higher traffic volume
intersections at these commercial/high density areas, as anticipated within the ARSP
#1 (with the commercial potential and high visibility), will be reduced in volume within
the VTTM No. 35001, as a result of less mixed use acreage available within the
proposed VTTM. Note again that that the remaining Suburban Village area is
occupied County owned land within the SP area.
The ARSP #1 has 2,722,500 square feet of Suburban Village mixed use space on
approximately 89 acres at two important collector/arterial intersections within the
County and VTTM areas. The proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan does propose a pro-
rated 1,358,000 square feet Suburban Village mixed use on approximately 44.4 acres
at the same two important collector/arterial intersections identified in the ARSP #1
Land Use Plan, Exhibit #6.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
73
The proposed VTTM results in 1,364,500 less square feet of Suburban Village mixed
use with the remaining square footage residing on County owned land. For CEQA
preparation purposes, the VTTM No. 35001 allocated square footage of Suburban
Village has been pro-rated by a acreage ratio between the VTTM acreage and the
County acreage to determine both the high density multiple family residential land use
and commercial, office, light industrial land use.
3.7 Comparison of Fiscal-Revenues of the Proposed VTTM No. 35001 and the
ARSP #1
The VTTM No. 35001 by 2028 (when the build out is estimated to be complete) will
generate to the City approximately $3,493,7926 yearly revenue for 44.4 commercial
acres in new City commercial tax revenue generation for the approximately 1,358,000
square feet of retail mixed use office commercial. This is in total comparison to the
ARSP #1 potential total commercial development generating 7 approximately
7,214,625 yearly sales tax revenue, (now including County owned land), over
ox commercial acres in new City commercial tax
venue for the approximately 1,364,500 square feet of retail mixed use office
$
apprimately 57 total County owned
re
commercial land use area in the County owned area. If the County owned commercial
land is never developed, there could be a net loss of $3,720,8338 tax revenue to the
City at ARSP #1 build out by 2028. This could be viewed as a “cost” of the MSHCP
program to the future tax revenue stream of the City of Lake Elsinore. The County
could decide to develop or sell for development these important and strategically
located commercial parcels or the City could decide to acquire the property by
negotiated sale or condemnation for future commercial development purposes. The
commercial tax revenue generation rate used was based on the Direct Sales Tax of
approximately $230.00 per square foot for neighborhood commercial (P.A. 1) and
$265.00 for super community power commercial center (P.A. 3), which is based on the
International Council of Shopping Center’s National Research Bureau Census, 20089,
for commercial development.
3.8 Parks and Open Space
The adopted ARSP #1 has the following allotment for parks and open space. Nearly
28% of the total adopted ARSP #1 area has been set aside for parks, golf course, and
natural open space.
6 P.A. 1 = 299,739 Sq. Ft. commercial @ $2.30/Sq. Ft. = $689,400, and P.A. 3 = 1,058,261 Sq. Ft. @
$2.65/Sq. Ft. for a total of $3,493,792 as estimated yearly sales tax revenue for VTTM No. 35001. 7 AVSP #1 permitted overall 2,722,500 Sq. Ft. of commercial area @ $2.65/Sq. Ft. = $7,214,625 of
estimated yearly sales tax revenue. 8 ARSP #1's $7,214,625 yearly sales tax revenue minus the VTTM No. 35001 $3,493,792 yearly sales
tax revenue yield a net loss of $3,720,833 tax revenue to the City 9 The Sq. Ft. Direct Sales Tax dollar figures per square feet of $2.30/Sq. Ft. (for neighborhood
commercial centers) and $265.00 (super community power commercial centers) were updated and
provided by Alonzo Padrin of Alfred Gobar & Associates, Inc., by a telephone call with him on
September 26, 2012.
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
__
_
74
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
it
2
3
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The ARSP #1 includes: The use of one five-acre park adjacent to the elementary
school site land use area and the 18-hole golf course and associated “rough” natural
open space. A standard golf course will contain between 90-120 acres of fairway.
The ARSP #1 contains 144 acres of golf course and open space located now within
the 598-acre property ownership of the County. The ARSP #1 grants park and open
space acreage value or credits through a reduction in required on site public park site.
The ARSP #1 grants park credit for the 22.4-acre community park site located within
the original ARSP and now located and fully developed within the Murdock Specific
Plan area and the (County owned) 144-acre golf course and open space area. The
open space area has grown within the ARSP #1 to over 598 acres with the County
acreage acquisition for MSHCP purposes with the probable elimination of the golf
course. If the golf course is built, then the ‘in lieu’ fees will be rebated by the City to
any residential developer pursuant to the D.A. Section 30.4.1.
City Quimby Park Resolution 85-34 states that five acres of park land must be
dedicated for every one thousand residents. The projected population of 8,766 for the
ARSP # 1 would normally require 43.8 acres for the ARSP #1 planning area under City
ordinances. The ARSP #1, however, required only 5.0 acres of public park land in
conjunction with the proposed elementary school site, the golf course and partial park
credit associated with the adjacent 30-acre community park located on the south side
of Nichols Road.
The proposed VTTM No. 35001 open space areas include two (2) public parks, an
elementary school site, multi-purpose (pedestrian/utility access) trails, open
space/wildlife corridors, dual-use park overlay to an underground tank area and open
space associated with the slope throughout the proposed plan for the 400.3-acre area.
The open space areas cover approximately 48.8 acres of the 400.3 gross total acres.
Based on the total projected dwelling units of 1,401 within VTTM NO. 35001, a
projected population of 4,721 (3.37 residents per D.U.), results in 23.6 acres of
required public park dedication acres, based on the 5 acres per 1,000 resident
requirement of the City park dedication ordinance. Of the 48.8 acres of open space
that has been set-aside in the proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan, 47.3 acres of the 48.8
acres is usable park area and usable pedestrian/trail system areas in addition to the
other open space restored riparian and multi-use trails. The VTTM meets or exceeds
the City Quimby Act requirements. The D.A. Section 3.6 requires a “turn key” park
operational with the opening of the phase 1 model complex. Per the Brighton
Development Agreement, the Alberhill Ridge project shared in the development of the
22.4 acre Alberhill Ridge Community Park located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan area. Utilizing a prorated share of park credit between Alberhill Ridge and
Alberhill Ranch, the 10.5-acre portion, Alberhill Ridge has met the obligation of
providing a “turn key” park operational with the opening of the phase 1 model complex.
Additionally, it has been determined by Conditions of Approval for VTTM 35001 that
the first public park to be constructed within VTTM 35001 shall occur by the 498th
Certificate of Occupancy of equivalent residential dwelling units (EDU).
75
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
he land use, zoning and contract transactional effect of the MSHCP, on the Brighton
utside effects by the City or other public agencies makes the
chievement of the Specific Plan impossible or by “defacto” governmental zoning type
Brighton Development Agreement
The Brighton Specific Plan Development Agreement (D.A.) covers the ARSP #1
Specific Plan area. The D.A. was adopted on September 10, 1991 and had a 15-year
time frame taking the D.A. term to a September 10, 2006 expiration date. The
MSHCP environmental land use “overlay” was adopted in 2003 and had the effect of
“de facto” modifying the ARSP #1 land uses and Brighton D.A. by “potentially”
removing development area, replacing it with permanent open space and imposing
new fee conditions. The MSHCP adopted after the approval of the ARSP #1 and its
accompanying D.A. may “stay” toll or postpone the expiration of the D.A., arguably
when the MSHCP activity over the Specific Plan area was contemplated by the
County/City. This is a decision the City Council must consider.
T
D.A. and ARSP #1 Specific Plan, was to effectively modify or abrogate all aspects of
the plan’s urban land category uses overlaid by MSHCP Criteria Cells and Cell
Groups. This 2003 MSHCP conservation change was not contemplated by the project
proponent or City Council in the ARSP #1 or the Brighton D.A., nor was the ARSP #1
zoning and D.A. reviewed, as required, by the City Council. California State law
contemplates such post entitlement changes to local D.A. contracts and State law
stipulates when o
a
entitlement actions that modifies the Specific Plan or the D.A.. The net affect of this
City/County MSHCP action is to stop the D.A. 15-year term from running as of the date
of the contemplation of the matters, adoption and application of these subsequent
governmental actions which modified or otherwise affected the Specific Plan and
Development Agreement terms on this VTTM No. 35001 area.
