HomeMy WebLinkAboutVested Tentative Tract Map No. 35001 - EIR Addendum #IVVTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
VESTED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35001
TO THE ALBERHILL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (No. 89 -2)
Prepared By:
The Planning Associates
3151 Airway Ave., Suite R -1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714 - 556 -5200/ FAX: 714 - 556 -3905
E -mail: hardyesq @aol.com
Date: October 10, 2012
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.'s
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY ...................... ............................... 1
Existing Conditions /Project Impacts /Mitigation Measures
(Reprinted Pages from ARSP #1 - 1 -1 THRU 1- 10) .................. 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................ ............................... 13
1.1 Overview of the Alberhill Specific Plan Area Entitlements and
Governmental Activities Affecting the Land Uses ............... 13
1.2 Addendum Conclusions and Analysis ............................... 40
1.3 Intended Use of Addendum ............... ............................... 42
1.4 Incorporation by Reference ............... ............................... 42
2.0 JUSTIFICATION FOR EIR ADDENDUM III ....... ............................... 47
2.1 Subsequent/Supplemental CEQA Analysis ......................... 47
2.2 Addendum Approach ........................ ............................... 49
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................. ............................... 50
3.1
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan ............. ...............................
50
3.2
Description of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan #1
and Changes to the Original ARSP ..... ...............................
51
3.3
Brighton Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment
#1 Comparison to the Proposed VTTM No. 35001 ................
55
3.4
Comparison Summary of ARSP #1 to the Proposed
VTTM No. 35001 Plan ......................... ...............................
56
3.5
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Plan Analysis ...........................
61
3.5.1 Planning Area 1 — Suburban Village (SV) ..................
61
3.5.2 Planning Area 2 — Single Family Residential 11
(SFRII), 6.9 -Acre Public Park & Alternate
Elementary School Adjacent to the 6.9 -Acre
PublicPark ............................... ...............................
63
3.5.3 Planning Area 3 — Suburban Village (SV) ..................
66
3.5.4 Planning Area 4 — Single Family Residential 11
( SFRII) ................................... ...............................
66
3.5.5 Planning Area 5 — High Density Multi- Family
Residential ( HDMFR) ............... ...............................
69
3.5.6 Planning Area 8 — Single Family Residential I (SFRI) ...
69
3.6
Transportation and Land Use ............. ...............................
72
3.7
Comparison of Fiscal — Revenues of the Proposed VTTM
No. 35001 and the ARSP # 1 ................ ...............................
73
3.8
Parks and Open Space ...................... ...............................
73
3.9
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 ................. ...............................
78
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't.) Page No.'s
4.0 ENVIROMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............. 82
4.1 Introduction ..................................... ............................... 82
4.2 Environmental Impacts Analysis ........ ...............................
83
4.2.1
Biological Resources .............. ...............................
84
4.2.2
Traffic and Circulation ............. ...............................
85
4.2.3
Noise ..................................... ...............................
87
4.2.4
Hydrology .............................. ...............................
89
4.2.5
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity .. ...............................
91
4.2.6
Land Use ................................ ...............................
93
4.2.7
Climate and Air Quality ............ ...............................
95
4.2.8
Population and Housing ........... ...............................
96
4.2.9
Energy Resources ................... ...............................
97
4.2.10
Aesthetics .............................. ...............................
98
4.2.11
Historic and Prehistoric Resources ..........................
99
4.2.12
Mineral Resources ................... ...............................
100
4.2.13
Public Facilities and Services ....... ...............................
101
4.2.14
Fiscal ..................................... ...............................
106
5.0 REPORT PREPARERS ................................. ............................... 107
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Land Use, Densities and D.U.s for the Proposed
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan #1 EIR Addendum
#IV — VTTM NO. 35001 ................ ............................... 37
Table 2: ARSP #1 Land Use Chart that describes the 598 -
Acre County Acquisition /Ownership Area ...................... 39
Table 3: Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1 —
Land Use Summary ................... ............................... 78
Table 4: Proposed VTTM NO.35001 Portion of the ARSP #1
and Remaining ARSP #1 Merged Land Use Summary..... 79
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Map ....................................... ............................... 14
Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map of 400.3 Acre VTTM No. 35001 ...................... 15
Exhibit 3: Aerial Vicinity Map ................................ ............................... 16
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't.) Page No.'s
Exhibit 4: Location Map - Alberhill Ridge VTTM No. 35001 .............. 17
Exhibit 5: Original 1989 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
No. 89 -2 ( ARSP) ...................... ............................... 19
Exhibit 6: 1991 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment
#1 ( ARSP# 1) ............................ ............................... 21
Exhibit 7: 1992 Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan (MARSP) ......... 25
Exhibit 8: 1997 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #3
( ARSP# 3) .................................. ............................... 27
Exhibit 9: 2004 Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan EIR
Addendum III for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No's.
(VTTMs) 30836 & 28214 ................ ............................... 29
Exhibit 10: 2006 Nichols Canyon Mine Plan for Reclamation ................ 33
Exhibit 11: 2006 Nichols Canyon Mining and Reclamation Plan......... 34
Exhibit 12: Proposed Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan #1 EIR
Addendum III —Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 35001.... 36
Exhibit 13: Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan #1 - County 598 Acre
Acquisition /Ownership Area with the EIR Addendum #IV —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 35001
(as an Overlay) ............................. .............................38
Exhibit 14: Land Use Comparisons Chart ......... ............................... 59
Exhibit 15: Land Use Comparisons with ARSP Amendment #1 as
The Base and the Proposed EIR Addendum AV and VTTM
No. 35001 (as a Separate Acetate Overlay ) ......................... 60
Exhibit 16: Proposed VTTM NO. 35001 Overall Lotting Study/
LandUse Plan ............................. ............................... 62
Exhibit 17: Planning Area 1 - Suburban Village ..... ............................... 64
Exhibit 18: Planning Area 2 - Single Family Residential /Public Park.......... 65
Exhibit 19: Planning Area 3 - Suburban Village .... ............................... 67
Exhibit 20: Planning Area 4 - Single Family Residential ........................ 68
Exhibit 21: Planning Area 5 - High Density Multi - Family Residential....... 70
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't.) Page No.'s
Exhibit 22: Planning Area 8 ........................... ............................... 71
Exhibit 23: Brighton Specific Plan & Alberhill Ridge VTTM No.
35001 - Parks & Open Space Exhibit ......... ............................... 74
Exhibit 24: EIR Addendum IV Merged Land Use Plan ......................... 80
Exhibit 25: Development/Recording Phases - EIR Addendum #IV
to the ARSP #1 - VTTM No. 35001 ............ ............................... 81
Exhibit 26: Grading Phases — EIR Addendum #IV to the ARSP #1 -
VTTMNo. 35001 ....................... ............................... 88
APPENDICES:
A. Traffic and Circulation — Letter Report by Keil Maberry
B. Geology and Soils — Letter Report by PETRA
C. Hydrology — Letter Report by KWC
D. Archaeology — Dr. Christopher Drover and Others
E. Tri- Valley Agreements
F. Alberhill Ranch 2000 Ac. Specific Plan — Original EIR
G. Brighton Specific Plan- EIR Addendum #1 to Specific Plan Amendment, Prepared by
UltraSystems
H. Preliminary Water Facilities Plan - Report by KWC
I. Preliminary Wastewater Facilities Plan - Report by KWC
J. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan - Report by KWC
K. Final Initial Study /Negative Declaration No. 2008- 12/State Clearing House
No. 88090517 - Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 - Prepared
by City of Lake Elsinore
iv
VTTM 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 1) 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 park'; 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 1 -1 through 1 -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:
K
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
EXMING COND TT IONS,
A. Geology, Soils & Saismicity
Approximately 500 acres of
the 1,853 acre Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan site
have been mined for clay,
resulting in deep cuts and
several alteration of the
natural topography. Walker
Canyon, containing
Temescal Creek, crosses
the site in a northwesterly
direction. On-site
elevations range from
1,200' to 1,900'. The site
contains extensive areas of
25`ia slope. A number of
faults are present on -site,
although no conclusive
evidence for active faulting
was found. Liquefaction is
likely within the lower
drainage areas in the
northwest portion of the
site.
17:tiN"ia.lLlJ.It �
From a gectechnical
standpoint, the site will be
suitable for development.
Project implementation will
alter the existing natural
landform. Remedial grading
and recontouring will be
necessary in the mined out
areas of the site. Grading
will also be needed to
stabilize potential landslide
areas, There is the
potential for soil
settlement and liquefaction
impacts during a seismic
event. Project grading is
anticipated to balance on-
site. The project proposes
retention of the majority
of the primary ridgeline
which extends through the
center of the site. Also,
I69 acres are proposed for
development at a density
of 0.2 d.uJacre, minimizing
grading impacts in the
southerly portion of the
site. Another 133 acres
are proposed for
designation as "RCA ",
Residential Constraint
Designed, clustering units
to minimize grading. Areas
of uncertified fills will
require either full or
partial removal and
recompaction.
1 -1
3
Within landslide areas,
partial removal and /or
buttressing will be
required. Additional slope
stability analyses shall be
performed. The presence
or absence of suspected
faults on-site shall be
confirmed by trenching.
Erosion of slopes shall be
controlled. Additional
study is needed to develop
mitigations for lique-
faction prone soils.
Project grading for the
Alberhill stanch Specific
Plan will blend with the
natural topography as
much as possible, by
clustering development,
terracing on hillsides and
by preserving S31 acres of
natural open space.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
E2J1S'ANG CONDITIQM:
B, Hydrology
Drainage to the site is
tributary to the Santa Ana
River through Temescal
Creek, which ultimately
flows into the Pacific
ocean near Newport Beach.
Temescal Creek is the main
drainage course on the
site, collecting runoff from
the Walker Canyon area. In
addition, drainage flows
from Rice Canyon into
Walker Canyon on-site,
then flows west to the
Prado flood Control Basin.
The City of Lake Elsinore
General Plan designates a
small portion of the site
near Walker Canyon as
"flood plain and flood
way ".
C. Noise
A major noise corridor
exists along Interstate 15,
with noise levels directly
adjacent to 1-15 exceeding
70 CNEL. Secondary noise
corridors include Riverside
Drive and Lakeshore Drive,
with noise levels exceeding
65 CNEL.
W"s 91440051
Project development will
increase runoff on-site,
increasing flows in Walker
Canyon Creek and other
downstream facilities. The
proposed storm drain
system would discharge
flows into Walker Canyon
Creek just west of I -15.
Due to the magnitude of
the flow at the discharge
point, energy dissipatators
are required to prevent
erosion of the stream bed.
Some improvements
(minimal) to Walker Canyon
Creek are anticipated
adjacent to the proposed
commercial area to prevent
channel erosion and to
respond to potential flood
hazards in this area.
Runoff entering the Creek
will contain minor amounts .
of pollutants typical of
urban use.
Construction noise
represents a short term
impact on ambient noise
levels. Traffic generated by
the Alborhill Ranch
Specific plan will result in
substantially increased
noise levels along on -site
and off -site roadways. Of
the off-site roadway links
experiencing a noise
increase greater than 3 dB,
only two are adjacent to
existing residential use:
1°-2
M
f t � 1.11 Ii_C�1M M C��►.� s�! F:i�
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.
Erosion control devices
and an energy
dissipatating device shall
be provided in order to
protect the existing
stream bed of Walker
Canyon Creek, if'
necessary.
Construction hours will be
limited to minimize noise
impacts to existing
residential development.
All on-site residential lots
and dwellings shall be
sound attenuated so as
not to exceed an exterior
standard of 65 dB CNEL
in outdoor living areas
and an interior standard
of 45dB CNEL in all
habitable rooms. The
project proponent shall
participate in any in -place
City off-site highway
noise mitigation program,
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
EXISUNQ CONDITIONS-
D. Climate and Air Quality
The project site is located
in the South Coast Air
Basin Quality Management
District (SCAQMD). The
Basin has been designated
a nonattainment area for
ozone, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, total
suspended particulates and
lead. The closest air
monitoring station to the
site is in Perris.
PRC�7t IMPACTS
Terra Cotta Road between
Nichols and Lakeshore; and
Robb Road between Coal
and Terra Cotta. Along
Terra Cotta Road, the 65
CNEL contour is projected
to extend 2 feet past the
right-of-way. Along Robb
Road, the 65 CNEL contour
is projected to extend 49
feet past the right -of -way.
On -site lots along Lake
Street, Robb Road and Coal
Road may experience noise
levels over 65 CNEL
without mitigation.
Temporary air quality
impacts will result from
project construction. When
the project is completed
and occupied, the project
area will be directly
affected by: (t) vehicle
emissions from project
traffic, (2) indirectly in-
fluenced by pollutants em-
itted by power generation
plants which serve the
project in the South Coast
Basin. Projected total
emissions will increase
existing subregional em-
issions by 10.7 %-23.3%
within Source Receptor 25.
The balanced land uses
proposed by the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan will
allow residents to satisfy
their recreational,commer-
cial and educational needs
within the project bound -
ary, thereby reducing resi-
dents' reliance on motor
vehicles. Bicycle /Pedes-
trian paths are provided
between land uses. Air
quality impacts are consid-
ered a significant adverse
impact of the project.
I -3
5
MiT1GATION MEA3URLS:
To minimize dust gene-
ration SCQAMD Rule 403
requiring watering during
grading operations shall
be adhered to.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
E. Wildlife and Vegetation
Native coastal sage scrub
vegetation is found over
the steeper hillsides on-
site. Coastal sage scrub
supports a moderate
diversity of wildlife.
Several bird species were
observed foraging within
the coastal sage scrub,
including raptorial birds.
Relatively large areas of
introduced grassland are
found on the more gentle
southfacing hillsides of the
site, replacing native
communities following
drytand farming. Native
species have been replaced
with adventitious "weedy'
species. Introduced grass-
land supports a limited
diversity of wildlife. The
riparian /freshwater marsh
vegetation complex farms a
continuous border along
most of Temescal Creek.
varying in width from 39'
to 109'. This habitat
supports abundant and
diverse wildlife habitats,
These habitat.% serve as
wildlife dispersion corridors
important to regional wild-
life populations. A
Stephens' kangaroo rat
trapping program deter-
mined that the SKR (an
endangered species) occurs
on -site. The endangered
least bells vireo may also
be present on-site along
Temescal Creek.There are
three sensitive plant
species believed to exist on
the southwesterly flank of
Alberhill Mountain on -site
(Allium fimbr£atum var
it unzii* Dudlevx multicaulis
and Harga og nella almeri).
FR0&_ .
Project implementation will
require the removal of
vegetation on approximately
1,300 acres of the site,
which will destroy wildlife
habitats as well. However,
the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan retains 531
acres of open space,
permanently preserving
sensitive riparian habitats
along Temescal Creek,
avoiding impacts to the
least bells vireo.
Development in areas
presently occupied by the
SKR will eliminate existing
populations of the species.
The three sensitive plant
species known to exist on
the southwestern flank of
Alberhill Mountain will be
removed by project
development, resulting in
the loss of sensitive
resources potentially
occurring here. These
impacts are considered
'significant ".
I -4
101
Ml�� ATIQI`1ASUR ES;
An erosion control plan
shall be prepared for all
development areas
draining into Temescal
Creek. Any modification
to the Creek will require
permits from the
Department of Fish and
Game and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Revegetation of slopes
shall utilize native
species. As the SKR is on
the Federal Endangered
Species List, project
development will require a
permit from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, An
Assessment Study shall be
undertaken regarding the
potential existence of the
three sensitive plant
species believed to exist
on the southwestern flank
of Alberhill Mountain_
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
• •
F. Land Use
All but eight acres of the
1,853 acre Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan and all of the
822 acre Annexation Area
are currently located in
unincorporated Riverside
County, within the Sphere
of Influence of the City of
Lake Elsinore. Clay mining
activities were conducted
on the Specific Plan site
for the past 100 years,
thought they were recently
discontinued. The 822 acre
Annexation Area is
composed of five physically
separate areas to the
north, west and south of
the Specific Plan site, The
area is largely vacant,
though some residences
exist in the Nichols
Road /Terra Cotta Road
area. The majority of the
Specific Plan site and some
of the Annexation Area is
designated for "Mineral
Resources" on the County
of Riverside Open Space
and Conservation Map.
Portions of the site and
Annexation Area are de-
signated "Areas Not De-
signated as Open Space and
"Mountainous% Surrounding
land use include clay
mining activities to the
west of the site, near Lake
Street interchange. To the
north and east, where terr-
ain is steeper, is primarily
vacnat land with rural res-
idential uses. Residential
development has recently
occurred immediately south
and west of the project
site.
PROJECT IMPACTS[
Project approval will result
in the annexation of 2,667
acres into the City of Lake
SIsinore. On-site land use
within the Annexation Area
will not be altered by
project approval, as no
development is proposed.
Proposed prezoning
designations within the
Nichols Road /Terra Cotta
Road portion of the
Annexation Area include 45
acres of R-1 zoning,
allowing 270 d.u. and 71
acres of R -S, allowing 36
d.u. The rest of the
Annexation Area is pro-
posed for designation as
'SPA ", Specific Plan Area.
For the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan site, project
approval will result in a
'Specific Plan" designation
on the City General Plan
and the construction of
3,705 d.u. on 896 acres of
the site, 531 acres of open
space, 254 acres of
commercial use, 30 acres
parks and 50 acres of
school /park sites. A gross
density of approximately 2
d.u. /acre Is achieved by the
proposed Specific Plan,
which is comparable to the
residential densities
immediately adjacent to the
site. In the extreme
southern portion of the
site, 169 acres are
designated 'Rural
Residential" (2 d.u./ac.),
which is compatible with
the very low density
residential uses existing
off -site east of Terra Cotta
Road.
X-5
N
MEASURES:
The preparation of the
Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan complies with the
City of Lake Elsinore
General Plan designation
and it contains special
land use and design
controls that are not
available when land
develops on a tract by
tract basis. Adequate
school facilities, parks and
open space, circulation,
etc, are provided, as are
design guidelines, site
planning criteria, etc. No
additional mitigation for
impacts to land use are
recommended.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
G. Population and Housing
The City of Lake Elsinore
had a 1988 population of
12,800. SLAG GMA -1
Baseline Projections calf
for a 20I0 population of
45,597 within 20,739 d.u.
Central Riverside had a
1989 population of 237,100,
with a projected population
of $81,400 for the year
2010.
H. Energy Resources
Since the termination of
clay mining activities on-
site, the project site
consumes little or no
energy.
Utilizing the factors
established by the City of
Lake Elsinore for park
dedication requirements, a
population of 11,841
persons would be generated
by the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan. A population
of 1,114 persons would be
generated within the
portions of the Annexation
Area propsed for pre -
zoning as R -1 and R-S.
The resulting 12,955
population represents a
100% increase to the 1988
City population; however,
SCAG GMA -1 Baseline
Projections are not
exceeded. The Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan also
proposed 254 acres of
commercial use, creating an
estimated 3,097 jobs for
project and area residents,
enhancing the job /housing
balance in the region.
The Alberhili Ranch
Specific Plan will create a
demand for 749,200 cubic
feet of natural gas per day
and 182,946 kWh of
electricity perday, The 306
units which could be
accommodated within the
R -1 and R-S zoning of the
annexation area will
consume 67,983 cubic feet
of natural gas and 6,000
kWh of electricity,
1 -6
No mitigation measures
are recommended for the
increased housing and
population generated by
the project, Mitigation
measures relative to the
increased demand for
service as a result of the
annexation request are
discussed in Section IV.
M., Public Facilities and
Services.
The Architectural
Guidelines for the
Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan requires that future
development comply with
several measures relating
to energy conservation.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
I. Aesthetics
The 1,853-acre Alberhill
Ranch site is traversed by
a major ridgMine located
west of and parallel to I-
15, so that the primary
appearance of the site from
areas to the east is one of
undeveloped hillsides and
open space. Within the
interior of the site, the
natural terrain has been
extensively altered by clay
milting activities over the
past 100 years, resulting in
large pits, access roads,
de- silting ponds, etc.
Significant topographic
features in the southern
portion of the site also
shield the interior of the
site from view. The site's
appearance is also
influenced by the riparian
habitat found along
Temescal Creek on -site.
Implementation of the
Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan will permanently alter
the nature and appearance
of the site through grading
and development. Approxi-
mately 531 acres of the
site will remain as open
space, encompassing the
significant ridgeline located
west of and parallel to I-
15, as well as the riparian
vegetation associated with
Temescal Creek. No grading
is proposed within this
area, therefore appearances
of the site from portions
of 1-15 will not be
impacted by project
development. Project
approval will significantly
improve the appearance of
the mined area on -site. to
addition, the Specific Plan
contains Development
Standards and Design
Guidelines which regulate
future development within
the project.
J. Historic and Prehistoric Resources
One previously recorded
archaeological site is
present on -site and two
new sites were located
during survey activities.
One new site supported a
short -term use such as
stone tool manufacture.
Site two appears to be a
male - oriented flaking
station, One historical site
is located on -site,
consisting of remnant
mining activities of Pacific
Sewer Pipe, possibly dated
1890. Five previously-
recorded paleontological
sites were identified and
two new localities were
found.
Project grading could
result in the destruction of
known and unknown on-
site archaeological and
paleontological resources,
without proper mitigation.
All known sites will be
directly impacted by
development. The mining
historical site will be
removed as a result of
project development,
however, its recordation is
adequate mitigation.
I -i
9
The Specific Plan proposes
land uses, standards and
design guidelines which
mitigate visual impacts of
project development. No
additional mitigation
measures are
recommended.
For archaeological
resources, data collection
for site one shall be
performed and data
collection/testing program
shall be performed for
site two. An archaeologist
shall be contacted if any
cultural resources are
found during grading.
Samples shall be collected
from known sites prior to
project grading. Grading
in the sediments of the
Silverado, Pauba and
Older Alluvium shall be
monitored full time to
permit the collection of
specimens.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
EXISTINQ i,;,ONDITIONS
Fossils of several species
were recovered within the
Silverado Formation, which
has a high paleontologic
sensitivity.