Tri-Valley I Acquisition Agreement and MOU between City and County on the
ARSP #1
The successors in interest to Tri-Valley I (former owners of the VTTM No. 35001 area),
Castle and Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., applicants for VTTM NO. 35001, had 5
years from the Acquisition Agreement execution date on February 10, 2004 or until
February 10, 2009 to gain entitlements from the City of Lake Elsinore to utilize the
acquisition agreement reduced MSHCP mitigation fees. Upon entitlement acquisition,
Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc. must then pay to the City a MSHCP
mitigation fee of $472 per EDU for each residential dwelling unit constructed. There
appears to be a scrivener’s error between the Acquisition Agreement (Agreement) and
the MOU as to another mitigation fee. In the Agreement, there is a mitigation fee of
$821 payable to the County. In the MOU this fee of $821 is payable to the City. This
apparent “scrivener’s error” or MOU change from the Agreement matter must be
clarified and better understood by all parties.
76
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
tion over the entire VTTM No. 35001 area is
atisfied with the payment of MSHCP mitigation fees. After 10 years from the
cts to on-site “waters”
an be mitigated with reference to the environmental resources found on the adjacent
RCA lands along the
estern and southern project boundary at Lake Street and Nichols Road, respectively.
re County owned open space portion of the ARSP #1 area is not currently
lanned to be developed. This 598-acre open space area, as described in the ARSP
All VTTM No. 35001 MSHCP mitiga
s
execution date of the Acquisition Agreement or February 10, 2014, the nominal
MSHCP Ordinance 810 fees are paid at the prevailing rates. In addition, according to
the Tri-Valley I Acquisition Agreement, if any resource agency mitigation is required of
or on the VTTM No. 35001 site, the adjacent County owned 598-acre can be used for
such State or Federal mitigation. For example, the VTTM No. 35001 will require both
a Corps of Engineers 404 permit, a California Department of Fish and Game 1602
Streambed Alteration Agreement and a California Regional Water Quality Control
Board 401 permit for modifications to the unnamed ephemeral stream course along
Lake Street from Nichols Road to near Temescal Road and Lake Street. According to
the Tri-Valley I Acquisition Agreement, any mitigation for impa
c
598-acre County portion of ARSP #1, such as Temescal Creek, MOU February 10,
2004 page 3 of 5 Section 3.
The ARSP #1 proposed up to a maximum of 2,735 residential dwelling units (2,135
single family residential units and 600 high density multi-family units), several
Suburban Village areas (mixed use with 2,722,500 square feet) and a 144-acre golf
course – open space land use. The amount of area devoted to residential land use in
the proposed VTTM No. 35001 have either reduced or is very similar, but altogether
less, in total dwelling units residential and commercial areas identified in the ARSP #1.
This EIR Addendum #IV to the ARSP #1 analyzes the addition of a 6.9 gross acre
public park site and a 3.1 gross acres public park site; plus a 38.8 public linear park
area that includes open space/wildlife corridors areas allowing connectivity through the
proposed VTTM No. 35001 to the County owned MSHCP future
w
The 598-ac
p
#1, includes a portion of the 144-acre golf course and adjacent open space, clubhouse
and SFR I and II areas of 392.2 acres containing approximately 1,116 dwelling units of
single family residential, a HDMFR 5-acre area containing 150 dwelling units, and two
areas of Suburban Village (56.7 total acre area) that would allow 68 high density multi-
family residential units and 1,364,500 square feet of commercial/off/light industrial
mixed use. This 598-acre County owned area will not be developed according to the
County Tri-Valley I Agreements and thus will have a reduction in urban land uses in
the City for the County acquired property within ARSP #1. In all areas of topical CEQA
study areas, non-development will have a net reduction in the previous areas of
adverse impacts. The following Table 3 summarizes the land use elements of the
Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment #1 998-acre plan.
77
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 3
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 - Land Use Summary
(Category) Land Use Acreage Dwelling
Units
Percentage
(SFR I & II) Single Family Residential 748+
2,135 75%
(HDMF) High Density Multi-Family &
(SV) Suburban Village Mixed Use
16.5
89+
600/
2.0(FAR)
2%
9%
(GC-OS) Golf Course-Open Space
(OS) Open Space – Neighborhood Park
(OS) Riparian Resource Area
144
0
14%
3.9 Proposed VTTM No. 35001
The VTTM No. 35001 is located within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area: portions
of Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27, Township 5 South, Range 5 West of the Lake Elsinore
uadrangle and, Sections 27, 34 & 35, Township 5 South, Range 5 West of the
Total 998 2,735 DU 100%
Q
Alberhill USGS Quadrangle. The geographic area of VTTM No. 35001 is located north
of Nichols Street, east of Lake Street and south and west of Interstate 15,
approximately 4,000 feet from I-15/Nichols Road interchange. The VTTM No. 35001
boundary is shown on Exhibit 4.
he entire VTTM No. 35001 site and adjacent areas have been subject to historic T
surface mining activities which are currently in some form of in-active mining
maintenance. Clay and coal were discovered in the project vicinity in the 1800’s and
have been extensively mined since that time. The majority of property north, east, and
west of the VTTM No. 35001 site is undeveloped or is being used for rock crushing
activities and mining reclamation activities. The VTTM No. 35001 area and adjacent
property are now within an area set aside by the Tri-Valley I Agreement for 598 acres
of proposed MSHCP County conservation lands.
A future conservation agreement is contemplated by the County land owner in
coordination with the City pursuant to the Tri-Valley MOUs. To the east of the VTTM
No. 35001 area there is vacant land and a commercial Outlet Mall located south and
adjacent to Interstate 15. To the south, residential development known as the
Murdock Alberhill Ranch currently exists in partial development form. This Alberhill
anch is predominately single-family detached housRing and contains the ARSP #1
nd D.A. required 34-acre (now 22.4-acre) Community Park. To the west, on 1,374
cres near the Lake Street and the I-15 Freeway, Pacific Clay Products conducts a
ariety of mining, related production and operates a brick and ceramic factory. The
a
a
v
78
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
79
ajority of recent development in the City has occurred south and west of the VTTM
No. 35001 site. Remaining land uses immediately south of the project site, in the Terra
Cotta area es. In the
vicinity of Collier Avenue, commercial and industrial uses are developing near and
along the I-15 Freeway.
A inside thy and nearbycent
unincorporated portion of Riverside County, (Horsethief Canyon Ranch Specific Plan),
h of the ARSP #1 and the VTTM No. 35001 EIR
A k Alberhill RaSpeciforsethienyon
Ranch (to the west), North Peak, Ramsgate, and Tuscany Hills (to the east).
The following Table 4 summarizes the land use breakdown of the VTTM No. 35001 as
a RSP #1 areas. The environmental impacts associated
with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 land uses, as compared to impacts evaluated in
ASRP #1 EIR Addendum #I, are analyzed in this Adde for the No.
3-acre portion of the original ARSP #
5001 Portion of the ARSP #1 and Remaining
m
of the City, consist of a small number of very low-density residenc
number of Specific Plans, both e Cit in the , adja
ave been approved in the vicinity
ddendum #IV including: Murdoc nch ic Plan, H f Ca
portion of the remaining A
EIR
1.
ndum #IV VTTM
35001 400.
Table 4 - Proposed VTTM NO. 3
ARSP #1 Merged Land Use Summary
VTTM NO. 35001
Portion of ARSP #1
(Castle & Cooke)
Remaining ARSP #1
Portion (County)
Land Use Category
Acres D.U.s Acres D.U.s
D.U.
Total
% o
D.U
f
.
(SFR I) Single Family Residential
(SFR II) Single Family Residential
161.4
173.0
451
605
354.4
37.8
990
216
1,229
894
44.9
32.
7
(HDMF) High Density Multi-Family 11.5 225 5.0 162 480 17.6
9.8
(incl.)
40
27.7 31 47
11
1.7
0.4
(SV) North Suburban Village Mixed Use
With HDMF Residential and With SFR II
Residential and Commercial
(299,739 Sq. Ft.) (666,558.25
Sq. Ft.)
-- --
34.6 80 29.0 33 73 2.7 (SV) South Suburban Village Mixed Use
With HDMF Residential and
Commercial (1,058,261 Sq. Ft.) (697,941.76 -- --
Sq. Ft.)
(GC-OS) Golf Course-Open Space -- -- 144.010 -- -- --
(PP) Public Park 10.0 -- -- -- -- --
(LP) Lineal Park 0.011 -- -- -- -- --
TOTALS
400.3 1,401 598 1,334 2,735 100%
10 **The 144.0 acres for the Golf Course-Open Space permits an additional 500 D.U.s
11 38.8 acres of Linear Park is comprised of 11.5 acres of SV and 27.3 acres of SFR-II
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
__
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
80
b
E
d
d
u
m
#
I
V
M
e
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
80
b
E
d
d
u
m
#
I
V
M
e
__
__
__
__
_
__
_
__
_
__
_
__
_
__
_EE__
_
_
xh
i
x
h
i
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
it
2
4
–
i
t
2
4
–
__
_
IRIR
__
_
Ad__
Ad
____
__en__en
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
rg
e
d
L
a
n
d
U
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
rg
e
d
L
a
n
d
U
se
P
l
a
n
s
e
P
l
a
n
Co
u
n
t
y
-
G
o
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
/
O
p
e
14
4
A
c
r
e
s
n
S
pa
c
e
Co
u
n
t
y
-
S
35
4
.
4
A
FR
1
cr
e
s
Co
u
n
t
y
-
R
5
.
0
A
c
r
e
s
H
D
M
Co
u
n
t
y
-
S
F
R
I
I
3
7
.
8
A
c
r
e
s
Co
un
t
y
-
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
c
r
29
.
0
es
Co
u
n
t
y
-
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
27
.
7
A
c
r
e
s
C&
C
-
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
V
9.
8
Ac
r
e
s
il
l
a
g
e
C&
C
-
S
F
R
I
I
1
7
3
.
0
A
c
r
e
s
C&16
1
C
-
S
.4
A
FR
1
cr
e
s
C&
C
-
S
a
n
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
3
r
e
s
ub
u
r
b
4.6
A
c
C&
C
-
H
D
M
R
1
1
.
5
A
c
r
e
s
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
81
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
2
5
-
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
/
R
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
P
h
a
s
e
s
-
EI
R
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
t
o
t
h
e
A
R
S
P
#
1
-
V
T
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The VTTM has included the various land use categories of the Alberhill Specific Plan
Amendment #1 and is considered substantially consistent with the Specific Plan. (See Exhibit
24, above.) Also see Exhibit 25 for the General Phases of the VTTM No. 35001. As
discussed above in this Addendum analysis, the incorporation of the VTTM NO. 35001 into the
ARSP #1 plan shows that there is a reduction in the County owned ARSP #1 acreage land
area, which has a net overall reduction in the land use categories, number of D.U.s within the
County owned property and a concomitant reduction in overall or cumulative impacts from the
original EIR and its related Addendums.
Discussed more fully below, this EIR Addendum #IV concludes that reduced environmental
impacts will occur within the proposed VTTM No. 35001, as compared to the impacts
previously analyzed in EIR Addendum I because of: the decrease in overall urban
development intensity for ARSP #1 approved land uses due to the land use changes
contemplated in the 598-acre County owned property portion of ARSP #1 according to the 3
Tri-Valley agreements.
4NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4 troduction
.0
.1
E
In
Trhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR analyzed the following 14 environmental
topics as environmental areas that could be adversely affected by the implementation
oerhill Ranch Specific Plan:
Mineral Resources
Geology/Soils and Seismicity
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
Climate and Air Quality
Wildlife/Vegetation (i.e., Biological Resources)
Land Use
Population and Housing
Energy Resources
Aesthetics
Historic and Prehistoric Resources
Traffic and Circulation
Public Facilities and Services;
Fiscal
The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR for the 1,853-acre planning area, which
includes the VTTM NO. 35001 plan areas, concluded that only Air Quality and
Biological Resources would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts
associated with the implementation of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan; all other
impact areas were either insignificant or potentially significant, but capable of full
mitigation.
he
f th
Albe
e Alb
82
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
ant changes or new “impacts” that were not
ses, through subsequent technical analyses, on the five
nvironmental impact areas with the most potential for changed circumstances since
gy,
prepared for the project applicant, Murdock Development
ompany, on behalf of Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership, requested
mplete and adequate by the City Council of the
ity of Lake Elsinore, fully complying with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA
nmental analysis procedures. This EIR Addendum #III
impact areas addressed in EIR Addendum #I
subsequent technical analyses, on the five
ct areas as per the prepared Initial Study.
EIR Addendum #I prepared for the 998-acre ARSP #1 planning area analyzed these
same topical CEQA impact areas in the context of the proposed modifications
associated with the implementation of the Brighton proposed Specific Plan
amendment and D.A.. In the context of the Multiple-Family Dwelling Unit Option, EIR
Addendum #I concluded that the project contemplated in 1989 (i.e., the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan) to the project proposed in 1992 (i.e., Murdock Alberhill Ranch
pecific Plan) would not cause any significS
previously contemplated and addressed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR
Addendum and covered by adopted mitigation measures.
EIR Addendum #II prepared for the Murdock Alberhill Ranch portion of the ARSP area
reviews the identical 14 environmental impact areas addressed in EIR Addendum #I
and specifically focu
e
last analyzed in 1992 (i.e., biological resources, traffic and circulation, noise, geolo
and hydrology) per the prepared Initial Study.
EIR Addendum #III
C
approval of another Addendum to the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR (“EIR
Addendum III”) for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.’s (“VTTMs”) 30836 and 28214.
The EIR Addendum III was found co
C
Guidelines and the City’s enviro
reviewed the identical 14 environmental
and specifically focuses, through
environmental impa
4.2 Environmental Impacts Analysis
This section of VTTM No. 35001, EIR Addendum #IV presents an analysis of
red to those actual environmental impact areas,
Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1.
pact areas, which were addressed in
#1 have been re-examined in this
sed changes to the ARSP #1 to determine
with the implementation of proposed VTTM
sult in additional environmental impacts upon the environment
potential impacts, as compa
identified and analyzed in the Alberhill
lSpecificaly, each of the 14 environmental im
he ARSP the Final EIR Addendum, to t
mAddendu #IV based upon their propo
changes, associated whether land use
o. 35001, will reN
beyond those levels previously identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
Final EIR and Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP #1. For each environmental
topic discussed below, the corresponding discussion in the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR and Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 are
referenced.
83
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
itigation measures referenced and contained in the Alberhill Ranch Specific
R
ddendum to the ARSP Amendment #1, as identified herein, is included within this
M
Plan Final EIR and EIR Addendum I for ARSP # 1, have been examined to
determine the continuing application of those conditions for the VTTM No. 35001
areas. In compliance with CEQA § 21081.6, the "mitigation reporting and
monitoring program" developed in conjunction with EIR Addendum to the ARSP
Amendment #1, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with those mitigation
measures identified through the CEQA process will be included as conditions of
approval for VTTM No. 35001, in order to avoid significant environmental effects.
This ARSP #1 mitigation and monitoring program, incorporating both the
mitigation measures from the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and EI
A
Addendum #IV of this report and should be referenced in the VTTM NO. 35001
conditions of approval by staff.
4.2.1 Biological Resources (See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment
#1, Section 3.2.5, Pages 3-5 to 3-8; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR
Page IV-38 to IV-47)
The proposed VTTM No. 35001’s construction area of 400.3 acres and planned
phases of the VTTM No. 35001 will directly impact biological habitats through cut,
fill, and other grading activities, resulting in the loss of vegetation. As vegetation
is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated wildlife will either be destroyed
or will be displaced to adjacent habitat areas where they may crowd and disrupt
local populations or occupy otherwise non-occupied habitat. However, as the VTTM
No. 35001 is compared to the ARSP Amendment #1, the overall project area is less
impacted acreage area overall (400.3 acres vs. 998 acres) and, therefore, the
construction of the VTTM No. 35001 will not result in the introduction of any new
environmental impacts on the areas biological resources and will likely reduce
nvironmental impacts due to reduced grading,
xisting Wildlife and Vegetation on the Proposed VTTM NO. 35001 Project Site
e
E
efore any grading or construction activity will be permitted.
As discussed within the ARSP Amendment #1, there will be certain amounts of open
space set aside to serve as buffers between the urban land uses and the sensitive
riparian habitats. The open space will change from an undefined, unmanaged area to
a defined, managed area. Wildlife Corridors will help in preserving and will allow
wildlife to move about in a more restricted manner. The previous year’s biological
studies have discussed and included mitigation measure that would implement certain
conservation actions (i.e. mitigation fees submitted to purchase replacement habitat).
Also, as stated within the ARSP Amendment #1, site grading will necessitate
alterations of drainage courses and other waters of the United States. Consequently,
Regulatory Agencies (ACOE, CDFG and CRWQCB) and their respective permits will
be required b
84
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Proposed VTTM 35001 Biological Resources Impacts
The conclusion in the assessment of this report determined that the compendium of
species observed during previous years biological surveys offers little change from the
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 and approved EIR/Addendum.