K. Mineral Resources
Clay has been mined on-
site for the past 100 years,
though Pacific Clay
Products recently
terminated mining on -site
because it became
economically infeasible,
Clay mining has severely
altered the natural
topography on
approximately 500 acres of
the site. Portions of the
clay deposits on -site have
been classified by the State
Division of Mines and
Geology as MRZ -2,
Significant Mineral
Deposits. In response to
State MRZ zoning, the
County of Riverside
General Plan designates the
site for 'Mineral
Resources" use.
L. Circulation
Roadways that will be
utilized by the project
include I -15, Lake St.,
Robb Rd., Nichols Rd., Coal
Rd., Terra Cotta Rd.,
Collier Ave., Lakeshore Dr.,
Lincoln St. and Riverside
Dr. All intersections in the
vicinity of the site operate
at a Level of Service C or
better for existing p.m.
peak hour condition, except
for the intersection of
Machado St. at Lakeshore
Dr., which needs
signalization.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Project development will
preclude future use of the
site for clay extraction;
however, this use has been
found to be economically
infeasible. The Specific
PIan proposal would
eliminate the State MRZ
zone from the site. The
mined area of the site will
require "reclamation" in
order to accommodate the
project.
The Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan proposes an
on -site circulation system
which implements the
Riverside county and City
of Lake Elsinore
Circulation Elements. Dike
trails, pedestrian walkways
and an equestrian /hiking
trail are also proposed. The
project will generate 80,470
external trips and 576,500
miles of travel per day.. All
intersections but one in
the project area are
projected to operate at
10
z_8
MITIGATION MEASURpS
An amendment to a
previously- approved
Reclamation Plan for the
mined area must be
reviewed and approved by
the City and /or the State
Mining Board,
Improve Lake St. between
Coal Rd. and I -15 to an
Arterial; improve Coal Rd.
between Lake St. and
Terra Cotta R& to a
Major, improve Nichols
Rd. between Coal Rd. and
the project boundary east
of 1 -15 to a Major;
Improve Robb Rd. to an
Arterial between Coal Rd.
and Lakeshore Dr; and
improve Terra Cotta Rd.
to a Modified Secondary
between Nichols Rd, and
Lakeshore Dr. Intersection
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Ivl. Public Facilities and Services
The project area is
provided services by the
following agencies: Fire
protection California
Dept. of Forestry and
Riverside County Fire
Dept,; Police protection -
Riverside County Sheriff
Dept.; Schools - Lake
Elsinore and Elsinore Union
High School Districts;
Parks and Recreation -
Lake Elsinore Recreational
and Park District;
Electricity - Southern
California Edison; Natural
Gas - Southern California
Gas Co„ Telephone-
General Telephone; Solid
Waste- County Dept. of
Waste Management.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Level of Service (LOS) C
or better in the p.m. peak
hour, with proposed
improvements. For future
traffic conditions with area
wide growth and
surrounding development
plus the project, all
intersections but one In
the vicinity of the site will
operate at LOS C or
better, To achieve LOS C
at all intersections, Lake
St. should be upgraded to
an urban arterial between
I -15 and Coal Road.
There are presently no fire
stations within the required
response time for the
proposed Category II urban
development, though the
City of Lake Elsinore may
be acquiring a site on
Lincoln St., north of
Machado which would be
capable of providing an
acceptable level of service.
Project implementation will
result in the need for 22
additional deputies in order
to achieve the desired
officer /resident ratio. The
Alberhill Ranch project
would generate an
estimated 2,224 students
and proposes two 15-acre
elementary school and one
20-acre junior high school
sites. The Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan and the 306
units which could be
accommodated within the
R- I and R -S portions of
the Annexation Area would
result in a 2.973 average
day and 5,776 MOD maxi-
mum day demand for water.
I.9
11
MITIGATION MEASURES
geometrics recommended
by the Traffic Study
should be implemented,
For existing plus project
traffic conditions, traffic
signals are warranted at
10 intersections.
The project will be
required to satisfy City
and County Fire Depart-
ment standards for fire
stations. A Mello-Roos
District may be formed to
pay for certain project
expenses. The project will
be subject to school
impact fees imposed by
AB 2926. All conditions
pertaining to water and
wastewater requirements
as specified by the
Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water Dist, shall be
followed. In order to
conserve water, the
project shall comply with
Title 20 of the Calif.
Admin. Code. Park lends
shall be provided in
accordance with City of
Lake Elsinore Ordinance
85 -34, Building energy
conservation shall be
achieved by compliance
with Title 24 of the Calif.
Admin. Code. The Specific
Plan includes guidelines
for provision of trash
collection stations.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
MWING CONDITIONS PROMM IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES
A water distribution system
is proposed to serve the
project area. Portions of
the site would have to be
served by the 1800.5
pressure zone system,
which has no facilities at
this time and will require a
regional pump station, lines
and storage reservoirs.
Total average daily flows
of 1.3893 MGD of sewage
are anticipated. To provide
sewage facilities, the
master planned treatment
plant westerly of Teniescal
Road must be constructed,
although an interim plan is
available for a portion of
the project, utilizing the
existing Cheney Street
facility. The project will
create a demand for 58.73
acres of recreation
facilities, per City
Resolution 85 -34. The
Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan proposes a total of 80
acres of schools and parks,
including a 30-acre
Community Park, The
project proposes a 14'
equestrian /hiking trail from
Nichols Road north through
the open space, providing a
connection to Lake Street
for future off-site
recreational uses as part of
the County Park Depart-
ment's proposed trail
system. The project will
create a demand for
182,946 kwh of electricity
per day and 1,140,581 c.f.
of natural gas per month.
The project will generate
46 tons of solid waste per
day, shortening the life of
the Double Butte and El
Sobrante Disposal sites.
i
W
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
Exhibit 1 - Regional Map
14
3s
T-
40
O
O
M
O
Z
H
d
v
Q
M
O
O
O
CL
ca
.7
.0
I
N
s
x
W
Ec%i
� � N
z Q `
d
Q O
W V
00
LO
EN
r
M N
Z Q "
CD
� d o
�UO
vi
j, � Vp .� yYa a t!r .Rtl .� xR � �8 � ljQ � �� 1• 91
g�� I' �``i<H � as Y Y 4. * �d?\• RY r, (li r p +{ " x "'��IY � ` qx
�/�
-
Qr N n �-H rn ! �i-� aA ,t .. � � �•E W
j' a �• I�� a i
�• F � � tM Ran Y14 N R' fl Y 9Y Y�1 • 1 �,�! �;Z•
OV� // B R a / B/ H i s Ali -tl 4 U i i 8 i �•�
r_ - ,• V p R a// tl' R `t�SS , t.� - q n 1 r?t f
`•v, �fE � \\ \YY H i * H. .� -- �' Y a�R ��j t i �\ ` E�3iN
�' � Z Y '!• j� R R d I R r a� ai ', i � •t(p!
tl t Y it H \`ti. Y t1 a 4t Y 1 a t Y HJ E_ \ 1 i
�y� Y
i.
O
W 'V •� \ ��\ a { tV \ a V ,�� a � R � H � H 4 Y � E t A *{t � /
Yea 11E k a tt A!
�� p�4 a Y`4 x,
�) dx t tl
a
{ e R it n tl/ t �CYt wnY. �I a
`• a" i.+- t .. tl t d iF ` i
d �•
qh yNi I r ail rl
1 k} Ra Hjh1S` V. R <q V a4 // •1 j�
VA
i t
EN
r
Lo C N
C.-0O
Z Q
2Q�
0
�UO
ti
r
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.
P—!4
E
M 0
Lo N
M
M Q
T-
6 L
Z -
4)
00
w 6
L) 0
10—%
0.
U)
CN
6
co
6
Z
r_
m
G.
CL
m
:E
00
0
1
Ul)
K
LLI
............
..........
La -r
rn
_0
C:
cz
uj 0
............
..........
La -r
rn
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
Amendment #1 to add dwelling units and permit development of a maximum of 2,735
residential units, incorporating the first 18 -hole championship golf course inside the
City, and 89 acres in three locations of a Suburban Villages which would be mixed
uses of commercial shopping, office and higher density residential opportunities,
including affordable housing. The Specific Plan Amendment #1 area shares a
common boundary of Nichols Road and the common corner with Lake Street,
including a common collector Road (Alberhill Ranch and Ridge Road) with the
adjacent Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area. The ARSP #1 provides for
smaller public parks, compared to the original SP, as an open space /park trade off for
the adjoining 34 acre, now 22.4 acre, Murdock Alberhill Ranch Community Park at the
corner of Lake Street and Nichols Road and for the 144 -acre Golf Course -Open Space
area newly added to the Specific Plan area in 1991. Please refer to the following
ARSP #1 Land Use Plan, Exhibit 6.
The ARSP #1 City entitlements included a Development Agreement (D.A.) approved
on July 11, 1990 and D.A. Amendment #1 approved on September 10, 1991 that
vested the development's rights and terms for 15 years or until July 11, 2005. The
original D.A. 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 parties to the D.A. include the City of Lake Elsinore and Brighton Alberhill
Associates and their assigns. The D.A. and Amendment #1 was supplemented on
September 10, 1991 with a General Plan Amendment to the Lake Elsinore General
Plan by Resolution No. 91 -67 and ARSP Amendment No.1, which by Resolution No.
91 -68 on August 27, 1991, increased the number of allowable dwelling units to 2,735
on 998 acres shown in ARSP #1 and the D.A. Amendment #1 detailed the
development timing of the proposed golf course and alternate actions if the golf course
was not built.
The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ( MSHCP) was adopted on June 17,
2003 by the County and City, some 13 years following the ARSP #1 and "Brighton"
D.A. adoption and within the 15 year term of the D.A. (July 11, 2005). The MSHCP
adoption by the City had the effect of "de facto" modifying the Specific Plan land uses
and D.A. directed fees by removing certain development areas and replacing them
with permanent open space pursuant to MSHCP criteria cell and cell group
descriptions, 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
411
P�
E cj
CD
C14
Cl 0
w t
00
0-
AY
U)
E
V
E
as
co
x
w
-24 -
R
r.
F"
u
Aa
Is, i
U
cr
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. 1 St
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
approximately 180 acres of open space /park.
The County and City adopted the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program in
2004 prior to the termination date of the Brighton D.A. of July 11, 2005. This new
program also added new fees not contemplated in the D.A. and D.A. 1St Amendment.
The following D.A. bullet point analysis provides a comparison between TUMF fees
and MSHCP fees under the ARSP # 1 (Brighton):
• "Fees conditions and dedications. 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
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 exclusively by, and at the discretion of
the City, and applied equitably among property and is
therefore imposed on a City -wide basis.
• "Development Projects which are the subject of a Development
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, if the term of such a Development
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 Agreements, as does TUMF.
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 purposes of the limitation of the exemption.
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..