Implementation of the mitigation measures previously identified in Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Amendment #1 and EIR Addendum, requiring updated biology
surveys, have adequately addressed the potential of biological resources impacts
associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001. The existing 2 MOUs and Tri-Valley
Agreement provides for a MSHCP and CEQA/NEPA biology pre-mitigation process
previously described in this Addendum. Payment of MSHCP mitigation fees at
building permit issuance will satisfy all ASRP #1 and MSHCP mitigation for biology
pacts within the VTTM No. 35001 area and will reduce potential biological
mitigat
mitigates for both State and Federal endangered species that may reside on the VTTM
o. 35001 project site.
im
resources-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No further biological studies and
ion is required within the VTTM No. 35001. It should be noted that the MSHCP
N
No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum.
Implementation of the proposed project will not result in the creation of any
significant impacts upon existing biotic resources. Previous mitigation in the
ARSP EIR and ARSP #1 EIR Addendum and associated project conditions are
satisfied by terms of the Tri-Valley Agreements and should be so referenced in
the VTTM conditions of approval for biology mitigation.
4.2.2 Traffic and Circulation (See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment
#1, Section 3.2.12, Pages 3-14 to 3-15; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR
Page IV-79 to IV-97)
Development of the VTTM No. 35001, like the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
mendment #1, will result in the generation of motor vehicle trips for residential, A
commercial and school/park land uses.
Existing Traffic and Circulation
Traffic impacts of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan were detailed in the “Alberhill
Ranch Traffic Study” prepared by Kunzman Associates (June 1988) for the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR.
Proposed VTTM NO. 35001 Traffic and Circulation Impacts
Traffic and circulation impacts will be less, considering that the development area of
the proposed VTTM NO. 35001’s 400.3 acres and 1,401 dwelling units is significantly
ss in overall acres and dwelling units totals than the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan le
85
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
With the reduction of potentially
,313 less residential dwelling units within the County owned portion of the ARSP #1
e to the
duced developable area created by the conversion of 598 acres to open space by
ns and/or rates found in Trip Generation, Eighth Edition
nstitute of Transportation Engineers, 2008) is projected to generate 2,578 fewer net
dpoint, as less daily vehicle
ips will be generated.
The ap
previou osed VTTM No. 35001’s infrastructure for the project
verlay area will be sufficient to handle projected traffic associated with the proposed
ctor Street “A” (Alberhill Ridge Road) will
prove access between Lake Street (Robb Road) and Nichols Road (Coal Road);
igned and widened to become a Major Street. Other
pecific additional upgrades to project roadways will be undertaken, including road
y system, non-vehicular systems will be provided
roughout the ARSP #1 EIR Addendum #IV area. The County Plan of Bicycle Routes
original EIR), which will
ontinue along Temescal Canyon Road, located within the road right-of-way. A City
Amendment #1’s 998 acres and 2,735 dwelling units.
1
area, the project-specific traffic impacts for the VTTM No. 35001 would be less, as
compared to the impacts analyzed in the Final EIR Addendum to the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan #1. The primary reason of the reduction in traffic impacts is du
re
the MSHCP process. This conclusion is supported by a letter dated June 17, 2009
(See Appendix ‘A’) from Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers (Keil Maberry) to Mr.
Tom Tomlinson (of Castle & Cooke, Inc.), which reviewed and analyzed the traffic for
the VTTM No. 35001, 400.3-acre area as compared to the previously studied and
analyzed Project Zones from within the approved Alberhill Ranch Traffic Study,
prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. (January 25, 1991) for
Brighton Homes, Inc., which was contained in the Addendum to the Final EIR for the
ARSP #1 (May 1991).
The proposed VTTM No. 35001 project, evaluated through this ARSP #1 Addendum
#IV process and based on both the rates from the approved Alberhill Ranch Traffic
Study and the equatio
(I
daily vehicle trips (one half arriving, one half departing) with 156 fewer trips forecast
during the AM peak hour and 37 fewer trips forecast during the PM peak hour. This
comparison represents a decrease in daily and peak hour traffic between the two
development programs, such as the traffic impacts and mitigation measures identified
for the baseline ARSP #1 project, as well as this Addendum #IV. Therefore, the
proposed VTTM No. 35001 is consistent from a CEQA stan
tr
proved ARSP FEIR and ARSP #1 EIR Addendum street infrastructure, and as
sly reported, the prop
o
VTTM. Circulation improvements are repeated here: 1) Nichols Road (Coal Road) will
be widened to become a Major Street which will ultimately connect Lake Street (Robb
Road) with Interstate 15; 2) A new colle
im
and 3) Lake Street will be real
s
widening, curb construction, signalization and turn pockets.
In conjunction with the roadwa
th
identified a Class II bike lane along Lake Street (in the
c
bikeway plan has now been implemented in the VTTM No.’s 30836 & 28214. The
majority of pedestrian facilities will be provided in the form of sidewalks situated along
all Major, Arterial, Secondary and Collector Streets.
86
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
87
n system to a level of insignificance.
Implementation of the mitigation measures previously identified within the baseline
ARSP FEIR and Final EIR to ARSP Amendment #1, remain applicable and will
adequately address and mitigate potential traffic and circulation impacts associated
with the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and EIR Addendum #IV. The staff engineering
conditions to this VTTM No. 35001 should be so constructed as to differentiate and tie
the roadway construction and conditions together between the existing VTTM No.’s
30836 and 28214 and the now proposed VTTM No. 35001. Background traffic and
future traffic from the remaining parts of the City and County should also be identified
in the traffic conditions so as to create a “fair share” apportion of the future traffic
impacts of the VTTM No. 35001 to the existing and future projects outside the VTTM
No. 35001 area of influence.
Incorporation of those existing ARSP #1 measures will reduce potential impacts to
traffic and the circulatio
4.2.3 Noise (See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section 3.2.3,
and Page 3-4; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-20 to IV-28)
Noise impacts to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan were discussed within the Final EIR
Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1, of which the proposed VTTM No. 35001
project site is a part.
Existing Noise
During the development of Phase 1 of the VTTM No. 35001, construction noise
will be generated, which represents a short-term impact on ambient noise
vels. This was previously evaluated in the ARSP EIR. Grading activities
earthwork quantities on
ite, and to limit the impact to neighboring residences. No new short-term noise
RSP. The assessed impacts
le
typically represent one of the highest potential for noise impacts with lesser impacts
from on- and off-site construction traffic. Within the EIR Addendum to the ARSP
Amendment #1, it was reported and identified that the greatest short-term noise
impacts produced from grading would occur adjacent to, or near to, residences
located near Lake Street, Nichols Road and Terra Cotta Road. Grading will be
accomplished by phases (see Exhibit 25) in accordance with Exhibit 26, as
shown below, in this Final EIR Addendum #IV to the ARSP Amendment #1 -
VTTM No. 35001.
Phases 1 and 2 will be graded concurrently to balance
s
impacts are anticipated than those already analyzed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan Final EIR.
Regarding long-term noise impacts, the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP
Amendment #1, indicated that increased traffic (associated with the additional 500
additional residential units) would be the predominate source of noise and may be
greater then previously identified within the original A
VT
T
M
N
o
.
3
5
0
0
1
CE
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
__
__
88
G
d
s
e
R
5
___
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
2
6
-
EI
R
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
I
V
t
o
t
h
__
__
_
ra
e
A
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
in
g
P
h
a
SP
#
1
-
__
_
__
_
_
s
-
VT
T
M
__
__
_
No
.
3
00
1
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
______________________________________________________________________________________
89
associated with the ARSP #1 was reported of having further impacts as a result
of the adjacent and off-site land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the
project. The Final EIR estimated roadway noise along various streets (Robb
Road and Terra Cotta Road) would be further exacerbated.
Proposed VTTMs Noise Impacts
_____
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, estimated future noise impacts for the
approved ARSP #1 Addendum and the proposed VTTM No. 35001, which is a part of
the ARSP #1, based on the existing noise, the project-related short-term
construction noise, and the long-term traffic noise levels determined in the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR (Kunzman Associates, August 1988).
Based on this analysis reported in the approved Final EIR and Addendum to the ARSP
Amendment #1, the development of the proposed EIR Addendum #IV to the ARSP #1
and VT esult in 1,334 less residential dwelling units and
1,364,500 Sq. Ft. less commercial development being built within the ARSP#1 study
area (assuming the 598 acres remain MSHCP open space). Potentially there would
be n s required for approval of the VTTM No.
350d on the reduced traffic volumes assessing that the VTTM No. 35001 and
the subject area is consistent with the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP #1. The
Finalot Plan reviews will assess the architecture, windows and fencing types
that M No. 35001 to reduce noise to the EIR
mitigated acceptable levels.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP
Amet #1 will adequately address potential noise impacts associated with the
proposed VTTM No. 35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTM No.
35001’s conditions of approval will reduce potential short-term and long-term noise-
related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are
included in this Addendum.
4.2.4 ology
TM No. 35001 would r
arrant for an additional noise analysi
ase
ap/P
l be used within the proposed VTT
men
Hydr
o w
01 b
l M
wil
nd
(See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages
IV-19)
The hydrological impacts to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan were also discussed and
considered within the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 of which the proposed
VTTM No. 35001 project area is a part.
Existing Hydrology
3.2.2, and Pages 3-3 to 3-4;
IV-14 to
The Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that the
implementation of the approved ARSP Amendment #1 would result in an increase in
the amount of project area allocated for urbanized (non-permeable) surface areas (e.g.
commercial uses, school properties, and roadways). Additionally, by shifting the
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
materials, the quantity
f storm water and/or irrigation run-off may increase. The increased runoff will
d Lake Street wash and then to Walker Canyon
erties directly
.
ydrology Impacts
emphasis towards a higher density residential development pursuant to the D.A.,
individual lot coverage may be increased (e.g., smaller percentage of individual lots
allocated for landscaping). Open space areas will increase. However, by increasing
the percentage of area which may be covered with impervious
o
increase flows into the unname
Creek/Temescal Creek and other downstream facilities such as Prado Santa Ana
River Basin, but channel improvements, detention and storm water cleaning systems
determined during final engineering will ensure that the effect to prop
downstream of the discharge point is minimal. Actual flows will be calculated and
reviewed by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits
An additional source of concern, as indicated in the Alberhill Specific Plan Final EIR,
was the former surface mining depressions which were inundated with water. The
Final EIR indicated that these depressions could be considered a serious hazard and
a danger to the community if left unsupervised.
The Alberhill Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP
Amendment #1 concluded that incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in
the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP #1 would minimize potential impacts to
hydrology to a level of insignificance.
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 H
evelopment for the most critical storm and duration event
ee Appendix – Section ‘C’). State law requires retaining on-site water in
be ac
located cations on-site. Such retention basins would be required
ursuant to Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 402 requirements.
to pick up, contain as necessary, and convey
e surface runoffs through the site to their respective discharge points. Figure 4 of
KWC Engineers was asked to complete a Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis (May 2009)
on the proposed VTTM No. 35001 site (in addition to the Pacific Clay property to the
west) to hydrologically model the project site’s onsite and offsite tributary watersheds,
to determine the existing and proposed peak runoffs and to also determine the existing
and proposed peak runoffs and to approximate the peak storage required to mitigate
any increased runoff due to d
(S
containment areas for a period to complete purification of storm water runoff. This can
complished through fossil filters, retention basins and natural biology filters
at strategic lo
p
KWC has proposed, within the VTTM No. 35001, a series of above and below ground
drainage facilities, strategically located,
th
the KWC Engineers Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis report shows the approximate
aster drainage facilities for the proposed VTTM No. 35001, inclusive of the Pacific m
Clay project area. The Land Uses proposed and their effect of impervious surfaces,
and soil groups determined the average infiltration rates KWC reported that design
criteria of the onsite detention facilities were found to be effective in mitigating the
90
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Specific Plan
inal EIR, the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1, the Water
gation measures are included in this
ddendum.
impacts of frequent events (i.e., 2-year to 10-year storm events) and, however, had
little impacts on low frequency events (i.e., 100-year storm event).
The FEIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1 reported these mitigation measures
will apply: 1) All drainage facilities shall conform to the standards of the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Lake Elsinore
Community Development Department; and 2) Erosion control devices and an energy
dissipating device shall be provided in order to protect the existing streambed of Lake
Street and Walker Canyon Creek/Temescal Creek, if necessary.
Incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill
F
Supply Assessment (WSA), Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will reduce potential project impacts
upon hydrology associated with the development of the proposed VTTM No. 35001
to a level of insignificance. No additional miti
A
4.2.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP
Amendment #1, Section 3.2.1, Pages 3-2 to 3-3; Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-1 to IV-13)
ere considered and discussed within
oth the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1,
The impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity w
b
of which the proposed VTTM’ No. 35001 project site 400.3 acre areas is a part.
Existing Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
According to, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the existing geologic
conditions for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan did not change significantly from those
previously analyzed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. Although unit type
and location may vary, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that no
additional geotechnical constraints or impacts were identified within the ARSP
Amendment #1 area which would preclude development of the project or result in
the exposure of people or structures to geologic hazards (Preliminary Soils
ngineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, 388.1 acres and 107.9 E
acres Alberhill Ranch, Riverside, California, Petra, January 1990). Seismic risk
in Southern California is a well-recognized factor, and is directly related to
geologic fault activity. Seismic damage potential depends on the proximity to active
or potentially active fault zones, and on the type of geologic structures. Seismic risk
associated with the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 Plan, of which VTTM No.
35001 is a part, is similar to the seismic risk associated with the approved
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan.
91
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Company and by
acific Clay Products. The mining areas are generally located in Planning Area
the ARSP Amendment #1, lies within areas that have been devoted to mineral
l location of the collector road through the project) would result in
calized changes in project grading. However, the boundary of grading operations
quantit
during o. 35001 taking into account changes
the topography from RP2011-1 (formerly RP90-1) along with adjustments to the
35001
a part, concluded that incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the
nd the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1
ould minimize potential environmental impacts from geology and seismicity to a
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 noted that a large portion of the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan has been mined by the Alberhill Coal and Clay
P
3 and that area east of Lake Street, south of Nichols Road and north of
Collector A. Mining operations will be phased out over time within the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan area. In addition, numerous clay pits, access roads, desilting
ponds, and large fill spoil piles are present within the Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan boundaries, as well as abandoned mine shafts and tunnels that are
present in the pit area. The proposed VTTM No. 35001 portion of the Final EIR
to
extraction and mining activities and are, therefore, subject to impacts related to
these past land uses.
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 found that land use modifications from
the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 site
plan and associated reconfiguration of the project’s circulation system (i.e., the
slight overal
lo
has remained unchanged, and the grading will be designed so that earthwork
ies balance on site. Balancing of the earthwork quantities will be performed
the final engineering phase of VTTM N
in
project grading design resulting from shrinkage and subsidence conditions that will
be experienced during the rough grading operations of VTTM No. 35001.
Therefore, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, of which the VTTM No.
is
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR a
w
level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this
Addendum.
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impacts
Petra Geotechnical, Inc. was asked to submit a Geological Feasibility Review of the
proposed VTTM No. 35001, a 400.3-acre plan area. The purpose of the feasibility
review is to provide an assessment of the currently applicability of the various geologic
and geological issues, constraints and mitigation measures contained within the Final
EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 CEQA Addendum related to future VTTM No. 35001
mixed land use development within the subject portion of the property. The geological
constraints have been identified in an earlier assessment, which was performed in
support of the 1989 EIR (Douglas Wood and Associates, 1989, Nicoll, 1988), and
carried forward in the ARSP #1 CEQA Addendum. After the analysis of the existing
site conditions, Petra Geotechnical Inc. concluded that the geological condition of the
ite remained unchanged from previous studies, and is consistent with the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan EIR and Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1. Supplemental
s
92
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, since there are no significant changes in the
eological conditions at the site, which is consistent with the Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
site-specific geotechnical investigations will be required and performed in the future as
the final plans for the development are formalized through the Final Tract Map
process.
The surface mining and remediation plans have not changed since analyzed in the
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1.
The major remediation includes the filling and stabilizing or buttressing of various
landslide areas and water cavities (mining pits), minor remedial earthwork/grading, to
properly abandon mining access roads and pre-existing mining tunnels, and soil
sampling and laboratory testing. This work was undertaken in conformance with all
local, state, and federal laws, and has not significantly impacted the geological
condition of the site.
g
investigation and review, the previous impacts and mitigation measures remain
applicable to the proposed VTTM No. 35001.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP
Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address
potential geological impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001.
Incorporation of the existing measures into the VTTM No. 35001 conditions of
approval will reduce potential geological-related impacts to a level of insignificance.
No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum.
4.2.6 Land Use (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section 3.2.6, Pages
3-8 to 3-10; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-48 to IV-61)
Land Use was considered and discussed within both the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, of which the proposed VTTM’ No.
35001 project site 400.3-acre areas is a part.
Existing Land Use Assessment
As explained in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the adoption of the
ARSP #1 would result in land use changes as previously approved in the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan. The changes reflected refinements to land use
configuration adopted as part of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and reflected
modifications to the size, precise location and design parameters of specific land
uses rather than substantive changes to the ultimate development concept
envisioned under the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan.