This MSHCP conservation land use changes, MSHCP fees, and new County -wide
transportation fees were not contemplated in the Specific Plan or the Development
Agreement. There is a body of development agreement law in California that
stipulates when outside effects by the city or other public agencies makes the
achievement of the Specific Plan and the D.A. terms impossible or by de facto
governmental entitlement actions modifies the Specific Plan, the net affect is to stop,
or toll, the term from running out as of the date of the subsequent governmental
actions which modified or otherwise affected the Specific Plan and Development
Agreement terms. This tolling of the D.A. term, by state law, permits the public
agency, (City of Lake Elsinore), to take whatever time and legal action the two (2)
parties to the D.A. deem acceptable to rectify the D.A. contract and other related
091
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
entitlement documents and actions, in view of these intervening actions
(MSHCP/TUMF).
TOLLING OF BRIGHTON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ARSP #1
The California Development Agreement Statute as set forth at California Government
Code Section 65864 et seq. recognizes that unexpected circumstances or subsequent
governmental actions, laws, policies, etc., may interfere with the compliance of the
provisions of a development agreement. Post - enactment of law and regulation can
affect the ability to implement a development plan, and thus, requires that a
development agreement be modified or suspended. In particular, Government Code
Section 65869.5 states that:
"In the event that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after a
development agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclude
compliance with one or more provisions of the development agreement,
such provisions of the agreement shall be modified or suspended as may
be necessary to comply with such state and federal laws or regulations."
While, the City- adopted MSHCP is a locally implemented regional plan, it is also
founded upon and implements the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts. The
MSHCP only has authority for conservation under Federal and State law. This local
(County /City) implementation of a Federal law is not unlike the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board implementing the Federal Clean Water Act Sections 401
and 402. With the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issuance of a
Biological Opinion and incidental take permit being a prerequisite to effectuating the
MSHCP, the MSHCP is "state or federal law or regulation" pursuant to the D.A. State
law. California Government Code Section 65869.5 establishes a mandatory
modification or suspension requirement when subsequent State or Federal law
prohibits compliance with any provision of a development agreement. According to
the VTTM applicant's, Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., failure to address the
mandatory modification or suspension requirement of Section 65869.5, results in a
strong argument for tolling the term of the Development Agreement on the VTTM No.
35001 project area and require the City Council to revisit the D.A. in light of the
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
24
E
Q
wO
CY 0
Lu Z
L) 0
O
r2
J,
cr
CL
C*4
M- - --------
o
C
C.
Ri
O
<
z
<
ce 0
I <
cz u
< 0
Z
U
0
Z)
�E
LO
(N
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
Addendum. The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan ( MARSP) proposed a number
of minor technical revisions and modifications to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan 89 -2
land use plan, circulation plan, phasing plan, zoning standards, and design guidelines,
and proposed a maximum of 1,819 residential dwelling units in various land use
categories, an elementary school, open space, private recreational, public community
park uses (shared with the ARSP #1 for open space credit) and commercial uses. The
Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area is divided into three general planning
areas: residential, commercial and schools /parks. Please refer to the following MARSP
land use plan, Exhibit 7.
At the time the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan entitlement was undertaken in
1992, the City, pursuant to Public Resources Code CEQA § 21166 and 14 California
Code of Regulations CEQA §§ 15162 and 151632, determined that a supplemental
EIR was not required because changes proposed to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
did not have potentially significant environmental effects different from those analyzed
as part of the original Alberhill Ranch Final EIR. The impacts were determined to the
same as or reduced from that analyzed in the original ARSP EIR. As a result, the City
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164, and adopted in June 1992, an
Addendum to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR ( "EIR Addendum #II "). The
EIR Addendum #11 noted only minor technical revisions and modifications to the
Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and concluded that no new significant environmental
effects were identified and no new mitigation measures were proposed or necessary.
In March of 1997, the project applicant, Horizon Group, Inc., requested approval of a
Specific Plan Amendment #3 (following Brighton 998 acres and Murdock 511 acres)
for the eastern 202 -acre portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area, north of the
1 -15 and is bisected by Nichols Road. On June 10, 1997, ARSP Amendment #3 was
approved by the City of Lake Elsinore providing additional phases of outlet center
commercial uses as an extension to the existing Lake Elsinore Outlet Center located
along Collier Avenue across the freeway, along with providing general commercial
uses and open space. In accordance with CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration
was prepared to evaluate those land uses with the Specific Plan Amendment #3 area.
See Exhibit 8, below, for the ARSP #3 Plan area.
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."
441
M
0.
U)
Q
M
E
Asa s's:
Q
,V
a
w o
o y
w
V Fr Ld
O <
z 0
Z 0
L
d
_m
Q
r
co
X
W
0 r
N
M 'p O
V r
Z Q d
� Q
Cl O 0
00
R
�7
3C�(52i3i� i23 0 1.iN f#G�
30NiS13 3AVI 30 uia
vl-�
0)
1
O O p O
d g O
u �
V
� N N
i 5 0
Q
C p
I j!
Q) N N II
o ci v
Q Q 4 4 a
O N O O
Q N h h N
m p
a a a
�x
w
A
A
1.�
�1
W{
co
�3 ~
N
vie
b
.fit% �%
t °4 • •�='� •`,
%
•
li
4�E
1
O O p O
d g O
u �
V
� N N
i 5 0
Q
C p
I j!
Q) N N II
o ci v
Q Q 4 4 a
O N O O
Q N h h N
m p
a a a
�x
w
A
A
1.�
�1
W{
co
�3 ~
N
vie
b
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
park, school and 1 park site; and VTTM No. 28214 for 970 single family lots, 3 private
parks and a public park, all as shown on Exhibit 9. On January 13, 2004, Addendum
#III was adopted (Resolution No. 2004 -9) and was found complete and adequate by
the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, fully complying with the requirements of
CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's environmental analysis procedures.
Subsequent to the January 13, 2004 approval, an Administrative EIR Addendum #1 to
the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan was approved by the City on December 27,
2005 and a Specific Plan Amendment #II was approved by the City Council on
November 25, 2008 along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2008 -12. As of
September 2012, there are three (3) Tentative Maps within Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan: VTTM Nos. 28214, 30836, and 35773. Subsequent Substantial Conformance
Maps were prepared for both VTTM Nos. 28214 and 30836. VTTM No. 28214
consists of 913 SF home sites, 25.6 acres of multi - family sites, a 22.4 -acre Community
Park along with various private parks, an elementary school site and a community
swimming center. VTTM No. 30836 consists of 280 single - family home sites, a 4.6-
acre public park and a private park. In 2009, VTTM No. 35773 was approved for 72
Single Family home sites. VTTM No. 35773 is located within the boundaries of VTTM
No. 30836. See Exhibit 9 below showing the recorded phasing map for VTTM Nos.
28214, 30836 and 35773. VTTM No. 28214 is currently shown to be developed in 18
recording phases. As of September 2012, five (5) phases have been recorded at the
County Recorder's office.
E
CM
6 V
Z
Cl Sa
0
00 w 6
0
E
'000
C-4
Cc
m to
co
0
r- cn
cn --
0
z
C m
a>
je 4w
Cc
0
C'4 >
K
LU
_J1
N
Rio,
.10
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
In 2004, the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
was adopted for all areas throughout western Riverside 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.
Throughout the MSHCP 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 cell or 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,
Kit
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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
meant to replace the more commonly used Section 7 Federal Endangered Species
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
Understanding between the County, Tri - Valley 1 partnership and the City of Lake
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
31
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
one important area, notes the process to clarify and finalize the boundaries
between the 400.3 Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West, Inc., VTTM No. 35001
and the County 598 acres.)
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 program, for MSHCP purposes, was not
provided for within the ARSP #1 and the Brighton Development Agreement. The City
of Lake Elsinore was a party to the two MOD'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.
32
E C,4
cz
U) C14
M
Sao
ui
C.) 0
eZ
O. . . . .... . .....
Z 1j
CD
C*4
:E 10 CLI
xz
LLI 0
ON
c1r)
c1r)
s
J�
W�=
�O=
OhOOz
6 W
h V��
O
a
,u
�v
0
V
Q. Ch
FL Rs
� _ Y
L• g t
G
r,. 1
fi
°
z
W
co
° it Rf U
i<
W -
W 4,f 1i
EN
r
M CD
W N
'a O
Z Q r
CD
ry 0
V 0
F
Q
H �4
a
2 �F
R
n�
� g6
�`W g
V �R
S
114"
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
MOD'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
E
r E T
� � N
Z Q �
d
E cm
� Q O
�C r
UO
r�
r X.
Q Q r' t'it Oil
� t
C
Q
� t
V t ;
t
CL
C m
Q 1
� i c
U)
°0 c
CL
O
a
04 ,
r Zvi l�
t
W
�k
EN
LO c N
M 'op O
Z Q —
Q .n
>c� o
UO
r
C
tai
ao
V O
Lo
v M
Q O
Z
cc
CL
s^
V �
C
's m
L C
V
Q L
ai
l— O 2
Q.
O
`a 0.L
r � r
s �
L �
4- N
N
D >
ci >
N *
d E
d
N Q
W
'C
C
J
m
co
c
2 o
U LO Q1
co
O
CY) 0
LL
� Q �
�
d Co
co c 0
o
w o
co
co ai
U
+� O fl
E
a? ai m
M
p d N O
� O
o@ 6
2
d
N
mo L
-6 1 aa) — w Q
-C (7) Q
CU O 6 C�
U C d c
a) V
Q- co m " m
o Co��
0
cn � m N I--
U N cool -C p-
fn N (n N O CN
N N 0 - N
O` O O N cm
0) to r Co C C
D) CO 0- ='E
f°0co`u �N
rp p w a)
a�o0C 0)
OS-0J o d
U fn U N d'
C C
m co o Q a)
coj -0
fl
Q (D< —a) C—/) o
C M Coo O LL
cC •— (n II
@ C Ch co
cu cn FL N Q co V- H
dlO
O=A
Cu M '1' Lr)
ti
C`7
LL
N
0)
c d u.