The approved land use designations currently apply to the 998-acre property ARSP
Amendment #1, which allows a total of 2,735 dwelling units on 764 acres as well as
89 acres of Suburban Village Mixed Use, and 144 acres of Golf Course-Open
Space, Neighborhood Park-Open Space and Riparian Resource Area-Open
93
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
iation in acre sizes. The 400.3-acre area of the ARSP Amendment
o.1/EIR Addendum #IV and proposed VTTM No.35001, which is a portion of
cated within the 598.3-acre area of
e ARSP #1 and the existing 22.4-acre park located in the southeast corner
be built
ithin the remaining ±598-acre portion of the ARSP #1 area, then 500 dwelling units
ccording to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, although the size and
f the
TTM No. 35001 would be similar to the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan,
dification, as specified in the proposed
TTM No. 35001, will not result in the creation of significant adverse land use
Space. Comparing these totals with the proposed VTTM No. 35001, the
proposed VTTM No. 35001 land uses are very similar in location, but with a
slight var
N
the overall 998 gross acre ARSP #1 area, is proposing a decrease in the amount
of area devoted to residential use and a decrease of commercial use, respecting
the other remaining 598 acres will become MSHCP open space and not be
developed. The amount of Public Park (6.9 gross acres) , plus the additional
open space that is proposed as a Linear Park for open space/wildlife corridors
(38.8 net acres) within the 11.5 acres of the SV and 27.3 acres of the SFR-II
providing recreation pedestrian trails while serving dual use as utility access.
A Public Park adjacent to the underground water tank (3.1 acres) is provided
as a "trailhead" to the future MSHCP open space area. The proposed VTTM
No. 35001) totals approximately 48.8 acres of open space. This does not
include the 144 acres of golf course area lo
th
of Lake Street and Nichols Road. Additional but lesser open space variations also
occur in relation to the amount of on-site area devoted to on-site roadways and other
infrastructure elements. It also must be noted that should the golf course not
w
will be decreased from the allowable 2,735 overall dwelling units permitted in
accordance with the 1990 Development Agreement between the City and Applicant.
A
location of individual land uses were revised, the type and distribution of land
uses within the ARSP Amendment #1 and the proposed project objectives o
V
and, therefore, fully consistent with the land uses contemplated in the proposed
VTTM No. 35001 portion of the ARSP #1. Accordingly, the Final EIR to the ARSP
Amendment #1 concluded that land use mo
V
environmental impacts.
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Land Use Impacts
The main land use variances between the project analyzed in the Final EIR to
the ARSP Amendment #1 and the proposed VTTM No. 35001 -- 400.3-acre
portion of the ARSP #1 is that the residential land use development is reduced by
1,334 dwelling units and 1,1,364,500 Sq .Ft. of commercial development due to the
potential MSHCP open space on the remainder of the 598-acre area. Accordingly,
hysical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already p
analyzed. Land use modification, as specified in the proposed VTTM No. 35001
will not result in the creation of a significant adverse land use environmental
impacts. Incorporation of those planning and design criteria identified in the
94
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
ARSP #1 will minimize potential on-site and off-site environmental impacts to
a level of insignificance. No additional measures are included in this Addendum.
4.2.7 Climate and Air Quality (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section
3.2.4, Pages 3-4 to 3-5; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-29 to
IV-37)
Climate and Air Quality were both considered and discussed within both the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, of which the
proposed VTTM No. 35001 project site 400.3-acre areas is a part.
Existing Climate and Air Quality
The proposed land use changes that were approved for the ARSP #1 did not
result in a change to existing on-site or off-site climate conditions, and therefore,
the proposed VTTM No. 35001 will also not create a change to existing on-site or
off-site climate conditions.
According to Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, short-term air quality impacts
will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by
construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site
preparation.
Additionally, long-term air quality impacts of the ARSP #1 and the proposed
VTTM No. 35001, which is a part of the ARSP #1, will result from the
introduction of additional mobile source (i.e., vehicular) and stationary source (i.e.,
on-site consumption of natural gas, off-site generation of electricity) emissions
and with the additional 500 residential units, which was stated within the
approved ARSP #1, may increase total vehicular trips generated by the project
and corresponding mobile source emissions, thereby exacerbating those air
quality impacts identified in the FEIR to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan.
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that pollutant levels associated
IR, as applied, would exceed the
eneration of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and the reactive organic gases would
Amendment #1 concluded that incorporation of those mitigation measures
with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final E
g
also exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s thresholds for
significance. As a result, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was
required for its approval.
Consistent with this, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1’s air quality
analysis for the ARSP #1 and proposed VTTM No. 35001, it was determined that
air quality impacts associated with the development of the ARSP #1 were
considered significant in the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and
reactive organic gases, and immitigable. Accordingly, the Final EIR to the ARSP
95
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
e substantially different or worse than those impacts previously analyzed.
Propo
identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will reduce, but not
eliminate, the significance of the impact. However, these impacts were found not to
b
sed VTTM No. 35001 Air Quality Impacts
he main air quality difference between the projects analyzed in the Final EIR to
mercial areas are
duced by 1,364,500 Sq. Ft., due to the potential MSHCP open space use on the
e area. Accordingly, physical changes to the site
lan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a
quality impacts associated with the proposed VTTM
o. 35001 are still considered significant; these impacts are not substantially
m #I, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to
e ARSP Amendment #1 into the proposed VTTM No. 35001 conditions of
T
the ARSP Amendment #1 and the proposed VTTM No. 35001 -- 400.3-acre
portion of the ARSP #1 is that the proposed VTTM No. 35001 residential land use
development is reduced by 1,334 dwelling units and the com
re
remainder of the County 598- acr
p
reduction of short-term and long-term air quality impacts due to less homes being
built.
Therefore, although the air
N
different or worse than those impacts previously analyzed within the, the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1.
Implementation and incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the
EIR Addendu
th
approval will reduce, but not eliminate, the significant air quality impacts
associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001. No additional mitigation
measures are included in this Addendum.
4.2.8 Population and Housing (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1,
Section 3.2.7, Pages 3-10 to 3-11; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR,
Pages IV-62 to IV-64)
Existing Population and Housing
he approved ARSP #1 FEIR, which authorized the
dditional 500 residential dwelling units, concluded that the revised land use and
When the FEIR to the ARSP Addendum #1, of which the VTTM No. 35001 is a
part, was compared to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR which included
3,705 dwelling units (estimating 13,338 individuals), the FEIR was considered to be
consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth
parameters for the City. T
a
population projections (an additional 1,800 individuals at the City’s assumed 3.6
individuals per unit) identified for the ARSP #1, were substantially in compliance with
the previous Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR analysis. As a result, potential
changes in project-related population or housing characteristics were not
considered significant.
96
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Population and Housing Impacts
The main differences of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and the project analyzed
the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 is that the proposed VTTM No.
P Amendment #1’s total 998-acre
rea. The proposed VTTM No. 35001, creating 1,401 residential dwelling units,
entation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the
RSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR have
in
35001 is a smaller 400.3-acre portion of the ARS
a
which is a residential development reduction of 1,334 dwelling units, results in less
population by 4,802 individuals and housing impacts and a consequential reduction
in commercial development impacts. The reduction is due to the remaining 598
acres of the ARSP #1 potentially becoming a MSHCP open space land use area.
Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond
those already analyzed and will result in a reduction of population and housing
impacts due to less homes being built.
Implem
A
adequately addressed potential population and housing impacts associated with
the proposed VTTM No. 35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTM
No. 35001’s conditions of approval will reduce potential population and housing-
related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures
are included in this Addendum.
4.2.9 Energy Resources (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section
3.2.8, Pages 3-11 to 3-12; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-65
to IV-66)
Existing Energy Resources
The Fi
usage its are assumed to consume an average of 6,081
Wh/unit/year and 3,918 cubic feet of natural gas/unit/month. Based on the ARSP #1’s
onsumption by approximately 3,040,500 kWh/year
nd the 235,800 thermos of natural gas/year, (for the approved 2,735 dwelling units) the
acts upon those energy resources to a level of
nal EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 estimated that natural gas and electrical
for the residential un
k
revised project and the increased c
a
energy demand, however, is not considered significant and can be readily provided by
the area’s utility purveyors.
When comparing this usage to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 estimates,
the proposed VTTM No. 35001, there will be a decrease in consumption of energy due to
the fact that the proposed VTTM No. 35001 will have fewer residential dwelling units and
less commercial development than the ARSP #1 land use development plan.
The incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 would
minimize potential imp
97
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
n measures are
commended.
insignificance. As a result, no additional mitigatio
re
Proposed VTTMs Energy Resources Impacts
The main differences of the proposed VTTM No. 35001 and the project analyzed
in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 is that the proposed VTTM No.
35001 is a smaller 400.3-acre portion of the ARSP Amendment #1’s total 989-acre
area, and that the proposed VTTM No. 35001 of 1,401 residential dwelling units -- a
residential development reduction of 1,334 dwelling units and reduced commercial
development, resulting in less population, housing impacts and reduced
commercial energy consumption with an overall reduction in energy resources
(which yields a reduction of 8,112,054 electrical kWh per year and also a reduction
f 5,226,612 cu. ft. of natural gas per year). The reduction is due to the remaining
e Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 will
dequately address potential energy resources impacts associated with the
35001
impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are
cluded in this Addendum.
.2.10 Aesthetics
o
598 acres of the ARSP #1 potentially becoming a MSHCP open space land use
area. Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts
beyond those already analyzed and will result in a reduction of energy resources
impacts due to less homes being built.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR and th
a
proposed VTTM No. 35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTM No.
’s conditions of approval will reduce potential energy resources-related
in
4 (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section 3.2.9, Pages
3-12 to 3-13; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-67 to IV-69)
Existing Aesthetics
According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the ARSP #1 site is
characterized by rolling terrain, ranging in elevation from 1,200 feet to 1,800 feet
and situated within a large section east of Lake Street and north of Nichols
oad. A major ridgeline is also located west of and parallel to Interstate 15. The
ded that
plementation of the ARSP #1 will permanently alter the nature and appearance
natural open space represented in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which will
R
primary appearance of the site, from off-site areas to the east, is one of
undeveloped rolling hills and open space.
Accordingly, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 conclu
im
of the area by introducing development into a largely undeveloped area.
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 also noted that the most notable
change to the ARSP Amendment #1 was the modification to the 404 acres of
98
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
99
and other open space areas on-site. Slopes of 25% or greater,
as been proposed for retention as open space to provide an aesthetic transition
eway to the north and along the
erimeter of the project area of the ARSP #1.
include the development of a golf course, riparian resource area along
Temescal Creek
h
from residential land uses and the I-15 Fre
p
The proposed VTTM No. 35001, 400.3-acre project area, which is a portion of the
989-acre area of the ARSP #1, would not create any additional impacts over
those associated with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. Implementation of those
standards and guidelines identified in the ARSP Amendment #1 would reduce
visual impacts of project development to a level which is not significant.
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Aesthetics Impacts
The main land use difference between the project analyzed in the Final EIR to
the ARSP Amendment #1 and the proposed VTTM No. 35001 -- 400.3-acre
portion of the ARSP #1, is that the residential land use development is reduced by
1,334 dwelling units and 1,364,500 S.F. due to the potential MSHCP open space
n the remainder of the 598-acre area, and as a result, there will be fewer homes
ing built.
Amen
otential aesthetics impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001.
e measures into the proposed VTTM conditions of approval will
duce potential aesthetics-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional
o
constructed. Additionally, the ARSP #1 contains specific development standards
and design guidelines for each land use component. These guidelines apply to the
proposed VTTM No. 35001 project development and will ensure the incorporation
of appropriate landscaping and design standards to protect (enhance) the site’s
visual environment. Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited
impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a reduction of aesthetics
impacts due to less homes be
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP
dment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address
p
Incorporation of thos
re
mitigation measures are included in this Addendum.
4.2.11 Historic and Prehistoric Resources (See Final EIR to the ARSP
Amendment #1, Section 3.2.10, Page 3-13; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
Final EIR, Pages IV-70 to IV-74)
Existing Historic and Prehistoric Resources
ific Plan
According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, no known archaeological
sites exist on the ARSP #1 site plan area. The Alberhill Ranch Spec
contains a total of eight paleontological sites, three of which are located within the
Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan boundaries. A historic site, located near
Nichols Road and Terra Cotta Road, is located within the Murdock Alberhill
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
he Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
nal EIR
nd the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1.
roposed VTTM No. 35001 Historic and Prehistoric Resources Impacts
Ranch Specific Plan area. This site contains remnants of mining activity.
According to the Archaeological Assessment prepared for the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan, given the condition and disturbances to this historic site, mitigation
efforts are not warranted.
T
Final EIR concluded that impacts on paleontological resources for both the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan and the ARSP #1, as a result of grading operations for
project development, have the potential to be significant. These potential
impacts, however, were reduced to a level of insignificance by implementation of
the mitigation measures contained in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Fi
a
P
res identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP
mendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address
The main difference between the project analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP
Amendment #1 (989-acre site area) and the proposed VTTM No. 35001 is the
reduction in total overall development area. The VTTM No. 35001 proposes to
develop only 400.3 acres total of the 989 acres within the approved ARSP #1
project site. The result will be a reduction in the overall size and potential impact to
any possible historic and prehistoric resource found while grading. Accordingly,
physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already
analyzed and will result in a reduction of historic and prehistoric impacts due to less
homes being built.
Implementation of the mitigation measu
A
potential historic and prehistoric impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No.
35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTMs conditions of approval will
reduce potential historic and prehistoric-related impacts to a level of insignificance.
No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum.
4.2.12 Mineral Resources (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section
3.2.11, Page 3-13; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-75 to IV-
Existin
78)
g Mineral Resources
Project development will preclude future use of the site for clay extraction, however,
is use has been found to be economically infeasible. The Alberhill Ranch Specific th
Plan Amendment #1 would eliminate the State MRZ zone from the site. The mined
area will require reclamation in order to accommodate the project.
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
Final EIR concluded that implementation of the approved ARSP #1 would have the
same impacts upon mineral extraction activities as would have occurred from
100
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
IR and Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 would
duce impacts upon mineral resources to a level of insignificance.
implementation of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, since mineral extraction
activities would be phased and reclaimed under either development scenario.
Therefore, incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan Final E
re
Proposed VTTMs Mineral Resources Impacts
The main land use difference between the project analyzed in the Final EIR to the
ARSP Amendment #1 and the VTTM No. 35001 are that residential development
area is less in area, resulting in less grading and fewer impacts to mineral resources.
Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those
lready analyzed and will result in a reduction of mineral resources impacts due to a
less homes being built.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP
Amendment #1 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address
potential mineral resources impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001.
Incorporation of those measures into the VTTMs conditions of approval will reduce
potential mineral resources-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional
mitigation measures are included in this Addendum.
4.2.13 Public Facilities and Services (See Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1,
Section 3.2.13, Pages 3-15; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages
IV-98 to IV-118)
IR to the ARSP
mendment #1 are summarized below and relate to the proposed VTTM No. 35001
Fire Prtion
According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the additional dwelling
units, as proposed under the ARSP #1 would result in an incremental increase in
demands on various public facilities and services (i.e., fire and police protection,
schools, water and sewer, parks and recreation, utilities, and solid waste). Each of
these public facilities/services impacts as analyzed in Final E
A
in comparison.
otec
e ARSP Amendment #1 and the implementation of the
RSP #1, including conversion of natural open space to other urban, recreational
developed areas
According to Final EIR to th
A
and open space uses, will minimize fire hazard risks associated with natural open
space areas. Additionally, the introduction of additional landscaping (and
irrigation), including fuel modification zones adjoining urbanized areas, will minimize
risks associated with brush fires by establishing a buffer between
and natural open space areas.
101
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
the ARSP
mendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR would, however,
s to a level of insignificance. As a
sult, no further or additional measures have been identified herein.
The approved ARSP Amendment #1 permitted the projected increase of
residential development and the projected service demands upon both
paramedic and fire protection services area.
It was concluded that the mitigation measures within the Final EIR to
A
reduce potential impacts upon those service
re
Police Protection
According to Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR, the development of the ARSP #1 would generate a
population of 5,147. This increase in population would incrementally increase the
riminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, vandalism, assaults, etc.
persons.
numbe
police t anticipated to significantly increase beyond those levels
nalyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch
chools
c
The approved Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the ARSP #1 would generate the need for 22
additional deputies, to provide adequate protection to future residents. This
represented an increase in the amount of police officers required due to the
increase of generated resident population of 14,820
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 also concluded that although the total
r of dwelling units may increase within the ARSP #1 area, the impacts upon
services were no
a
Specific Plan Final EIR.
The potential reduction in overall residential and commercial land use over the
entire ARSP #1 area may result in a decrease in the number of additional
deputies examined in the ARSP #1 Addendum. This should be examined if and
when the County area is rezoned to open space.