M
p f�
It
N
p
��~
LO
N
r
I
O
O
3rEN
0)
LO
00
Q � 0
N
to
r
M
r
X
R
a_
�0
1
0
C)
2.-E
mN(p
ON(D
M
Lo
E
0
V
T
0 0
V " Q
00
CN
ti
m
M
v a a
2
m
�
CO
d
M
T—
CD
o
�
>
O
�
ct3
c[i
ca
>
N
>
N
LL_
CU
N
I.J.
d
co
d� n
o d
>
_
_
( -i6
_
010 N
cu
� i-�
Co
� i�
CU C
U-
0
Z O
-0
�_
CD
�/
N
� �
v c
m
C LI_
U) S
U)
C Ll_
U) U)
C
_
U-
U)
> Z:�
U)
QZ
N
c a r
N
M
It
LO
co
C
c.
a Q` co
m
co
c
2 o
U LO Q1
co
O
CY) 0
LL
� Q �
�
d Co
co c 0
o
w o
co
co ai
U
+� O fl
E
a? ai m
M
p d N O
� O
o@ 6
2
d
N
mo L
-6 1 aa) — w Q
-C (7) Q
CU O 6 C�
U C d c
a) V
Q- co m " m
o Co��
0
cn � m N I--
U N cool -C p-
fn N (n N O CN
N N 0 - N
O` O O N cm
0) to r Co C C
D) CO 0- ='E
f°0co`u �N
rp p w a)
a�o0C 0)
OS-0J o d
U fn U N d'
C C
m co o Q a)
coj -0
fl
Q (D< —a) C—/) o
C M Coo O LL
cC •— (n II
@ C Ch co
cu cn FL N Q co V- H
dlO
O=A
Cu M '1' Lr)
ti
C`7
BEN CD
lO C N
CO 'p CD O
ZQ�
2Q.c
�U'' O
UO
s
3
a`
L
E ;
.c p
L �
Oo
M
N
.p• Z
0
Q �
Q
L
a
�CL
�M
Lo 2
� L
O I'
U �
c �
c� H
a
0 c
CL •v N
d>
U) I
s
V
C
cv
L
d
Q
I
M
r
.Q
W
i�
.a
C
d
V
Q
W
4)
s
40
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum IV
October 10, 2012
Table 2
ARSP #1 LAND USE THAT UNDERLIE THE 598 -ACRE COUNTY
ACQUISITION /OWNERSHIP AREA
Planning
Land Use
Acres
Max. Density
Dwelling
Area
(DU /AC)
Units/
Commercial Density
Commercial S.F.
FAR
1
Suburban Village (SV)
27.7
30/
33/
2.0 FAR
666,558.25 S. F.
4
Single Family Residential II
37.8
6.0
216
SFR II
6
High Density Multiple
5.0
30
150
Family Residential
HDMFR
7
Suburban Village (SV)
29.0
30/
35/
2.0 FAR
697,941.76 S. F.
8
Single Family Residential 1
354.4
5.0
900
SFR I
9
Golf Course /Open Space
144.00
0
0
GC /OS
TOTALS
- --
598
2.23
1,334
1,364,500 S. F.
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.
WE
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
1.2 Addendum Conclusion and Analysis
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a)(3), the proposed VTTM No. 35001
constitutes a "project" which is subject to CEQA and the CEQA guidelines. The
proposed development contemplated within the VTTM No. 35001 proposes no
changes to the ARSP #1 and is, therefore, deemed consistent with the ARSP #1.
As described above, less residential (density) development within the ARSP #1 area
will occur overall, as result of the approval of the VTTM than previously permitted
under the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. This will result in a reduction of environmental
impacts previously analyzed in the ARSP #1 EIR Addendum.
The County of Riverside has acquired 598 acres of the 998 -acre ARSP #1 area for
open space. The County MOU agreement with the City indicates this 598 -acre area
will be placed in a permanent 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 exchange for certain, yet unidentified,
City /County terms and conditions. These terms and conditions could be such things
as public access and use of the 598 -acre area. The VTTM No. 35001 provides multi-
use trails into the MSHCP areas for both public and animal wildlife use.
It can be reasonably anticipated that no urban development, according to the ARSP #
1 land plan, other than open space, 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 (1,334 dwelling units and 1,364,500 S.F. of commercial /office uses)
that underlie the County 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.
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 Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, prepared
pursuant to CEQA and under authority of CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, has
been prepared to:
.X
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
• Provide an environmental basis for the adoption of the VTTM and other
discretionary actions in accordance therewith;
• 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 EIR,
EIR Addendum I through Addendum #IV, resulting there from; and
• 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 environment.
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 #1 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 #1 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 importance (which were not previously addressed in the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #IV) have been
:111
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
identified through this subsequent environmental review. The Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #I, together with EIR Addendum #II and #III and
proposed EIR Addendum #IV, it's technical appendices and the technical changes
identified herein, adequately analyze the proposed changes to the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan area, and provide an environmental basis for the City's discretionary
action of approving the VTTM No. 35001.
1.3 Intended Use of Addendum
The following planning and legislative bodies are anticipated to utilize this VTTM No.
35001 EIR Addendum #IV, in conjunction with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final
EIR and EIR Addendum #1 through #III, as the environmental basis for subsequent
discretionary actions taken within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area:
City of Lake Elsinore. CEQA Guidelines § 15025(c) indicates that where an
advisory body (i.e., Planning Commission) is required to make a
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 - making body of the lead agency (i.e., City Council) shall
consider EIR Addendum #IV with the previously certified Alberhill Ranch
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
Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1 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
EIR) may utilize the information contained in the Final EIR, as may be
modified by this EIR Addendum #IV, as evidence of CEQA compliance.
1.4 Incorporated by Reference
In an effort to avoid replication and redundancy in the planning process, several documents
are hereby incorporated by reference, as permitted by CEQA Guidelines § 15150, which
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 #1 through
EIR Addendum #III), which include the project site or which address issues affecting
E,X
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 Ranch Specific Plan 89 -2 Final Environmental Impact
Report (SCH No. 88090517) for the Alberhill Ranch ", April 1992, prepared by
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 & 28214" (SCH
No. 88090517), November 28, 2003, prepared by The Planning Associates, and
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 Wastewater
Reclamation Plan (SCH No. 90020247), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
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, 1991;
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
SKR within western Riverside County. The Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area was
incorporated 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
otherwise occur within the service area of that facility.
Inc?
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
• "Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Number 3" — Lake Elsinore
Outlet Center Expansion at Nichols Road, prepared by KTC Consultants,
June 10, 1997.
As noted above, copies of these documents are available for review at City Hall
Planning Department (130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California 92330).
For the purpose of the EIR Addendum #IV, the following are attached as technical
appendices to this addendum:
• "Acquisition Agreement, February 10, 2004 between Riverside County and Tri-
Valley Partners;
• "Final EIR Addendum to Alberhill Specific Plan" (for Brighton Homes),
prepared by UltraSystems Engineers and Constructors, Inc. Environmental
Services Division, adopted September 10, 1991;
• "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, 1991;
• "Geotechnical Summary of Geologic Conditions" Letter by Petra Inc., Grayson R.
Walker and Doug Johnston, June 12, 2009;
• "Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis for Pacific Clay & Alberhill Ridge ", Report by
KWC Engineers, Mike Taing, R.C.E. 64263 May 2009;
• "Traffic and Circulation — CEQA Consistency" by Kyle Mabeny of Linscott Law &
Greenspan, Engineers, December 21, 2011 and February 29, 2012;
• Archaeology Present on Site — Reports prepared by Dr.. Christopher Drover and
Various Other Archaeologists and Paleontologists for the Castle & Cooke, Inc.,
Properties within the City of Lake Elsinore;
• "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" (PWQMP)
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;
ELI'
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
• 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)
The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) for Alberhill Ridge (VTTM
No. 35001) is required by the City of Lake Elsinore as part of the review and approval
of the VTTM No. 35001. A PWQMP is required for this project as part of the CEQA
application per the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 7.D.1, the City of
Lake Elsinore 2010 MS4 Permit (R8- 2010 -0033) and the County of Riverside Drainage
Area Management Plan (DAMP) dated April 2007. A Project Specific PWQMP Report
for VTTM No. 35001, dated August 23, 2012 has been filed with the City of Lake
Elsinore Public Works Department.
The PWQMP addresses the Pollutants of Concern for the project based on the
Receiving Waters and development type, and how the project proposes to mitigate for
these pollutants through: site design, source control and treatment control Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Alberhill Ridge proposes eight (8) Extended Dry
Detention Basins, for a total of +/- 6 acres with 10.6 acre -feet of storage, of which six
(6) basins are proposed along the Lake Street Streambed / Linear Park which will
provide more park area along the Lake Street Corridor. The proposed basins will
mitigate the 2 -year, 24 -hour incremental increase in storm runoff so the project does
not generate a Hydrologic Condition of Concern. Basins shall be owned and
maintained by the City of Lake Elsinore, as described in the PWQMP and per the
Brighton D.A., and shall be planted with a native plant palette to encourage growth of
natural habitat. A Final WQMP will be prepared during the project development phase
to refine the details of the WQMP design, maintenance and operation.
Alberhill 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
Alberhill Villages( + /- 1400.3 Acre Pacific Clay site) and Alberhill Ridge (400.3 -acre
Castle & Cooke, Lake Elsinore West site) projects located in the Alberhill area within
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
Assessment (WSA)' was prepared by MWH in March 2012. The WSA was approved
by the EVMWD Board of Directors on March 22, 2012.
The 'Alberhill Villages and Alberhill Ridge Development Water Supply Assessment'
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
standard, the WSA evaluates whether EVMWD's total projected water supplies
available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20 -year
projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project,
am
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
in addition to EVMWD's existing and planned future water demands, including
agricultural and manufacturing uses. As identified in the report, the Alberhill Ridge
development has a projected potable water demand of 900 acre -ft/yr in the normal
year, 700 acre -ft/yr in the wet year, and 900 acre - ft/yr in the dry year. The total annual
water demand for the Elsinore service area is 37,700 acre - ft/yr, 33,300 acre- ft/yr, and
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 are sufficient to meet existing and currently
committed future maximum day demands conditions including the Alberhill Ridge
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 activity within the
guidelines of the current State's Construction General Permit adopted by Order No.
2009 - 0009 -DWQ on September 2, 2009. The General Permit went into effect on July
1, 2010 and will expire on September 2, 2014 or until a new permit is adopted.
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 -site to comply with the General
Permit. To date these sediment basins proposed as a BMP for the site have been
effective in controlling the deposition of sediment and the discharge of turbid
stormwater offsite within the guidelines of the General Permit.
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,
determines one or more of the following:
(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
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.
An analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of
VTTM No. 35001 conclusively demonstrates that development of the proposed VTTM
No. 35001 will not trigger any of the provision of CEQA Guidelines § 15162, and
therefore a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required. This is borne out by the
47
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
fact that if the City approves the VTTM No. 35001, such an action: (1) will not require
important revisions to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1
through EIR Addendum #III in that no new significant environmental impacts (not
previously considered as part of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR
Addendum #1 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 #1 through EIR Addendum #III) have been identified through this
subsequent environmental review. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR
Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum #III, together with EIR Addendum #IV, its
technical appendices and the technical changes identified herein, adequately analyze
the proposed changes to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan areas, and provide an
environmental basis for the City's discretionary action of approving the VTTM No.
35001. Additionally, the VTTM No. 35001 area is substantially consistent with the
approved ARSP #1 so as to produce no additional environmental impacts or changes
to the previous project.
As discussed below, this VTTM No. 35001 EIR Addendum #IV reviews all 14
potentially significant environmental impact areas analyzed in the original Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and subsequent EIR Addendum #1 through EIR
Addendum #III. This analysis concludes that because the Single and Multiple family
residential, the Suburban Village mixed use and commercial development areas within
the VTTM No. 35001 are reduced to only occupy the 400.3 acres from the original 998
acres, due to the Tri- Valley MOD's, the VTTM No. 35001 project will not directly or
indirectly increase any impacts that were previously analyzed. In particular, for those
impact areas with the most potential for change, (traffic, hydrology and geology), since
they were last analyzed in 1991, this EIR Addendum #IV, as described within Section
4.0 - Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of this EIR addendum
concludes through subsequent technical review that VTTM No. 35001 traffic,
hydrological, and geological impacts will not directly or indirectly increase any impacts
that were previously analyzed.