S
ccording to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the approved ASRSP #1
entary school age children, the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Amendment #1 included an approximate 23-acre area with a portion of
the site designated as park area, which would be acquired and developed by the
A
lies within the service boundaries of the Lake Elsinore Unified School District for
grades K-12. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 estimated that the ARSP
#1 was anticipated to generate 300 additional students (i.e., 200 students within the
Lake Elsinore School District and 100 students in the Elsinore Unified High School
District).
In order to accommodate elem
102
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
ol District's criteria. Impacts on
lementary school, junior high school and high school facilities would be mitigated by
ontained in
e Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR would mitigate potential impacts upon
ict to a level of insignificance.
Lake Elsinore Unified School District and developed at the time when it was
needed. Accordingly, Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that the
proposed school site would meet the Scho
e
payment of a school impact fee by the developer imposed by AB 2926.
Therefore, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the measures c
th
local school distr
Parks and Recreation
According to Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the development of the
approved ARSP #1’s site total acreage allocated for recreational uses within the
roject site will increase substantially. This increase in population to the area would
e impact to water
creation at the Lake, they would provide opportunities for other activities for
g five-acres of parkland per 1,000 in population or
ayment of in lieu fees. Based on this, the ARSP #1 would create a required
p
create additional demand for local and regional recreational facilities.
Due to the close proximity of the Lake Elsinore State Recreation Area, residents
would visit the Lake for recreational purposes. Although the proposed ARSP #1
recreational amenities on-site would not entirely alleviate th
re
future residents.
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that the project would be
required to adhere to the City of Lake Elsinore Resolution No. 85-34, adopted on
May 28, 1985, requirin
p
overall demand for 58.73 acres of recreation facilities. This park acreage would
include a 34-acre Community Park located at the southeast corner of Lake Street and
Nichols Road. With the potential development of the 144+ acre golf course and the
open space on both sides of Temescal Creek, the parkland provisions exceed the
quired demand.
he Developmental Agreement between the City of Lake Elsinore and Murdock
ining costs of improvement of the Community Park will be incurred by the
ity.
re
T
Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership specifies that the (collectively, “Community Park
Improvements”) Developer must contribute but may not exceed $1,500,000 for all
community park improvements. This sum shall be adjusted by the percentage
increase, if any, in the Index during the period beginning on the Effective Date and
ending on the date the Developer commences the Community Park Improvements.
Any rema
C
103
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that implementation of the
ARSP #1 would result in a beneficial impact upon area recreational opportunities.
As a result, no additional mitigation measures have been identified.
Solid Waste
According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final development of the ARSP #1 would increase the amount of solid
waste generated in the region, in turn placing increased demand upon services
of waste haulers in the area. Based upon the solid waste generation factor for
iverside County (7.9 pounds/person/day), the projected increase of ARSP #1’s 500
ndividuals per unit, the amount of solid waste would increase
pproximately 14,220 pounds/day. The entire ARSP #1 project area will generate 46
d that the
onversion of natural open space areas to other land uses (including the 144+
R
dwelling units and 3.6 i
a
tons of solid waste per day, shortening the life of the Double Butte and El Sobrante
Disposal sites
In addition, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicate
c
acre golf course) will result in the generation of additional organic wastes which
will require landfill disposal or composting. The golf course will include a
composting/landscape refuge area and/or composting program designed to
minimize potential project-related impacts upon County sanitary landfill
facilities.
The facilities and services demand projections for the ARSP #1 are expected to be
substantially consistent with the demand projections analysis in the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR. The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded
that implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR would reduce potential impacts upon solid waste facilities
and services to a level of insignificance.
Telephone
According to Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, the ARSP #1 would place
uded that implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill
anch Specific Plan Final EIR for telephone impacts would reduce potential impacts
to a level of insignificance.
additional demand upon the existing telephone service, and these demands are well
within the parameters of GTE. However, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR
noted that the ARSP #1 would require new lines to serve future project residents.
The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the increased
telephone demands, as a result of implementation of the ARSP #1, were not
considered significant. Therefore, the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR
concl
R
104
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Water and Sewer
Regarding water demand, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that
e ARSP #1 would be provided water service by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
WD”). According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the
ater consumption to be demanded by the R-1 and R-S portions of the
ode. A water distribution system is proposed to serve the project area.
ortions of the site would have to be served by the 1601 and 1801 pressure zone
ewage generation associated with the ARSP #1, was estimated to be
.3893 mgd. To provide sewerage facilities, this master planned treatment plant
ificance.
TM No. 35001 Public Facilities and Services Impacts
th
District (“EVM
w
Annexation Area would result in 2.973 million gallons per day (“mgd”) average
day demand and 5.776 mgd for the maximum daily demand.
The ARSP #1, due to its increase in the 500 units will require a minor increase in
water supply, implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 would
minimize potential impacts upon the water system to a level of insignificance. Also in
order to conserve water, the project shall comply with Title 20 of the California
Administration C
P
systems, which have no facilities at this time, and will require a regional pump station,
lines and storage reservoirs,
Regarding sewer service, the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 indicated that
the ARSP #1 area was provided sanitary sewer service by EVMWD. According to the
Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the total anticipated average daily flows
and the s
1
westerly of Temescal Road must be constructed.
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 concluded that incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR would minimize potential impacts to the
sanitary sewage system to a level of insign
Proposed VT
se
lready analyzed and will result in a reduction of public facilities and services impacts
d services impacts associated with the proposed VTTM
o. 35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTMs conditions of approval
The main land use difference between the project areas analyzed in the Final EIR to
the ARSP Amendment #1 and the VTTM No. 35001 is a portion of the overall
ARSP #1 project area. Therefore producing smaller or lesser impacts overall.
Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond tho
a
(i.e., fire and police protection, schools, water and sewer, parks and recreation,
utilities, and solid waste) due to less homes being built.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP
Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address
potential public facilities an
N
105
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
ial public facilities and services-related impacts to a level of
significance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum.
will reduce potent
in
4.2.14 Fiscal (See Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages IV-119 to IV-
120)
Existing Fiscal Impacts
A fiscal impact report was completed for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan which
indicated an overall positive fiscal impact at specific plan build out. The
incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan Final EIR would minimize potential fiscal impacts on the City to a level of
insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are included in this Addendum.
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Fiscal Impacts
The main land use difference between the project area analyzed in the Final EIR to
the ARSP Amendment #1 and the VTTM No. 53001, is that the project area of the
TTM No. 35001 is a part (400.3 acres) of the overall project area of ARSP #1 (989
Final EIR will adequately address
otential fiscal impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001.
V
acres). Accordingly, physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts
beyond those already analyzed and will result in a slight reduction of fiscal impacts
due to less homes being built.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP
Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
p
Incorporation of those measures into the VTTM No. 35001’s conditions of approval
will reduce potential fiscal-related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional
mitigation measures are included in this Addendum.
106
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
ead Agency
5.0 REPORT PREPARERS
L
City of Lake Elsinore
lanning Division
ake Elsinore, Ca 92530
ngineering Consultant
P
130 S. Main St
L
Planning Manager -
Senior Planner - Kirt Coury
Tele.: Fax- 951-471-1419 Cell: 949-547-9570
E
WC Engineers
ike.taing@kwcengineers.com
K
1880 Compton Ave., Ste. 100
Corona, CA. 92881-3370
Ken Crawford
ken.crawford@kwcengineers.com
Mike Taing
m
Tele: (951) 734-2130
EIR Consultant
The Planning Associates
3151 Airway Ave., Suite R-1
Costa Mesa, Ca 92626
ardy M. Strozier, AICP
ardyesq@aol.com
ele: (714) 556-5200/ Cell#: (714) 366-3828/ Fax: (714) 556-3905
egal Consultants
H
h
T
L
iles Law Group
151 Airway Ave., Suite R-1
osta Mesa, Ca 92626
tephen M. Miles Esq.
miles@mileslawgroup.com
ele: (714) 556-5200/ Cell: (714) 393-3389
M
3
C
S
s
T
107
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
108
IR Technical ConsultantsE
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers - Traffic and Circulation
Ste. 122
2626
eliminary Hydrology Analysis
en Crawford & Mike Taing
cal, Inc – Geology and Soils
ker
ite A
urrieta CA 92563
-9271
her Drover – Archaeology
2660
ele: (949) 760-2522
1580 Corporate Drive,
Costa Mesa, CA 9
Keil Maberry
Tele: (714) 641-1587
KWC Engineers - Pr
1880 Compton Ave., Ste. 100
Corona, CA. 92881-3370
K
Tele: (951) 734-2130
Petra Geotechni
Doug Johnston & Grayson Wal
38655 Sky Canyon Dr., Su
M
Tele: (951) 600
Dr. Christop
54 Sea Pine Lane
Newport Beach, CA 9
T