This proposed VTTM No. 35001 area was given partial park credit for the proposed
34 -acre community park that was subsequently developed with 22.4 acres on the
Murdock Alberhill Ranch, thus, permitting via 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 Lake Elsinore City Council Resolution No. 85 -34 states that the Park Code
requires five acres of park land dedicated for eve dry 1,000 residents. Based on a
projected population of 8,766 (ARSP #1, Page 13, 3r paragraph), a total of 43.8 acres
of parkland would be required for the entire 998 -acre ARSP #1 area.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, EIR Addendum #1
through EIR Addendum #III. This conclusion includes environmental impacts, but not
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 #1 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
brief overview of the overall project description as described in the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR, the minor changes to the project description as analyzed in
EIR Addendum #1 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.
EIR Addendum #IV then compares the ARSP #1 project contemplated in 1991 (i.e.,
Multiple Family Dwelling Unit, High Density and Suburban Village Options), which was
analyzed in EIR Addendum #1 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 depicted in the
VTTM No. 35001 or in the project area that were not previously contemplated and
addressed in EIR Addendum and covered by adopted mitigation measures. EIR
•.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
Addendum #IV reviews the 14 environmental impact topical study areas addressed in
EIR Addendum #1 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 and 2003 in EIR Addendum #1 through EIR Addendum# III, respectively. If as
a result of this Addendum #IV analysis, additional or modified measures are deemed
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 circumstances have changed in the ARSP project area that would cause
the City decision makers to determine that new significant impacts are caused solely
or cumulatively by the VTTM No. 35001 project implementation, requiring the
preparation of a full, subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA § 21166 and
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 #1 for ARSP # 1
and EIR Addendum #11 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 regarding biological resources, traffic and
circulation, noise, geology, and hydrology impacts, for the proposed VTTM No. 35001.
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 1 -15 Freeway corridor into
50
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 1 -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 .
The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan originally consisted of three ownerships: Murdock
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,
approved on August 8, 1989, contained an approximate total of 1,853 acres, and
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.
2. A 42 -acre increase in land area assigned to a commercial use (i.e.,
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
uses within this area will not, however, result in an increase in the total
residential uses over the 2,735 units authorized hereunder.
4. Inclusion of a potential 144± acre golf course within the project area.
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
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.
52
i
T E r
N
M M C
z°a
/0 o
HV .fir
o
M
LO
in g 9 ,4: V N
6
C! Cam?
y
oil
H Yi Cw? 2 r ^ Ri 100
E
Q �
.C.r
M
O
' y
B
I $ 'S; i C'Y C3 t s
K
6
n �
v cv
� •'� � a
e
E 0
b b
m as r
U C
o
' os tR
.
1 1 "' =� --
`.b ?. `G.
LL
LL
m m c7
c=. r
u
FL m
cc
ca
p0
� N
v
Sri
eD gi
t
4➢ 4Y
ub. � 0 tui
� w
L i1
cEa
o
'
c' C c 'e x
���77� tl�
c (
jus
p= ne
tL von
EU
O
§ C 0 7q
t 46 N
U R 0 C
,M ti fV N cv
w
o
r
eat can
�irr cc
6 nip
n
To E
.t _U w r»
iJ IM
fL CX' C�'" IT" ri1 Ur wA
'tit
9t 6+ 77k
ro ¢s R a
O5
c5' cad E.
v%m
-C
-,,9
C C C '7. iS
ir0Cti? ".Fo
V C1 L7
1. N 4+
%), 5
zoo
£� ro -0 c
�%
l0
cl15 c sc
pp a
CL
C.
c� Cc,
Q r
M
LO
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
Dwelling Units SFR zones I and II:
Mixed Use (Suburban Village):
High Density Multiple Family
Park Space:
School Space:
Golf Course and Open Space
Totals
2,735 D.U. on a total on 748 acres
2.7 million square feet on 89 acres
600 D.U. on 17 acres
Included within SFR zones
Included within Residential zones
144 ac. Golf course
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
personal service establishments, hotels and entertainment centers and park and open
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
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 Multiple Family Residential D.U.s: 225 D.U.s on 11.5 acres
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.
Within the Single Family Residential I & II 334.4 -acre land use areas, these following
land uses are also proposed:
(2) Public Parks: 10.0 acres
Elementary School: 14.6 acres
Additional Open Space: Linear Park, Open
Space Slope, and Wildlife Corridor areas: 38.8 acres
Total Open Space within the 400.3 -acre VTTM: 48.8 acres
The 1,4015 residential dwelling units and the 1,358,000 Sq. Ft. of commercial/
office /light industrial permitted ARSP #1 land uses proposed for VTTM No. 35001 Plan
occupy substantially the same approximate land use areas of the Brighton ARSP #1
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.
For purposes of this EIR Addendum #IV analysis, the assumption is made that the
Development Agreement remains active, the golf course could be built on the County
acreage and the 500 additional dwelling units are permitted, in exchange for the golf
course construction, with a total of 2,735 D.U.s within the 998 -acre area (Development
Agreement — Pages 5, 6, 7 and 17). Should the golf course not be built, then the pro -
rata share of the 2,735 D.U.' s, minus the 500 D.U.s allotted per the D.A. for golf
5 The residential land use components that make the 1,401 total of residential dwelling units within the VTTM No.
35001 are: 1,056 Single Family Residential I and ll, 225 of Multi - Family, 40 of Suburban Village High Density
dwelling units and 80 of Suburban Village High Density dwelling units.
57
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 revert to the original
D.A. permitted 2,235 D.U.s. The VTTM No. 35001 area would lose approximately 200
D.U.s as a result of the golf course not being constructed. This non -golf course
construction would result in total D.U.s of 1,201, excluding any affordable housing
increases provided by law, i.e. 25% density increase for affordable housing categories
plus other incentives (Government Code Section 65915 - 65918).
The golf course construction, according to the Development Agreement (Page 7), was
deemed to satisfy any and all deficiencies in the required park and recreational lands
and or in -lieu fees pursuant to SP 89 -2. Civic use of the golf course clubhouse with
the City is the "contract" consideration for the in lieu fee offset (Development
Agreement, Page 7). The potential reduction of 500 fewer units in the overall Specific
Plan area will have less impact in all sectors and will be less intensive in D.U.s per
acre. In addition, without the golf course, the biology impacts could be less impacting,
yet the golf course, arguably, could add positive impacting /mitigating biology elements,
as it relates to the restoration and creation of habitat within certain areas of the golf
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 category (i.e., single family to high density). The D.U. density maximums
have been set by the Development Agreement and the ARSP #1, which allows
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 NO. 35001 portion of the entire 998 -acre S.P. area has reduced the
SFR I & II in total acres by 16.1 acres primarily due to roadway alignments. This
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 M.
r
su
W
E c,4
M
0 N
0 0
Z Q "
N
� d O
�00
F T
7
G .tii
b0 N
W^ F O
0.W v
Oy o Q
0➢ U ^ �Cy,
U U A Nq
N � F A
O O U N
N «
G 3 �w
v
O O «
Y
A o v A d
a 7 A
o d
? 7 .0 O
7
.-5 H E t to
G G «A W
to 'G O
N G
b 0 04
W iU"
7 U U 0
LL
O
w O co w L M i
iy ' O td �
� N �
.O �A
O 0
M Go �'� > Z
d a 0
W « Q O N
U tl y Q
0 OZ
a E 9 0 7 E m G
as
n E daa o 5 2
G
ai U O�UU O
O N N 9 M J n
N
N y ty G
E'^ YOo 'S Y x b V A
G ro N E M
U=� - °AD
� o -
m
a
O O -0- A U G y Q
EA�� o
G a8 ow Nw
G o
�'.ro°' comma W o0
U 0U Y� N �N
= .� � o
a
b y b
—,),p
ro y U y Oq N N y
E=E m'
>.z ?> o v y
E 2'„ a v
p= W if .; A-0
« w
0 o E >
a E o a
p « � E o
L « N
U V 2>
n �
Wear yaG. ��0p a<
n bo Nr W m
'd)
LO
c
U
W
4:
y
44
o
§
o
o
1
zz
vi
a°
G
{{��U
W
Q
H
y
O
00 N �I�
O N Q N N
N O
N N
O
p
O
O
5
y
q
N J N N
W
ti
4,i
vi
4
itl
O
O
O O
^O
O O
Lo
��r7N� �OOOn
N
N
M N
Q
r-00 N "I Ci
n
Nj r
C
0
N
N
N
G
U
F
Ian fU-i
00
10
N
pp
M M
N
)
b
00 00 N
L6 O �
o
o o
V O
j f0 0
o
L0co
O 4 OD
a a. -
U
rn
4r
4.y
W
y
V
y
aF
y
7
Y
7
N
O
V; O
p
C p
0 0
S
r
N
r n
Q N
N
N
N
z
r
d
w
r i
o Cl
p
Ud
N
v1 �0 0
M M
N
aAr.
v, O
d
0 0 p `b
O
0
0
bA d G
°
d
rnvM IoM
00�
00
00
v�
•v�
al
,It N
U V ti
"'
'U'
riyL
Q i"•'i N Qi Q V
s,
a
;�
F
•N .N b b y
v 6
0 ❑
0.A
j' j •- ro O
N C
F
F
a� ti !
nn U
U
w0 c7
0
f
7�n
U
? o
U
d.
ma O
x�
riv e
uJn
Ow0 c7
F T
7
G .tii
b0 N
W^ F O
0.W v
Oy o Q
0➢ U ^ �Cy,
U U A Nq
N � F A
O O U N
N «
G 3 �w
v
O O «
Y
A o v A d
a 7 A
o d
? 7 .0 O
7
.-5 H E t to
G G «A W
to 'G O
N G
b 0 04
W iU"
7 U U 0
LL
O
w O co w L M i
iy ' O td �
� N �
.O �A
O 0
M Go �'� > Z
d a 0
W « Q O N
U tl y Q
0 OZ
a E 9 0 7 E m G
as
n E daa o 5 2
G
ai U O�UU O
O N N 9 M J n
N
N y ty G
E'^ YOo 'S Y x b V A
G ro N E M
U=� - °AD
� o -
m
a
O O -0- A U G y Q
EA�� o
G a8 ow Nw
G o
�'.ro°' comma W o0
U 0U Y� N �N
= .� � o
a
b y b
—,),p
ro y U y Oq N N y
E=E m'
>.z ?> o v y
E 2'„ a v
p= W if .; A-0
« w
0 o E >
a E o a
p « � E o
L « N
U V 2>
n �
Wear yaG. ��0p a<
n bo Nr W m
'd)
LO
r- EN
0"o CD
r
M N N
,'00
Z Q
CD
O
a
�UWO
4)
s -3�
m
L
r- d
d Q
.ice) V
A
MAW
r tQ 'V � .0 0 � y
L a-0 a
y
4W eo 3I ep bi is a �`
aV r� �v�i � Q 8 x u�i 8 t� 1.
E
co
My a a Ell
3 oil '
0 oa 89a sr rI4l� lilt
N
.Q
E E
O 7
CL
v =
J W
r �
N
:E o
w
O
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.
3.5.1 Planning 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.
61
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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.
63
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
&IVIMEIVI PY-41
0/57 AO, A,44,-j,1fe,'506
fZ"J01"4
/V,/-'.
Exhibit 17 — Planning Area 1
AM-EeIY
M-11
/ if ,
IMS6
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
V71V A/0
PACIFIC C/Aly PROMIC?
✓74f M.2 Jr,6e26,
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 11)
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
�0
Tt
II/P.W
nf"WWEP 10 6
WWIM� Is-v
ew 114,11
wf -WA
2775"We3zz 6171W�
f-MIMU, 0� A
M/C.
/1)1./C/15',
-aWeC RaQ=94CrAW MMC
"Yow�s pj�'5 fsQ nV '1500a
75000
67
-;Z�&A OW"
TRACT 28214-4
6YI Y PAI-X
A
1/0.
GROSS
ff
--f.191V�Wa M
Isms" sum
AL6k--4: AW
x
LLI
E c-4
C:) = —
LO a N co
0
Z
co
w t
() 0
0
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.$). (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 1)
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.
We
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
Exhibit 21 — Planning Area 5
--\ /077 O �\
>0J9 >4514 � t\
COU/`OY Of FOOLO�OE._
r4as.0 JtJfi � � �� t
taas/ 7 IbJ6 � JOJ,S 1074 --
��
GR/W's
1M /75
4
JfJfJB /`/Poll EGT _ yC:Y /STING GRADJN
100 J PEJ2 /NST MO. 1004 (036505
1x470 7001 1 i JGC7 �� FvCINIJrfRY �V 7-'13012004
/44sc I Jw_3 7064 7005 fG06;
145.7
3 r
O - % l
" J F5j[' R /;HIS 01 '-7Yp1r4!? Y
7l AQL //R1
�j 3, � ✓! /NT% OF F•I %E7�'SlIJE
OO=
/ ego - ~--
ADMP"R' "
-- - - -- /
AC M
-------
�,fj►
r ;w
--
J
CAL ' - `� - � f � / -"
AK
Z ' -- - .
pi w
.h
az —
C J to
01 7o
- °PR6GP0 fIi A!, XAFN.; 6W)' O/_�fAKF <L /NO!'E FAR 017c:'.
` N
� r " - ✓9/ ?/2608
Yd4Y': t t
� t - /s' / STING Ti'r(Hr 0/
TO CIY OF LA16F -
i' T!'AC7 '?827,1_4
0
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
r /
I
d
ry �
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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
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.
72
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 approximately
$7,214,6257 yearly sales tax revenue, (now including County owned land), over
approximately 57 total County owned commercial acres in new City commercial tax
revenue for the approximately 1,364,500 square feet of retail mixed use office
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.
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.
73
.44
IS
CP14
LQ
LL4
J)
Rs
\AA,
E c%j
�o C>
MC (D N
m
."a 6
0 �o
Z<
(D
00 W 0
0
1
I
ve,
y�
800
F'
Wry
"'l-T
�,H MI
p
Fj
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).
M1
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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.
The land use, zoning and contract transactional effect of the MSHCP, on the Brighton
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 outside effects by the City or other public agencies makes the
achievement of the Specific Plan impossible or by "defacto" governmental zoning type
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
All VTTM No. 35001 MSHCP mitigation over the entire VTTM No. 35001 area is
satisfied with the payment of MSHCP mitigation fees. After 10 years from the
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 impacts to on -site "waters"
can be mitigated with reference to the environmental resources found on the adjacent
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 RCA lands along the
western and southern project boundary at Lake Street and Nichols Road, respectively.
The 598 -acre County owned open space portion of the ARSP #1 area is not currently
planned to be developed. This 598 -acre open space area, as described in the ARSP
#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
Percentage
Units
(SFR I & II) Single Family Residential
748+
2,135
75%
(HDMF) High Density Multi - Family &
16.5
600/
2%
(SV) Suburban Village Mixed Use
89+
2.0(FAR)
9%
(GC -OS) Golf Course -Open Space
(OS) Open Space — Neighborhood Park
144
0
14%
(OS) Riparian Resource Area
Total
998
2,735 DU
100%
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
Quadrangle and, Sections 27, 34 & 35, Township 5 South, Range 5 West of the
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 1 -15 /Nichols Road interchange. The VTTM No. 35001
boundary is shown on Exhibit 4.
The entire VTTM No. 35001 site and adjacent areas have been subject to historic
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
Ranch is predominately single - family detached housing and contains the ARSP #1
and D.A. required 34 -acre (now 22.4 -acre) Community Park. To the west, on 1,374
acres near the Lake Street and the 1 -15 Freeway, Pacific Clay Products conducts a
variety of mining, related production and operates a brick and ceramic factory. The
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
majority 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 of the City, consist of a small number of very low- density residences. In the
vicinity of Collier Avenue, commercial and industrial uses are developing near and
along the 1 -15 Freeway.
A number of Specific Plans, both inside the City and in the nearby, adjacent
unincorporated portion of Riverside County, (Horsethief Canyon Ranch Specific Plan),
have been approved in the vicinity of the ARSP #1 and the VTTM No. 35001 EIR
Addendum #IV including: Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, Horsethief Canyon
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 portion of the remaining ARSP #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 EIR Addendum #IV for the VTTM No.
35001 400.3 -acre portion of the original ARSP #1.
Table 4 - Proposed VTTM NO. 35001 Portion of the ARSP #1 and Remaining
ARSP #1 Merged Land Use Summary
Land Use Category
VTTM NO. 35001
Portion of ARSP #1
Castle Cooke
Acres D.U.s
Remaining ARSP #1
Portion (County)
Acres D.U.s
D.U.
Total
% of
D.U.
(SFR 1) Single Family Residential
SFR II Single Family Residential
161.4
1 173.0
451
605
354.4 990
1 37.8 216
1,229
L 894
44.9
32.7
HDMF High Density Multi-Family
11.5 1 225
5.0 1 162
1 480
17.6
(SV) North Suburban Village Mixed Use
With HDMF Residential and With SFR II
Residential and Commercial
9.8
(incl.)
40
27.7
31
47
11
1.7
0.4
(299,739 Sq. Ft.)
(666,558.25
Sq. Ft.
--
--
(SV) South Suburban Village Mixed Use
With HDMF Residential and
Commercial
34.6
80
29.0
33
73
2.7
--
(1,058,261 Sq. Ft.)
(697,941.76
Sq. Ft.
--
(GC -OS) Golf Course -Open Space
-- --
144.0 --
--
--
(PP) Public Park
10.0 --
-- --
--
--
(LP) Lineal Park
0.01 1 --
-- --
--
--
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
Fi'7
Qf
E
CD
C:>
LO c CN
'a (D
0-0
Z< —
<
00
w 15
C) 0
Terra
41,
0.1
r
r�
/ p
m Z
\
0.
s
Or t
_ s
l
1
\ \ \
r
N
LLJ
EN
r
M N O
,-p0
z<
� Q �
�a0
00
..
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.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.1 Introduction
The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR analyzed the following 14 environmental
topics as environmental areas that could be adversely affected by the implementation
of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan:
• Mineral Resources
• Geology /Soils and Seismicity
• Hydrology/Water Quality
• Noise
• Climate and Air Quality
•
Wild I ife/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.
K,
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
EIR Addendum #1 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 #1 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
Specific Plan) would not cause any significant changes or new "impacts" that were not
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 #1
and specifically focuses, through subsequent technical analyses, on the five
environmental impact areas with the most potential for changed circumstances since
last analyzed in 1992 (i.e., biological resources, traffic and circulation, noise, geology,
and hydrology) per the prepared Initial Study.
EIR Addendum #III prepared for the project applicant, Murdock Development
Company, on behalf of Murdock Alberhill Ranch Limited Partnership, requested
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 complete and adequate by the City Council of the
City of Lake Elsinore, fully complying with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City's environmental analysis procedures. This EIR Addendum #III
reviewed the identical 14 environmental impact areas addressed in EIR Addendum #1
and specifically focuses, through subsequent technical analyses, on the five
environmental impact areas as per the prepared Initial Study.
4.2 Environmental Impacts Analysis
This section of VTTM No. 35001, EIR Addendum #IV presents an analysis of
potential impacts, as compared to those actual environmental impact areas,
identified and analyzed in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment #1.
Specifically, each of the 14 environmental impact areas, which were addressed in
the Final EIR Addendum, to the ARSP #1 have been re- examined in this
Addendum #IV based upon their proposed changes to the ARSP #1 to determine
whether land use changes, associated with the implementation of proposed VTTM
No. 35001, will result in additional environmental impacts upon the environment
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.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
Mitigation measures referenced and contained in the Alberhill Ranch Specific
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 EIR
Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1, as identified herein, is included within this
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
environmental impacts due to reduced grading,
Existing Wildlife and Vegetation on the Proposed VTTM NO. 35001 Project Site
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 before any grading or construction activity will be permitted.
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 MOLls 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
impacts within the VTTM No. 35001 area and will reduce potential biological
resources - related impacts to a level of insignificance. No further biological studies and
mitigation is required within the VTTM No. 35001. It should be noted that the MSHCP
mitigates for both State and Federal endangered species that may reside on the VTTM
No. 35001 project site.
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
Amendment #1, will result in the generation of motor vehicle trips for residential,
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
less in overall acres and dwelling units totals than the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
M
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
Amendment #1's 998 acres and 2,735 dwelling units. With the reduction of potentially
1,313 less residential dwelling units within the County owned portion of the ARSP #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 due to the
reduced developable area created by the conversion of 598 acres to open space by
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 equations and /or rates found in Trip Generation, Eighth Edition
(Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008) is projected to generate 2,578 fewer net
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 standpoint, as less daily vehicle
trips will be generated.
The approved ARSP FEIR and ARSP #1 EIR Addendum street infrastructure, and as
previously reported, the proposed VTTM No. 35001's infrastructure for the project
overlay area will be sufficient to handle projected traffic associated with the proposed
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 collector Street "A" (Alberhill Ridge Road) will
improve access between Lake Street (Robb Road) and Nichols Road (Coal Road);
and 3) Lake Street will be realigned and widened to become a Major Street. Other
specific additional upgrades to project roadways will be undertaken, including road
widening, curb construction, signalization and turn pockets.
In conjunction with the roadway system, non - vehicular systems will be provided
throughout the ARSP #1 EIR Addendum #IV area. The County Plan of Bicycle Routes
identified a Class II bike lane along Lake Street (in the original EIR), which will
continue along Temescal Canyon Road, located within the road right -of -way. A City
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.
:.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 circulation system to a level of insignificance.
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
levels. This was previously evaluated in the ARSP EIR. Grading activities
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 earthwork quantities on
site, and to limit the impact to neighboring residences. No new short-term noise
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 ARSP. The assessed impacts
E]
O .'
O �s
LO
M `
i
O
Z
G. *k
r
i
tm 0
C in i
� Q �
co p
N +-+
K
W
C
d
.a
.a
Q
W
EN
r
LO C N CD
M O
Z Q
� Q 0
�00
.
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 VTTM No. 35001 would result 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 no warrant for an additional noise analysis required for approval of the VTTM No.
35001 based 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
Final Map /Plot Plan reviews will assess the architecture, windows and fencing types
that will be used within the proposed VTTM No. 35001 to reduce noise to the EIR
mitigated acceptable levels.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP
Amendment #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 Hydrology (See Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1, Section
3.2.2, and Pages 3 -3 to 3 -4; Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, Pages
IV -14 to 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
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
0
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 materials, the quantity
of storm water and /or irrigation run -off may increase. The increased runoff will
increase flows into the unnamed Lake Street wash and then to Walker Canyon
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 properties directly
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 Hydrology Impacts
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 development for the most critical storm and duration event
(See Appendix — Section `C'). State law requires retaining on -site water in
containment areas for a period to complete purification of storm water runoff. This can
be accomplished through fossil filters, retention basins and natural biology filters
located at strategic locations on -site. Such retention basins would be required
pursuant to Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 402 requirements.
KWC has proposed, within the VTTM No. 35001, a series of above and below ground
drainage facilities, strategically located, to pick up, contain as necessary, and convey
the surface runoffs through the site to their respective discharge points. Figure 4 of
the KWC _Engineers Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis report shows the approximate
master drainage facilities for the proposed VTTM No. 35001, inclusive of the Pacific
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
I ,
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 Specific Plan
Final EIR, the Final EIR Addendum to the ARSP Amendment #1, the Water
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 mitigation measures are included in this
Addendum.
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)
The impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity were 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 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
Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, 388.1 acres and 107.9
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
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 Company and by
Pacific Clay Products. The mining areas are generally located in Planning Area
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 the ARSP Amendment #1, lies within areas that have been devoted to mineral
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 overall location of the collector road through the project) would result in
localized changes in project grading. However, the boundary of grading operations
has remained unchanged, and the grading will be designed so that earthwork
quantities balance on site. Balancing of the earthwork quantities will be performed
during the final engineering phase of VTTM No. 35001 taking into account changes
in the topography from RP2011 -1 (formerly RP90 -1) along with adjustments to the
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. 35001
is a part, concluded that 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 environmental impacts from geology and seismicity to a
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
site remained unchanged from previous studies, and is consistent with the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan EIR and Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1. Supplemental
",
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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. Therefore, since there are no significant changes in the
geological conditions at the site, which is consistent with the Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
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
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 variation in acre sizes. The 400.3 -acre area of the ARSP Amendment
No.1 /EIR Addendum #IV and proposed VTTM No.35001, which is a portion of
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 located within the 598.3 -acre area of
the ARSP #1 and the existing 22.4 -acre park located in the southeast corner
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 be built
within the remaining ±598 -acre portion of the ARSP #1 area, then 500 dwelling units
will be decreased from the allowable 2,735 overall dwelling units permitted in
accordance with the 1990 Development Agreement between the City and Applicant.
According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, although the size and
location of individual land uses were revised, the type and distribution of land
uses within the ARSP Amendment #1 and the proposed project objectives of the
VTTM No. 35001 would be similar to the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan,
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 modification, as specified in the proposed
VTTM No. 35001, will not result in the creation of significant adverse land use
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,
physical changes to the site plan will have limited impacts beyond those already
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
..
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
with the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, as applied, would exceed the
generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and the reactive organic gases would
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
Amendment #1 concluded that incorporation of those mitigation measures
95
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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
be substantially different or worse than those impacts previously analyzed.
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Air Quality Impacts
The main air quality difference between the projects 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 proposed VTTM No. 35001 residential land use
development is reduced by 1,334 dwelling units and the commercial areas are
reduced by 1,364,500 Sq. Ft., due to the potential MSHCP open space use on the
remainder of the County 598- acre area. Accordingly, physical changes to the site
plan will have limited impacts beyond those already analyzed and will result in a
reduction of short-term and long -term air quality impacts due to less homes being
built.
Therefore, although the air quality impacts associated with the proposed VTTM
No. 35001 are still considered significant; these impacts are not substantially
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 Addendum #I, Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to
the ARSP Amendment #1 into the proposed VTTM No. 35001 conditions of
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
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. The approved ARSP #1 FEIR, which authorized the
additional 500 residential dwelling units, concluded that the revised land use and
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.
M.
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
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 998 -acre
area. The proposed VTTM No. 35001, creating 1,401 residential dwelling units,
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.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to the
ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR have
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)
Existina Enerav Resources
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 estimated that natural gas and electrical
usage for the residential units are assumed to consume an average of 6,081
kWh /unit/year and 3,918 cubic feet of natural gas /unit/month. Based on the ARSP #1's
revised project and the increased consumption by approximately 3,040,500 kWh /year
and the 235,800 thermos of natural gas /year, (for the approved 2,735 dwelling units) the
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 impacts upon those energy resources to a level of
97
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
insignificance. As a result, no additional mitigation measures are
recommended.
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
of 5,226,612 cu. ft. of natural gas per year). 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 energy resources
impacts due to less homes being built.
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan Final EIR and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 will
adequately address potential energy resources impacts associated with the
proposed VTTM No. 35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTM No.
35001's conditions of approval will reduce potential energy resources - related
impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are
included in this Addendum.
4.2.10 Aesthetics (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)
Existina 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
Road. A major ridgeline is also located west of and parallel to Interstate 15. The
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 concluded that
implementation of the ARSP #1 will permanently alter the nature and appearance
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
natural open space represented in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, which will
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
include the development of a golf course, riparian resource area along
Temescal Creek and other open space areas on -site. Slopes of 25% or greater,
has been proposed for retention as open space to provide an aesthetic transition
from residential land uses and the 1 -15 Freeway to the north and along the
perimeter of the project area of the ARSP #1.
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
on the remainder of the 598 -acre area, and as a result, there will be fewer homes
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 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 aesthetics impacts associated with the proposed VTTM No. 35001.
Incorporation of those measures into the proposed VTTM conditions of approval will
reduce potential aesthetics - related impacts to a level of insignificance. No additional
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
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 Specific Plan
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
WE
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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.
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
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 Final EIR
and the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1.
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Historic and Prehistoric Resources Impacts
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 measures identified in the Final EIR to the ARSP
Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR will adequately address
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.
4.2.12Mineral 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-
78)
Existing Mineral Resources
Project development will preclude future use of the site for clay extraction, however,
this use has been found to be economically infeasible. The Alberhill Ranch Specific
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
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 EIR and Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 would
reduce impacts upon mineral resources to a level of insignificance.
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
already analyzed and will result in a reduction of mineral resources impacts due to
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)
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 EIR to the ARSP
Amendment #1 are summarized below and relate to the proposed VTTM No. 35001
in comparison.
Fire Protection
According to Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and the implementation of the
ARSP #1, including conversion of natural open space to other urban, recreational
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 developed areas
and natural open space areas.
in
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 the ARSP
Amendment #1 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR would, however,
reduce potential impacts upon those services to a level of insignificance. As a
result, no further or additional measures have been identified herein.
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
criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, vandalism, assaults, etc.
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 persons.
The Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 also concluded that although the total
number of dwelling units may increase within the ARSP #1 area, the impacts upon
police services were not anticipated to significantly increase beyond those levels
analyzed in the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1 and Alberhill Ranch
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.
Schools
According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the approved ASRSP #1
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 elementary 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
102
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
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 School District's criteria. Impacts on
elementary school, junior high school and high school facilities would be mitigated by
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 contained in
the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR would mitigate potential impacts upon
local school district to a level of insignificance.
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
project site will increase substantially. This increase in population to the area would
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 the impact to water
recreation at the Lake, they would provide opportunities for other activities for
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, requiring five -acres of parkland per 1,000 in population or
payment of in lieu fees. Based on this, the ARSP #1 would create a required
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
required demand.
The Developmental Agreement between the City of Lake Elsinore and Murdock
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 remaining costs of improvement of the Community Park will be incurred by the
City.
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
Riverside County (7.9 pounds /person /day), the projected increase of ARSP #1's 500
dwelling units and 3.6 individuals per unit, the amount of solid waste would increase
approximately 14,220 pounds /day. The entire ARSP #1 project area will generate 46
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 indicated that the
conversion of natural open space areas to other land uses (including the 144+
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
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
concluded that implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Alberhill
Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR for telephone impacts would reduce potential impacts
to a level of insignificance.
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
the ARSP #1 would be provided water service by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District ( "EVMWD "). According to the Final EIR to the ARSP Amendment #1, the
water consumption to be demanded by the R -1 and R -S portions of the
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 Code. A water distribution system is proposed to serve the project area.
Portions of the site would have to be served by the 1601 and 1801 pressure zone
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 sewage generation associated with the ARSP #1, was estimated to be
1.3893 mgd. To provide sewerage facilities, this master planned treatment plant
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 insignificance.
Proposed VTTM No. 35001 Public Facilities and Services Impacts
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 those
already analyzed and will result in a reduction of public facilities and services impacts
(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 and services impacts associated with the proposed VTTM
No. 35001. Incorporation of those measures into the VTTMs conditions of approval
105
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
5.0 REPORT PREPARERS
Lead Agency
City of Lake Elsinore
Planning Division
130 S. Main St
Lake Elsinore, Ca 92530
Planning Manager -
Senior Planner - Kirt Coury
Tele.: Fax- 951- 471 -1419 Cell: 949 - 547 -9570
Enaineering Consultant
KWC Engineers
1880 Compton Ave., Ste. 100
Corona, CA. 92881 -3370
Ken Crawford
ken.crawford @kwcengineers.com
Mike Taing
mike.taing @kwcengineers.com
Tele: (951) 734 -2130
EIR Consultant
The Planning Associates
3151 Airway Ave., Suite R -1
Costa Mesa, Ca 92626
Hardy M. Strozier, AICP
hardyesq @aol.com
Tele: (714) 556 -5200/ Cell #: (714) 366 -3828/ Fax: (714) 556 -3905
Legal Consultants
Miles Law Group
3151 Airway Ave., Suite R -1
Costa Mesa, Ca 92626
Stephen M. Miles Esq.
smiles @mileslawgroup.com
Tele: (714) 556 -5200/ Cell: (714) 393 -3389
107
VTTM No. 35001
CEQA Addendum #IV
October 10, 2012
EIR Technical Consultants
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers - Traffic and Circulation
1580 Corporate Drive, Ste. 122
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Keil Maberry
Tele: (714) 641 -1587
KWC Engineers - Preliminary Hydrology Analysis
1880 Compton Ave., Ste. 100
Corona, CA. 92881 -3370
Ken Crawford & Mike Taing
Tele: (951) 734 -2130
Petra Geotechnical, Inc — Geology and Soils
Doug Johnston & Grayson Walker
38655 Sky Canyon Dr., Suite A
Murrieta CA 92563
Tele: (951) 600 -9271
Dr. Christopher Drover — Archaeology
54 Sea Pine Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tele: (949) 760 -2522
W